Datasets:

pranjaljaiswal

/

arrowhead-bbc-news-summary

like 0

Summarize the following article: Top judge clashes with ministers The UK's top judge has revealed he has clashed with ministers about how the heads of public inquiries are chosen. Lord Woolf said he was determined his current veto on whether a judge should chair an inquiry should continue as a guard for judicial independence. But he told MPs the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was insisting he should have the final say in such cases. Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly sparked debate about who should run inquiries. The government says the lord chancellor would be unlikely to go against Lord Woolf's wishes. Lord Woolf, who is Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, was giving evidence to the Commons public administration select committee's inquiry into public inquiries. He said he had not been involved in the choice of Lord Hutton, who as a law lord did not come under his jurisdiction. But he argued he should have a veto on whether judges generally should chair a particular inquiry and if so, which judge it should be. In written evidence to the committee, Lord Woolf said: "I have, so far, failed to reach an agreement with the lord chancellor on this issue ... I intend to maintain my position and will press for this safeguard to be in any future legislation." Judges should think carefully before heading an inquiry into a highly political issue, such as the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he said. He argued: "The subject matter of the inquiry may be so political that it would be damaging to the judiciary for a judge to be involved. "In addition, the question of whether there should be an inquiry at all may be highly controversial and if a judge is appointed, the judiciary, as a result of the appointment, may be seen as siding inappropriately with the government." He told the MPs: "Anything that tends to undermine the confidence of the public in the judiciary worries me." Lord Woolf said the current rules were not written down but it was inconceivable in practice that the lord chancellor would overrule his concerns. But that situation could change with new legal reforms. The issue had been "overlooked" when a new agreement was drawn up about those responsibilities and the dispute had emerged in later discussions. "What I am asking for is a situation where if the lord chancellor cannot obtain my agreement [on appointing a judge], it doesn't happen," he said. Lord Woolf said he did not think there would be difficulties but he wanted to establish the principle. A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman said Lord Woolf and Lord Falconer agreed about what happened in practice. "Their disagreement is about whether the legislation should include a requirement for consultation or concurrence - a very narrow dispute, in Lord Woolf's words," she said. "As Lord Woolf also acknowledged, it is highly unlikely that the lord chancellor would appoint a judge against the wishes of the lord chief justice. "Judges are free to decide for themselves whether to accept positions as inquiry chairs." Parliament will examine the issue next year when it debates a new bill about public inquiries.

"As Lord Woolf also acknowledged, it is highly unlikely that the lord chancellor would appoint a judge against the wishes of the lord chief justice.Lord Woolf said the current rules were not written down but it was inconceivable in practice that the lord chancellor would overrule his concerns.In written evidence to the committee, Lord Woolf said: "I have, so far, failed to reach an agreement with the lord chancellor on this issue ...Lord Woolf said he was determined his current veto on whether a judge should chair an inquiry should continue as a guard for judicial independence.Lord Woolf, who is Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, was giving evidence to the Commons public administration select committee's inquiry into public inquiries.But he told MPs the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was insisting he should have the final say in such cases.The government says the lord chancellor would be unlikely to go against Lord Woolf's wishes.A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman said Lord Woolf and Lord Falconer agreed about what happened in practice.He said he had not been involved in the choice of Lord Hutton, who as a law lord did not come under his jurisdiction."What I am asking for is a situation where if the lord chancellor cannot obtain my agreement [on appointing a judge], it doesn't happen," he said.

Summarize the following article: Mrs Howard gets key election role Michael Howard's ex-model wife, Sandra, is to play a leading role in the Conservative election campaign. Mrs Howard will make solo visits to target seats as well as accompanying her husband on his helicopter campaign trail criss-crossing the country. Mr Howard will host a news conference at the party's London HQ every morning, Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said. "We want Michael to be as accessible as possible," Mr Fox said, adding that the party was not afraid of scrutiny. The Tory leader wanted to meet as many ordinary members of the public, Mr Fox said. Tony Blair has also said he is intending to get out and talk to as many people as possible during the election campaign. But Labour campaign chiefs say there are no plans for Mr Blair to hold a daily news conference. Mr Fox responded by accusing the prime minister of "hiding away from the scrutiny of London's media". The Liberal Democrats also say they are planning to hold daily news conferences with Charles Kennedy. On Mrs Howard's role, Mr Fox said: "Sandra has already been campaigning with Michael on a number of visits and has been undertaking short visits herself. "That pattern will continue. It's worked very well up until now." Mrs Howard made her debut speech at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth last October. She used her speech on the fringe to highlight the work of a drugs charity, Addaction, which she supports. Mrs Howard has also appeared along side her husband on TV chat shows. During an interview on ITV1's This Morning she said she often criticised her husband for not showing the side of him that she knows.

Mr Howard will host a news conference at the party's London HQ every morning, Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said.On Mrs Howard's role, Mr Fox said: "Sandra has already been campaigning with Michael on a number of visits and has been undertaking short visits herself."We want Michael to be as accessible as possible," Mr Fox said, adding that the party was not afraid of scrutiny.But Labour campaign chiefs say there are no plans for Mr Blair to hold a daily news conference.Tony Blair has also said he is intending to get out and talk to as many people as possible during the election campaign.Mrs Howard will make solo visits to target seats as well as accompanying her husband on his helicopter campaign trail criss-crossing the country.The Tory leader wanted to meet as many ordinary members of the public, Mr Fox said.

Summarize the following article: Economy focus for election battle Britain's economic future will be at the heart of Labour's poll campaign, Chancellor Gordon Brown has said. He was speaking after Cabinet members held their last meeting at No 10 before the expected election announcement. He said voters would recognise that Labour had brought stability and growth, and would continue to do so. Meanwhile the Tories outlined their plans to tackle "yob culture" and the Lib Dems gave more details about their proposals to replace council tax. Earlier the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to all three parties urging them not to fight the election by exploiting people's fears. In an open letter, he called on them not to turn the election into a competition about who can most effectively frighten voters about terrorism, asylum, and crime. He said they should concentrate instead on issues such as the environment, international development and the arms trade, family policy, and the reform of the criminal justice system. Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said: "We have fought a very positive campaign. I think he will want to look quite carefully at what Jack Straw said about Michael Howard." In a speech to the Foreign Policy Centre Mr Straw said of the Tory leader: "He is clever, fluent and tactical, but he is not wise. "He lacks strategy and good judgment, and his quick temper and impetuosity too often get the better of him." The Foreign Secretary told the BBC: "I was making the observation that because of Michael Howard's impetuosity you can get lurches of policy." Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said: "People are already really turned off by the kind of campaign the others are fighting and you will see us putting emphasis on some of these huge issues facing the world, particularly the environment." Labour's focus on the economy as their key message - came on the day a new report was published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, suggesting that household incomes have fallen for the first time in more than a decade. The IFS says the drop partly reflects measures announced in what it called the Chancellor's tax-raising Budget of 2002. The Treasury dismissed the research as "complete rubbish". Party election supremo Alan Milburn said the apparent drop in average incomes was because self-employed people had been affected by a "world downturn" which hit their profits. Since 1997, the reported average take-home income had "risen by 20% in real terms" if you took out the self-employed, Mr Milburn told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Brown also dismissed the figures insisting that the "typical family" has been much better off under Labour.

Party election supremo Alan Milburn said the apparent drop in average incomes was because self-employed people had been affected by a "world downturn" which hit their profits.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said: "We have fought a very positive campaign.The Foreign Secretary told the BBC: "I was making the observation that because of Michael Howard's impetuosity you can get lurches of policy."In a speech to the Foreign Policy Centre Mr Straw said of the Tory leader: "He is clever, fluent and tactical, but he is not wise.Britain's economic future will be at the heart of Labour's poll campaign, Chancellor Gordon Brown has said.I think he will want to look quite carefully at what Jack Straw said about Michael Howard."Mr Brown also dismissed the figures insisting that the "typical family" has been much better off under Labour.He said they should concentrate instead on issues such as the environment, international development and the arms trade, family policy, and the reform of the criminal justice system.

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

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

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

He said Tory plans to cut £35bn tax would "cut deep into public service"."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."The chancellor said the vote - expected to fall on 5 May - will give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Conservative cuts.He said after seven years Labour had transformed from a party not trusted with the economy to "the only party trusted with the economy".It was now a "party not just of employees, but of employers and managers", he said.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, the chancellor said the cuts proposed by shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country, he told activists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Blair rejects Iraq advice calls Tony Blair has rejected calls for the publication of advice on the legality of the Iraq war amid growing calls for an investigation. The prime minister told his monthly press conference the matter had been dealt with by the Attorney General. Earlier, Conservative MP Michael Mates joined calls for a probe into claims Lord Goldsmith's statement to Parliament was drawn up at Number 10. Mr Blair said the statement was a "fair summary" of Lord Goldsmith's opinion. "That's what he (Lord Goldsmith) said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again," Mr Blair told his monthly news conference in Downing Street. He refused to answer further questions on the issue, saying it had been dealt with "literally scores of times and the position has not changed". Lord Goldsmith has denied being "leaned on" and says the words written were his. The government refuses to publish his advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential. Mr Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry into pre-war intelligence, told the BBC on Friday: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule." He said there had been other occasions when advice had been published, most recently regarding Prince Charles's marriage plans. The government could not pick and choose when to use the convention, he said. Mr Mates added: "We discovered that there were two or three occasions in the past when law officers' advice to the government has been published. "And this may be one of those special occasions... when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister." This is argument was rejected by Mr Blair, who said: "Firstly, we haven't broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it." In a book published this week, Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers, says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action. But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action. Mr Sands' book suggests it was actually written by Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan. Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said it was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action. She told the BBC the full advice should have been attached, according to the ministerial code. "My view is we need the House of Lords to set up a special committee, summon the attorney, get all the papers out, look at exactly what happened," she said. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. On Thursday, Lord Goldsmith said his statement had not been "written by or at Number 10". "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions," he said.

Mr Blair said the statement was a "fair summary" of Lord Goldsmith's opinion.On Thursday, Lord Goldsmith said his statement had not been "written by or at Number 10".Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said it was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action.But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action.This is argument was rejected by Mr Blair, who said: "Firstly, we haven't broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it.""That's what he (Lord Goldsmith) said and that's what I say.Lord Goldsmith has denied being "leaned on" and says the words written were his.In a book published this week, Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers, says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action.Mr Sands' book suggests it was actually written by Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan.Mr Mates added: "We discovered that there were two or three occasions in the past when law officers' advice to the government has been published.

Summarize the following article: UK rebate 'unjustified' - Chirac French president Jacques Chirac has called the UK's £3bn rebate from the European Union "unjustified". Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances. Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK. Mr Chirac told reporters in Brussels: "One can only have a reasonable budgetary balance if we put back on the table the British cheque. It can no longer be justified. It was from the past." But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget. Without it we would pay 14 times as much as France. "There can be no deal on future financing which does not protect the rebate." The 25-member EU is gearing up for tough negotiations on its budget plans for the period 2007-2013, with the bloc's Luxembourg presidency hoping to strike a deal at a June summit. Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain. EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has indicated he wants the rebate to come to an end. Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions. The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%. Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget. Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe. "The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ." The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained. "We have one of the lowest net receipts of any EU country because of the relatively small size of our agriculture sector and its efficiency. "That continues to be the case." UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it. "It is extraordinary to do it at this time, just as we are becoming the biggest contributor to the EU. If we lose our rebate as well, the British taxpayer is going to be bled at such a rate that I think everyone will go off the European project." EU leaders are holding talks in Brussels on how to re-energise the sluggish European economy. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is meeting his EU counterparts to finalise a package of measures aimed at stimulating growth and boosting employment ahead of a series of referendums on the European Constitution. The plans could introduce a free market into everything from computer services to construction. Critics - including Germany and France - believe liberalisation could result in companies shifting staff to cheaper bases in Eastern Europe, undercutting large EU economies and undermining social protections. There are also concerns about the number of workers from eastern European countries who will head west, exacerbating the already high unemployment levels in Germany. Mr Straw insisted there was nothing to fear from the services directorate. "European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said. "What we are now talking about is developing that market into an internal market in services." Britain's low unemployment meant there was less "neurosis" about people coming from eastern European countries. "In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.

He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK.But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget.Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget.UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it.Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions."The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ."The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%.Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain."European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said.Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances.The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained."In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe.

Summarize the following article: Drink remark 'acts as diversion' The first minister's statement that it was okay to get drunk "once in a while" has diverted attention from the real issues, it has been claimed. Jack Law, chief executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, said Jack McConnell's comment was "ill-advised". The media attention had helped to move the focus from Scotland's binge drinking problems, Mr Law said. Scotsman journalist Hamish MacDonell said he believed the bigger picture had been "obscured" by the remark. Mr McConnell was speaking on Monday to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions. The one-sentence comment was immediately criticised by the Scottish National Party which accused him of 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". Mr MacDonell, political editor of The Scotsman, said: "I think we have to say right at the outset that this was a very stupid and ill-advised remark by the first minister. "If you come out with something like this, saying that by all means get drunk, then you will be pilloried for it." However, he added that "perhaps Mr McConnell could feel rightly aggrieved about the coverage". Mr MacDonell said: "I think the problem here is that he did say a lot more things about binge drinking and under age drinking. "But that whole side of things has been lost in the furore over one sentence. I understand why, but I think there is a much bigger message here that has been obscured." Mr Law, from voluntary body Alcohol Focus Scotland, believed damage had been done to Scotland's fight against binge drinking. He said he accepted that young people drank and they did have problems with drink. Mr Law added: "I think the remark was ill-advised - but these remarks are blown out of all proportion and they so easily misrepresent what we are trying to do in Scotland. "We don't want to preach to young people, but we need to acknowledge that they do drink problematically. "This diverts us from the real issues which are about promoting responsibility and reducing harm and indeed tackling our drinking culture which is a culture about binge drinking and drunkenness." He said it was vital that young people were properly informed about the risks incurred to themselves and others when they got drunk. Mr MacDonell said that the first minister should know by now that if he said things which were "off the mark", they were bound to "come back and bite him". He added: "Here, Mr McConnell was talking in the Highlands to 100 teenagers and every word he said was put out on a webcast by the Scottish Executive and then looked at by other politicians and reporters. "I think in this instance he has done a lot of really good things and he will be regretting this remark." The Scottish National Party's Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon wrote to Mr McConnell on Tuesday accusing him of an error of judgement and calling for him to apologise for his "ill-judged comment" and withdraw it immediately. In a furious response, the first minister said his comments had been distorted and taken out of context. He told Ms Sturgeon: "It is disappointing that you have contributed to this distortion by saying it is staggering that I 'should encourage young people to get drunk'. "That is completely untrue. Perhaps it would have been wiser for you to find out what was actually said before you rushed to represent my position, undermine the convener of education at Highland Council and insult the intelligence of the young people I spoke with - all for the sake of a simple soundbite."

But the Scottish Executive has insisted Mr McConnell was speaking about adults and his comments were "a recognition that people will get drunk".Mr MacDonell said: "I think the problem here is that he did say a lot more things about binge drinking and under age drinking.Mr MacDonell, political editor of The Scotsman, said: "I think we have to say right at the outset that this was a very stupid and ill-advised remark by the first minister.Mr MacDonell said that the first minister should know by now that if he said things which were "off the mark", they were bound to "come back and bite him".He added: "Here, Mr McConnell was talking in the Highlands to 100 teenagers and every word he said was put out on a webcast by the Scottish Executive and then looked at by other politicians and reporters.He said it was vital that young people were properly informed about the risks incurred to themselves and others when they got drunk.The media attention had helped to move the focus from Scotland's binge drinking problems, Mr Law said.The one-sentence comment was immediately criticised by the Scottish National Party which accused him of encouraging young people to get drunk.Mr McConnell was speaking on Monday to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions.He said he accepted that young people drank and they did have problems with drink.Mr Law added: "I think the remark was ill-advised - but these remarks are blown out of all proportion and they so easily misrepresent what we are trying to do in Scotland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: UKIP's secret weapon? By any measure, New Yorker Dick Morris is that thing Americans love over everything else - a winner. This is the man who, some pundits believe, was almost single-handedly responsible for Bill Clinton's sensational 1992 comeback victory. But Morris is no ideologue. He has worked as election strategist for any number of Republicans as well and, more recently, politicians from Mexico to Uruguay. Now he is back in London as the UK Independence Party's not-so-secret electoral weapon after returning from the Ukraine where he helped - you guessed it - opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. If there is one regular criticism levelled at Morris, it is that he is too ready to switch allegiances. That he enjoys the game more than the politics. So why Britain and why UKIP which, despite its recent EU election successes, is not likely to pull off a sensational victory in the looming general election. On this subject, Morris appears almost evangelical. "I was on a cruise in the Mediterranean and, coincidentally, so was UKIP leader Roger Knapman. "I had just written a piece saying how the English Channel was now wider than the Atlantic which he liked and it went from there". But what is it about UKIP that particularly attracts him? Many might think it is simply another chance to practice his art, irrespective of the politics. "I think the greatest threat to democracy in the world is not terrorism but bureaucratism". A great soundbite, but a surprise coming from a New Yorker post 11 September. "It is the growth of these bodies composed of experts who know better, who don't believe in letting democracy govern but believe in letting the correct solution be determined. "That's international bankers, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and, primarily, the European Union". So he is out to help UKIP take Britain out of this organisation which he believes is unreformable and inherently undemocratic. And he is scathing of the Tory party which he also appears to believe is unreformable. "The Tory party is schizophrenic about Europe. But until somebody says they are willing to leave the EU they can't possibly re-negotiate anything (as Michael Howard is pledged to do). "It's like walking into a liquor store with a gun to rob it and saying: 'before I can proceed with the robbery I want to make clear I am not going to shoot anybody'". Possibly a very American analogy, but another great soundbite. "The basic point is that the EU seeks political integration to move the entire nexus of decision making away from Britain - and we oppose that and the Tories cannot be trusted to oppose it". So is UKIP's job to destroy the Tories, as former member Robert Kilroy-Silk once notoriously declared? "No. The aim of UKIP is to withdraw from the EU and if it has any relation to the Tories it is to stiffen the Tories' spine on the issue by having a large enough UKIP vote so that we move the Tories in the direction they are refusing to move. "But it's not just to shift the Tories. I think UKIP had a huge amount to do with Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution and I think it had a huge amount to do with his refusal to go into the euro". And, while we are on the subject of Mr Kilroy-Silk, Mr Morris despatches him with another of his neat soundbites. "Robert Kilroy Silk is not a team player - it is a good idea our party stands for some thing and not some one". So what is the big plan for the general election. How will he achieve the breakthrough? "Look, we are not going to be forming the next government," he said. Neither does UKIP have to fight every seat. As with the 2004 US presidential election, he says, the outcome will be decided by a small number of swing seats - just as he believes it will in Britain. So, with limited resources, the aim is to target those seats and end the day with a significant group in the Commons. He also believes it is possible the internet could have a big part in the poll. "The internet was a decisive factor in the 2004 presidential election - through blogs (individuals posting their views in online diaries). People just did it". "Anything can happen in the next general election. There is an inherent instability at the moment. "Labour and the Tories have drawn the consensus so tightly and to the left there is room for another voice". That might, he suggests, lead to a hung parliament with UKIP and others holding the balance of power. It is a huge task, surely. But there is undoubtedly a sense that the next general election may indeed produce some surprises - even while most still believe it is Labour's for the taking. UKIP's performance in last year's European elections was just such a shocker and showed that Mr Morris may have a point about the new consensus. And after all, he has a reputation to sustain.

So why Britain and why UKIP which, despite its recent EU election successes, is not likely to pull off a sensational victory in the looming general election.UKIP's performance in last year's European elections was just such a shocker and showed that Mr Morris may have a point about the new consensus.The aim of UKIP is to withdraw from the EU and if it has any relation to the Tories it is to stiffen the Tories' spine on the issue by having a large enough UKIP vote so that we move the Tories in the direction they are refusing to move."Anything can happen in the next general election.So what is the big plan for the general election.But there is undoubtedly a sense that the next general election may indeed produce some surprises - even while most still believe it is Labour's for the taking.As with the 2004 US presidential election, he says, the outcome will be decided by a small number of swing seats - just as he believes it will in Britain.So he is out to help UKIP take Britain out of this organisation which he believes is unreformable and inherently undemocratic.I think UKIP had a huge amount to do with Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution and I think it had a huge amount to do with his refusal to go into the euro".And he is scathing of the Tory party which he also appears to believe is unreformable."I was on a cruise in the Mediterranean and, coincidentally, so was UKIP leader Roger Knapman.And, while we are on the subject of Mr Kilroy-Silk, Mr Morris despatches him with another of his neat soundbites.On this subject, Morris appears almost evangelical."The internet was a decisive factor in the 2004 presidential election - through blogs (individuals posting their views in online diaries).But what is it about UKIP that particularly attracts him?Neither does UKIP have to fight every seat.But Morris is no ideologue.Many might think it is simply another chance to practice his art, irrespective of the politics."Labour and the Tories have drawn the consensus so tightly and to the left there is room for another voice".He has worked as election strategist for any number of Republicans as well and, more recently, politicians from Mexico to Uruguay.

Summarize the following article: Kennedy calls for Iraq exit plans Tony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said. In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism". He wants to see a phased withdrawal of UK troops "as soon as the situation allows", he said in London. Any exit strategy must "augment and support" the democratic process. "There are some who are of the opinion that the mere presence of British and American troops in Iraq feeds the insurgency," he said. "There is some truth in that, especially after the initial mistakes that were made - the heavy-handedness of operations like Fallujah, and the well-publicised instances of abuse at the hands of coalition forces." Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground". He accused Mr Blair's government of "being less than straightforward" over its plans. "Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech. "He should set out a proper exit strategy, including the phased withdrawal of British troops, as the security situation allows." Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".

Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".Tony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said."Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech.Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground".In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism".

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

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

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%.

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."Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said.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.Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.

Summarize the following article: Straw backs ending China embargo UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended plans to end the European Union's arms embargo on China, despite opposition from the US and Japan. Mr Straw, visiting Beijing, noted arms embargoes applied to China, Burma and Zimbabwe but not to North Korea, which he said had a terrible rights record. The EU imposed its arms ban on China in 1989 after troops opened fire on protestors in Tiananmen Square. Mr Straw also signed a deal on China-UK tourism. It is expected this would increase the number of Chinese tourists by 40,000 per year, providing $120m in revenue. China has in the past said it sees the weapons ban as politically driven, and does not want it lifted in order to buy more weapons. Mr Straw, speaking at a joint news conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, stressed this point. "The result of any decision [to lift the arms embargo] should not be an increase in arms exports from European Union member states to China, either in quantitative or qualitative terms," Mr Straw said. Earlier this week he said he expected the embargo to be lifted within six months. But Mr Straw faces tough opposition to the move. Tory foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said lifting the arms embargo would be "irresponsible" and would damage Britain's relations with the US. He said Mr Straw was "naive beyond belief" if he accepted China's claim it does not want the ban lifted in order to buy weapons. The French want the embargo lifted because they want to sell arms to China; the Chinese want it lifted because they want to buy arms and battlefield technology from Europe." When he was in Tokyo earlier this week, Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told the British minister that his plan to remove the embargo was " a worrying issue that concerns the security and environment of not only Japan, but also East Asia overall". Washington argues that if the embargo is lifted, it could lead to a buying spree for arms that China could use to threaten its diplomatic rival Taiwan. Beijing says Taiwan is part of Chinese territory and wants to unite it with the mainland, by force if necessary. The US is bound by law to help Taiwan defend itself. Washington has also voiced concern that the human rights conditions in China have not improved enough to merit an end to the embargo. It is an issue raised by human rights groups too. Brad Adams, from the UK's Human Rights Watch, said: "This is a huge political signal from Europe that they are willing to forget about Tiananmen Square." But Mr Straw insisted the EU's code of conduct on arms exports meant tough criteria on human rights still had to be met if the embargo was lifted.

Mr Straw, visiting Beijing, noted arms embargoes applied to China, Burma and Zimbabwe but not to North Korea, which he said had a terrible rights record.But Mr Straw insisted the EU's code of conduct on arms exports meant tough criteria on human rights still had to be met if the embargo was lifted."The result of any decision [to lift the arms embargo] should not be an increase in arms exports from European Union member states to China, either in quantitative or qualitative terms," Mr Straw said.The French want the embargo lifted because they want to sell arms to China; the Chinese want it lifted because they want to buy arms and battlefield technology from Europe."UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended plans to end the European Union's arms embargo on China, despite opposition from the US and Japan.He said Mr Straw was "naive beyond belief" if he accepted China's claim it does not want the ban lifted in order to buy weapons.China has in the past said it sees the weapons ban as politically driven, and does not want it lifted in order to buy more weapons.Washington has also voiced concern that the human rights conditions in China have not improved enough to merit an end to the embargo.Washington argues that if the embargo is lifted, it could lead to a buying spree for arms that China could use to threaten its diplomatic rival Taiwan.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Row over 'police' power for CSOs The Police Federation has said it strongly opposes giving Community Support Officers (CSOs) the power to detain suspects for up to 30 minutes. The powers - piloted in six areas - were extended to all police forces in England and Wales on Thursday. The federation said CSOs do not have the experience, training and safety equipment to deal with "potentially confrontational" situations. But the government said the move would help police "build safe communities". Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said civilian officers should act as "eyes and ears" for the police. "They should not be placed in potentially confrontational situations - which detaining someone clearly is," she said. CSOs can now use reasonable force to detain suspects for up to 30 minutes while they wait for police officers to arrive. The powers will be granted by chief constables of local forces. Ms Berry said this "dramatically changes" their original purpose - to be a visible presence combating low-level crime and anti-social behaviour. She said more powers would mean more paperwork and less time on the street. But Home Office minister Hazel Blears defended the move saying it would give the civilian officers "just that little bit of edge". She denied their role was changing and said the new powers would not take them away from the streets. "The powers that we are bringing in are things that they need to do when they are out patrolling," she said. The Home Office has produced its own report on CSOs which it describes as "encouraging". Ms Blears said the study shows CSOs are "making a real difference" in the fight against crime. But the report also showed that the public is having difficulties distinguishing between a civilian officer and a proper officer. Shadow home secretary David Davis said the research appeared to acknowledge that CSOs were having no discernible effect on crime figures. "While the answer is a lot more real police, the government wants to recruit 25,000 people who can't arrest anyone," he said. BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the research is inconclusive. There are about 3,500 CSOs in England and Wales but the government intends to have 25,000 on the streets by 2008 at a cost of £50m. They already have powers to hand out fines for a wide range of offences. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill proposes extra powers to search suspects, enforce licensing offences, direct traffic and deter begging.

The Police Federation has said it strongly opposes giving Community Support Officers (CSOs) the power to detain suspects for up to 30 minutes.Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said civilian officers should act as "eyes and ears" for the police.She said more powers would mean more paperwork and less time on the street.But the government said the move would help police "build safe communities"."The powers that we are bringing in are things that they need to do when they are out patrolling," she said.Ms Blears said the study shows CSOs are "making a real difference" in the fight against crime.She denied their role was changing and said the new powers would not take them away from the streets.Shadow home secretary David Davis said the research appeared to acknowledge that CSOs were having no discernible effect on crime figures.The federation said CSOs do not have the experience, training and safety equipment to deal with "potentially confrontational" situations.

Summarize the following article: 'Errors' doomed first Dome sale The initial attempt to sell the Millennium Dome failed due to a catalogue of errors, a report by the government's finance watchdog says. The report said too many parties were involved in decision-making when the attraction first went on sale after the Millennium exhibition ended. The National Audit Office said the Dome cost taxpayers £28.7m to maintain and sell in the four years after it closed. Finally, a deal to turn it into a sport and entertainment venue was struck. More than £550m could now be returned to the public sector in the wake of the deal to regenerate the site in Greenwich, London. The NAO report said that this sale went through because it avoided many of the problems of the previous attempt to sell the Dome. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said a good deal had been secured. "Delivery of the many benefits secured through this deal will continue the substantial progress already made at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula," he said. But Edward Leigh, who is chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, warned the government would have to work hard to ensure taxpayers would get full benefit from the Dome deal. He said: "This report also shows that the first attempt to sell the Dome proved a complete fiasco. Every arm of government seems to have had a finger in the pie. The process was confused and muddled." He added: "Four years after the Millennium Exhibition closed, the Government finally has a deal to find a use for what has been a white elephant since it closed in a deal that, incredible as it may seem, should bring in some money and provide a benefit for the local area and the country as whole. However, it was more a question of luck that a strong bid turned up after thefirst abortive attempt." NAO head Sir John Bourn said: "In difficult circumstances following the failure of the first competition, English Partnerships and the office of the deputy prime minister have worked hard to get a deal."

The NAO report said that this sale went through because it avoided many of the problems of the previous attempt to sell the Dome.He said: "This report also shows that the first attempt to sell the Dome proved a complete fiasco.Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said a good deal had been secured."Delivery of the many benefits secured through this deal will continue the substantial progress already made at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula," he said.NAO head Sir John Bourn said: "In difficult circumstances following the failure of the first competition, English Partnerships and the office of the deputy prime minister have worked hard to get a deal."The report said too many parties were involved in decision-making when the attraction first went on sale after the Millennium exhibition ended.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Profile: Gordon Brown The ultimate prize of 10 Downing Street may continue to elude him but, as he prepares to deliver a record-breaking ninth budget, Gordon Brown can at least console himself with the thought that he is the longest serving chancellor of modern times. He reached that milestone last June, when he overtook David Lloyd George, who served for seven years and 43 days between 1908 and 1915. How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.") There are rumours he will be moved to the Foreign Office if Labour wins the general election. But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him. Gordon Brown was born in Glasgow on 20 February 1951, the son of a Church of Scotland Minister in the small Fife town of Kirkcaldy. At 12, he was canvassing for Labour and by his 20s he was a leading political activist in Scotland. He achieved a first class degree in history from Edinburgh University, where he went on to complete a PhD. His early career was spent lecturing, working in television and making a name for himself in the Scottish Labour Party. His first attempt to enter Westminster, for Edinburgh South in 1979, was thwarted by the present Tory spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael Ancram. But in 1983, he took Dunfermline East, a new constituency including Rosyth naval base, pit villages and coastal towns. Entering Westminster, he came to share an office with the newly elected MP for Sedgefield, Tony Blair. Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury. He became shadow chancellor under John Smith's leadership in 1992. After the death of leader John Smith in 1994 he stood aside, agreeing to give Tony Blair a clear run at the leadership during a now infamous meal at the Granita restaurant in Islington. The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend. Mr Blair's supporters say such a deal never existed and endless newspaper columns - and even a television film - have been devoted to the alleged deal. But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics. During the 1997 election campaign, he is said to have worked an average of 18 hours a day, six days a week after running on a treadmill for an hour each morning. This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics". If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002. Their daughter Jennifer died in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, 10 days after being born seven weeks prematurely. A year later, in October 2003, the couple had a son - John - an event which again gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his softer side. A trip to Africa earlier this year, to publicise his scheme to cancel the debt of poor nations, also gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his more human side. The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest. The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution. But their shared belief that market economics are compatible with social justice continues to form the ideological heart of the New Labour project. Yet they are portrayed by the media as being locked in almost permanent conflict, with Mr Brown supposedly nursing resentment at being betrayed by his younger Downing Street neighbour over the succession. Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute. After a recent run of negative headlines, Labour MPs took the unprecedented step of making a direct appeal to the two men stop bickering, for the good of the party. Events like this, and the testimony of former ministerial colleagues, make it impossible to dismiss the Brown/Blair feud as just journalistic hearsay, cooked up by hacks and camp followers in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster. How much it damages the ability of government to do its job is open to question. A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign. But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign. Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader. There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can. And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.

The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest.Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader.How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.")But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him.Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute.The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend.And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can.But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics.The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution.A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign.If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002.Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign.This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics".

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Blair to face trust issue head on Tony Blair says he will be facing the issue of trust and his own integrity head on during the election campaign. During a question and answer session with first-time voters on Five News, Mr Blair said he had no option but to "confront it" by talking to people. He also dismissed claims government plans to get 50% of young people into university would devalue degrees. He was not "forcing" anyone to go to university, but places should be there for those who wanted them, he said. In answer to a question from 22-year-old Liverpool student David Dunne about concerns over the prime minister's personal integrity, Mr Blair said talking was the only answer. "You've just got to confront it and say to people let's have a discussion on the things that worry you, the things that make you say 'I can't trust you' or 'I am against you on this.'" The "worst thing in politics" was that the electorate only got "little snatches of policy" from things like Prime Minister's Questions and the news headlines. This was why he wanted to "get out of the 30 seconds on the news," he added. By talking through policies at least people understood the reason for them, even if they did not agree with them, he said. Mr Blair also faced questions about British policy on Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons programme. He insisted there was no plan for an invasion of the country saying: "Sometimes people say because of what has happened in Iraq this is the next place." Instead there was a real chance of a "peaceful resolution" to the problem, he said.

During a question and answer session with first-time voters on Five News, Mr Blair said he had no option but to "confront it" by talking to people.In answer to a question from 22-year-old Liverpool student David Dunne about concerns over the prime minister's personal integrity, Mr Blair said talking was the only answer.He was not "forcing" anyone to go to university, but places should be there for those who wanted them, he said.He insisted there was no plan for an invasion of the country saying: "Sometimes people say because of what has happened in Iraq this is the next place."By talking through policies at least people understood the reason for them, even if they did not agree with them, he said.

Summarize the following article: Howard's unfinished business "He's not finished yet," whispered the Conservative Party person as your reporter attempted to slip quietly from the hall. And indeed he wasn't. Michael Howard had already broken away from the printed text of his speech, at his party's spring conference in Brighton, to deliver a smart rebuff to Peter Hain's description of him as an "attack mongrel", claiming such personal abuse meant Labour was "rattled" by the Tory challenge. And here he was again, moving to the front of the stage as the party faithful rose to their feet in applause, to make a personal, ad-libbed appeal to them to go out and fight for victory. "One day you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren as I will tell mine, 'I was there. I did my bit. I played my part. I helped to win that famous election - the election that transformed our country for the better'." The speech, which was peppered with references to Mr Howard's humble beginnings as the "child of immigrants", had been introduced by his son Nick, a trainee vicar, who praised his father's honesty. "I always know where I am with him because all my life he has meant what he has said to me," he said. Mr Howard was also joined on stage by his wife Sandra, daughter Larissa and stepson Sholto. The audience's reaction to all of this was a little muted by party conference standards. But Mr Howard's overall message - that the Tories have Labour on the run and that they can win the next election - did not sound quite as hollow as it might have done six months ago. Mr Howard claimed, with some justification, that the Tories' campaign has got off to a "great start". They have had Labour on the back foot over immigration, with Tony Blair hastily adding a sixth promise on the issue to his latest pledge card, and have even managed to score points in traditional Labour territory such as health and education. The stunts involving Margaret Dixon with her postponed operation and Maria Hutchings with concerns about her son's special needs education may not have been to everyone's taste, but they succeeded in bringing the issues alive and forcing Labour to react. Senior Tories believe they are, at long last, starting to tap into the public mood, cutting through the background noise to connect with the ordinary voter. Their latest poster campaign flags up a range of policies from better school discipline, cleaner hospitals ("I mean, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?") and immigration ("It's not racist to impose limits on immigration") - under the headline "are you thinking what we are thinking?" This, they say, contrasts with Labour's negative campaigning, such as its now infamous "flying pigs" poster. Oliver Letwin, one of the men lampooned in the Labour poster, affects bewilderment at what he believes is Labour's loss of its once sure footing on the campaign trail. The Peter Hain "mongrel" attack, he says, is just the latest example of the party getting the tone wrong - a by-product, he claims, of the Tories setting the agenda. "I have to say I don't understand what they are doing. The Labour machine appears to be in some kind of state of shock, it doesn't seem to know what to do." A few weeks of positive headlines have also done wonders for Tory activists' morale - likely to be a crucial factor at an election which, most analysts seem to agree, will hinge on which party can get their core support out. "It has been a fantastic few weeks," said 20-year-old politics student Nick Vaughan. "Our policies have been getting in the media and there is a sense that we can win. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think we could." Some delegates even spoke of the next election being like 1970, when Ted Heath, behind in the polls and written off by the pundits, snatched victory from Harold Wilson's Labour Party. They all insisted it was not going to be a re-run of 2001. "We thought in 2001 we were going to dent that massive majority but it just didn't happen," said John Murray, of Aldridge Browhills Conservatives. "It was very disappointing. This time it really is different. "Whoever is running our strategy from the top has got it bang on. Blair is on the back foot." Much of the credit for the Tories' recent change of fortune must go to Lynton Crosby, the Australian strategist who succeeded in turning political veteran and apparent no-hoper John Howard, of Australia's Liberal Party, into a serial election winner. The Tories still have a mountain climb if Michael Howard is to walk through the doors of Number 10. Even allowing for the natural bias against the Tories in some opinion polls, they are still behind, when to have a chance of overturning Labour's whopping majority, they should really be ahead. But as they gear up for the start of the campaign proper, the party at least has reason to hope that, like his Australian namesake, Mr Howard really isn't finished yet.

Mr Howard claimed, with some justification, that the Tories' campaign has got off to a "great start".But as they gear up for the start of the campaign proper, the party at least has reason to hope that, like his Australian namesake, Mr Howard really isn't finished yet.But Mr Howard's overall message - that the Tories have Labour on the run and that they can win the next election - did not sound quite as hollow as it might have done six months ago.They have had Labour on the back foot over immigration, with Tony Blair hastily adding a sixth promise on the issue to his latest pledge card, and have even managed to score points in traditional Labour territory such as health and education.Some delegates even spoke of the next election being like 1970, when Ted Heath, behind in the polls and written off by the pundits, snatched victory from Harold Wilson's Labour Party.Michael Howard had already broken away from the printed text of his speech, at his party's spring conference in Brighton, to deliver a smart rebuff to Peter Hain's description of him as an "attack mongrel", claiming such personal abuse meant Labour was "rattled" by the Tory challenge.And here he was again, moving to the front of the stage as the party faithful rose to their feet in applause, to make a personal, ad-libbed appeal to them to go out and fight for victory.The audience's reaction to all of this was a little muted by party conference standards.Mr Howard was also joined on stage by his wife Sandra, daughter Larissa and stepson Sholto.Much of the credit for the Tories' recent change of fortune must go to Lynton Crosby, the Australian strategist who succeeded in turning political veteran and apparent no-hoper John Howard, of Australia's Liberal Party, into a serial election winner."It was very disappointing."I always know where I am with him because all my life he has meant what he has said to me," he said.They all insisted it was not going to be a re-run of 2001.The Peter Hain "mongrel" attack, he says, is just the latest example of the party getting the tone wrong - a by-product, he claims, of the Tories setting the agenda.Even allowing for the natural bias against the Tories in some opinion polls, they are still behind, when to have a chance of overturning Labour's whopping majority, they should really be ahead.Oliver Letwin, one of the men lampooned in the Labour poster, affects bewilderment at what he believes is Labour's loss of its once sure footing on the campaign trail.

Summarize the following article: Lib Dems highlight problem debt People vulnerable to problem debts should be afforded greater protection from banks aggressively promoting financial products, the Lib Dems say. Vincent Cable says one in eight households already struggle with debt and that will worsen if there is a hike in interest rates or unemployment. The Lib Dems' Treasury spokesman is unveiling a policy aimed at the issue. He wants to see "proper health checks" when loans are marketed so people know to take out payment protection. "Were economic conditions to deteriorate at all, large numbers of people could be affected because they have borrowed to the limit," Mr Cable told BBC News. "Banks are very aggressively promoting debt in many cases there is a bigger problem ahead." Mr Cable said the government's Consumer Credit Bill would target some of the "extreme problems" such as loan sharking, but ministers had been "a bit complacent" about the wider issue of debt levels. He said much of the payment protection currently available was "extremely expensive" and there were "lots of exclusions". Mr Cable added that the Office of Fair Trading should investigate the market. Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy meanwhile is in the middle of a tour of the UK aimed at persuading voters his is the "real opposition". Mr Kennedy is visiting a mixture of rural seats, where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives, and urban areas traditionally associated with Labour. Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe". Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May. The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories. Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience". And he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door". "If you look at the four previous parliamentary by-elections, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that, not only can we leapfrog the Conservatives where we start in a third place position, but we can go on to defeat the government. "That's going to be the story, I think, of this coming general election."

Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe".People vulnerable to problem debts should be afforded greater protection from banks aggressively promoting financial products, the Lib Dems say.Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience".Mr Cable said the government's Consumer Credit Bill would target some of the "extreme problems" such as loan sharking, but ministers had been "a bit complacent" about the wider issue of debt levels.Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May.The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories.Mr Kennedy is visiting a mixture of rural seats, where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives, and urban areas traditionally associated with Labour.And he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door".

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

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

Summarize the following article: No to Royal succession shake-up A Labour peer has withdrawn proposals to give female members of the Royal Family the same rights as males. The legislation would have ended the right of male heirs with older sisters to succeed to the Crown. It would also have torn up ancient legislation banning heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics. But the government refused to back Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill, saying it was too complex and raised too many constitutional issues. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical purposes its effects are limited". The changes proposed by Lord Dubs were a "complex and controversial undertaking raising major constitutional issues", he said. Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed and had been unaffected by the act. "It is not a simple matter that can be tinkered with lightly. While we wish to remove all forms of discrimination... this isn't the proper form," he added. He did not rule out change in the future but said if Lord Dubs' private member's bill was passed by peers, he would urge MPs to oppose it in the Commons. Lord Dubs agreed to withdraw his bill after its second reading in the House of Lords, but urged the government to think again at a later stage. "We cannot forever say we don't want to change things because it is too difficult," he told peers. During the debate, the Labour peer and former minister said: "The monarchy should symbolise the values of this country. "What we don't want is a situation where the values of the country have moved on and the monarchy is centuries behind the times. "We are surely all opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender and we are surely also opposed to discrimination against Catholics." But opponents of the bill, including Tory Lord Campbell of Alloway and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it would separate the state from both the Church of England and the Christian faith. Such a "secular" state would be markedly "less tolerant", Rt Rev Scott-Joynt argued.

He did not rule out change in the future but said if Lord Dubs' private member's bill was passed by peers, he would urge MPs to oppose it in the Commons.But the government refused to back Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill, saying it was too complex and raised too many constitutional issues.The changes proposed by Lord Dubs were a "complex and controversial undertaking raising major constitutional issues", he said.But opponents of the bill, including Tory Lord Campbell of Alloway and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it would separate the state from both the Church of England and the Christian faith.Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed and had been unaffected by the act.The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical purposes its effects are limited".Lord Dubs agreed to withdraw his bill after its second reading in the House of Lords, but urged the government to think again at a later stage.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: UK's 'useless' quangos under fire The UK has 529 quangos financed with billions of pounds of taxpayers' cash - many of which are useless or duplicate each other's efforts, a report claims. Essential Guide to British Quangos 2005 author Dan Lewis said at least 111 of the appointed bodies had been set up since Labour won power in 1997. He urged a limit on the number of quangos that could be set up by any individual government department. Tories and Lib Dems welcomed the report and called for a "slimming down". Conservative deregulation spokesman John Redwood said: "The research endorses our policy of destroying unwanted and unnecessary quangos, and slimming down the rest. "A Conservative government will axe 162 quangos, as part of its drive for more efficient and more accountable government." Lib Dem spokesman Ed Davey meanwhile said instead of the "bonfire of quangos" New Labour had promised, there had been an "explosion" of them. "For over two decades, under both Tory and Labour governments, these unaccountable agencies have mushroomed. "Liberal Democrats would abolish many, merge others, and make any that remain properly accountable." Labour representatives were unavailable for comment. The quango guide follows last year's government-commissioned Gershon Report which recommended significant cuts in bureaucracy across the public sector. Mr Lewis wants a public inquiry into regional development agencies which cost £1.8bn a year - cash he says which "appears to be almost entirely wasted". As well as a departmental limit on quangos he also wants a statutory five-year limit on any such body with executive powers. He also listed what he dubbed the nine "most useless quangos". They were the British Potato Council, the Milk Development Council, the Energy Savings Trust, Agricultural Wages Committees, the Wine Standards Board, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Football Licensing Authority, Investors in People UK and the Economic and Social Research Council. Mr Lewis branded the existence of the 60-employee Potato Council, set up in 1997 to research and promote overseas potato markets, "surprising". He said the £80m spent annually on the Energy Savings Trust, which promotes renewable energy, would be better spent on eight million boiler jackets for British homes. And he argued it was "absurd" to charge farmers for Agricultural Wages Committees, which set working and wage standards in the industry, when many were prepared to take advantage of immigrant labour prepared to work for £1 an hour. "If a football team can afford to pay £27m for Wayne Rooney, why should the taxpayer - not all of whom like football - be forced to fund the Football Licensing Authority to the tune of over £1.1m a year?" Mr Lewis asked. The report is published by the Efficiency in Government Unit - a joint effort by right of centre think tanks the Economic Research Council and the Centre for Policy Studies. It says before a new public body is set up, an assessment should be made whether its proposed role is already carried out by an existing charity or other private organisation.

Essential Guide to British Quangos 2005 author Dan Lewis said at least 111 of the appointed bodies had been set up since Labour won power in 1997.They were the British Potato Council, the Milk Development Council, the Energy Savings Trust, Agricultural Wages Committees, the Wine Standards Board, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Football Licensing Authority, Investors in People UK and the Economic and Social Research Council.Mr Lewis branded the existence of the 60-employee Potato Council, set up in 1997 to research and promote overseas potato markets, "surprising".Lib Dem spokesman Ed Davey meanwhile said instead of the "bonfire of quangos" New Labour had promised, there had been an "explosion" of them.He urged a limit on the number of quangos that could be set up by any individual government department.Conservative deregulation spokesman John Redwood said: "The research endorses our policy of destroying unwanted and unnecessary quangos, and slimming down the rest.Mr Lewis wants a public inquiry into regional development agencies which cost £1.8bn a year - cash he says which "appears to be almost entirely wasted".The UK has 529 quangos financed with billions of pounds of taxpayers' cash - many of which are useless or duplicate each other's efforts, a report claims."A Conservative government will axe 162 quangos, as part of its drive for more efficient and more accountable government."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 people had to be told if personal data was 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." Assistant information commissioner Phil Jones said it was classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them. But "classic market research", such as a poll of voter intentions, did not constitute direct marketing, he said. "If a party is calling someone who is registered on TPS and records their voting intention with a view to using this information in the future, this should be clear to the voter concerned," said Mr Jones. "If a party rings a person who is registered on TPS to ask about their voting intention and goes on to encourage that voter to support them, the party may well be in breach of the regulations. "In summary, whether a party calling TPS registered voters to check their voting intentions will breach regulations will depend on the script used and whether the script is followed." Mr Jones said the watchdog received "very few complaints" on the issue. Earlier, Lib Dem chairman Matthew Taylor wrote 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.

Assistant information commissioner Phil Jones said it was classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them.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."If a party is calling someone who is registered on TPS and records their voting intention with a view to using this information in the future, this should be clear to the voter concerned," said Mr Jones."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.A Conservative spokeswoman said the party stuck to the rules when it rang TPS subscribers.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."If a party rings a person who is registered on TPS to ask about their voting intention and goes on to encourage that voter to support them, the party may well be in breach of the regulations.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 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.She said: "We do apply TPS but in line with the law.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 'Super union' merger plan touted Two of Britain's big trade unions could merge to form a "super union" of two million members. The move by Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) would be a seen as a bid to carry more weight with ministers and employers. Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000. Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership. It is understood meetings will be held on Wednesday about the proposal. Along with the GMB and Unison, the TGWU and Amicus worked closely together in the last year to hammer out a 56-point deal with Labour's leadership over equality at work, holidays and pensions - the Warwick Agreement. Both unions are remaining tight-lipped about the merger rumours, but one insider pointed out to the BBC News website that "nobody is denying suggestions a merger could be on the agenda" when the two unions' executives hold their meetings on Wednesday. Amicus's executive was due to meet in any case although the TGWU is holding specially scheduled talks.

Both unions are remaining tight-lipped about the merger rumours, but one insider pointed out to the BBC News website that "nobody is denying suggestions a merger could be on the agenda" when the two unions' executives hold their meetings on Wednesday.The move by Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) would be a seen as a bid to carry more weight with ministers and employers.Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership.Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Labour attacked on Howard poster Labour has been accused of using anti-Semitic images in posters which critics claim depict Tory leader Michael Howard as Fagin. The poster shows Mr Howard hypnotising people with a pocket watch, saying: "I can spend the same money twice." The image prompted concern from the editor of the Jewish Chronicle but Labour insists it is simply anti-Tory. Labour later took the image off its website, saying an alternative idea had proved more popular with party members. The party will now use focus groups to test a poster showing Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin with a blackboard reading: "2+2=5". The hypnotism poster has been compared to the portrayal of the Dickens character Fagin in the stage version of the musical Oliver! There was controversy over another poster choice offered to Labour members. It showed Mr Howard and Mr Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs. Mr Howard did not comment on the anti-Semitism claims when asked about the poster on Monday. Instead, he pointed to how Tony Blair had in 1997 complained about "personalised abusive campaigning". Mr Howard told Greater Manchester Radio: "It is such a pity that Mr Blair doesn't practise what he preaches." Jewish Chronicle editor Ned Temko said there had been a mixed reaction to the first poster but e-mails from Jewish Chronicle readers showed deeper concern about the hypnotism image. "Shylock and Fagin are inextricably linked to notions of centuries-old prejudice," he told BBC Radio 4's World At One. "Whatever the idea is, I think it's a difficult exercise to use images like that and to argue that you can divorce them from their historical context or meaning." Mr Temko said he blamed "cock-up not conspiracy", saying he did not detect inherent anti-Semitism in any of the parties' election campaigns. The poster is among one of a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election. Labour MP Louise Ellman said the hypnotism image was insensitive but urged people not to rush to call things anti-Semitic when they only challenged Tory economic policies. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said the poster had been misunderstood. The image simply portrayed Mr Howard as a hypnotist, he argued. "Concern has been expressed and clearly we have to take those views on board but I would emphasise that if you see the posters, the common theme... is that the Tories are trying to con you." A Labour spokesman later said the timing of removing the controversial image from the party's website was not affected by the row. "This has been up on the website for two weeks and there has only been a fuss in the last four days so a substantial number of people voted before there was any fuss," he said. But a Conservative spokeswoman said: "This poster campaign - which was offensive to many people - was a big misjudgement by Labour's campaign team."

Labour has been accused of using anti-Semitic images in posters which critics claim depict Tory leader Michael Howard as Fagin.Mr Howard did not comment on the anti-Semitism claims when asked about the poster on Monday.The image simply portrayed Mr Howard as a hypnotist, he argued.Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said the poster had been misunderstood.The poster shows Mr Howard hypnotising people with a pocket watch, saying: "I can spend the same money twice."It showed Mr Howard and Mr Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs.Mr Howard told Greater Manchester Radio: "It is such a pity that Mr Blair doesn't practise what he preaches."A Labour spokesman later said the timing of removing the controversial image from the party's website was not affected by the row.There was controversy over another poster choice offered to Labour members.Jewish Chronicle editor Ned Temko said there had been a mixed reaction to the first poster but e-mails from Jewish Chronicle readers showed deeper concern about the hypnotism image.

Summarize the following article: Cabinet anger at Brown cash raid Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged. Gordon Brown reallocated £512m from central to local government budgets in his pre-Budget report on Thursday. Mr Raynsford said he had held some "pretty frank discussions" with fellow ministers over the plans. But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises. The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year. Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities. And he confirmed rows over the issue with ministerial colleagues. "Obviously we had some pretty frank discussions about this," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One. But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments". Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added. Mr Raynsford dismissed a suggestion the move was designed to keep council taxes down ahead of an expected general election. "This is a response to the concerns that have been voiced by local government about the pressures they face." Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes. These would raise the age from which retiring workers could claim their pensions and limit how much they received if they retired early. He insisted the changes were "very modest" and designed to tackle the problem of workers retiring "very early". But general secretary of the public services union Unison Dave Prentis criticised the plans. "If you want world class public services you don't get that by hitting people as they approach retirement."

But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities.Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes.Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Kennedy to make temple address Charles Kennedy is set to address 2,000 people at a Hindu temple as part of an appeal to ethnic minority voters. The Liberal Democrat leader will visit the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Temple in Neasden, north west London. He will say Labour "can no longer lay exclusive claim to the votes of Britain's ethnic minorities". Mr Kennedy will also highlight the anger among people of "all races" over the Iraq war and call for a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism. Saturday's speech comes days after the Lib Dems launched their ethnic minority mini-manifesto. Mr Kennedy is to tell the audience: "Many people in Britain, of all races, cultures and religions, were angry about the way we were taken to war in Iraq. "And they saw the principled stand the Liberal Democrats took at the time." He will also say that the Lib Dems want to "restore Britain's reputation on the world stage" by fighting international poverty and climate change, and protecting human rights. Mr Kennedy will say that a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism would mean "tough measures to make Britain safe - but not at the expense of people's fundamental legal rights like has happened at Belmarsh". He will say it also means acting through the United Nations on terrorism. Mr Kennedy held talks with Tony Blair on Friday over government plans to hold terror suspects under house arrest. He said afterwards that the Prime Minister had offered some "movement" to address his concerns. The plans face trouble in the Lords if Conservative and Lib Dem opposition continues.

Mr Kennedy will also highlight the anger among people of "all races" over the Iraq war and call for a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism.Charles Kennedy is set to address 2,000 people at a Hindu temple as part of an appeal to ethnic minority voters.Mr Kennedy will say that a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism would mean "tough measures to make Britain safe - but not at the expense of people's fundamental legal rights like has happened at Belmarsh".Mr Kennedy is to tell the audience: "Many people in Britain, of all races, cultures and religions, were angry about the way we were taken to war in Iraq.He will say it also means acting through the United Nations on terrorism.He will also say that the Lib Dems want to "restore Britain's reputation on the world stage" by fighting international poverty and climate change, and protecting human rights.

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

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

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

Mr Brown also wants other G8 nations to match his target for overseas aid - spending 0.7% of national income."That is why next year is a test," he said.Mr Brown said much had been achieved on issues such as debt relief in the last seven years.The report said the G8 of top industrialised nations had agreed in 1970 to spend 0.7% of their incomes on aid.But Band Aid founder Bob Geldof in July said he was sick of hearing "guff" about scars on the world.Mr Brown said America too needed to take more action but defended President George Bush for guaranteeing resources to countries which introduced reforms to tackle corruption.Mr Blair, who has described Africa as a "scar" on the world's conscience, has already said tackling world poverty would be one his G8 priorities along with climate change and the Aids epidemic.Next year will be "make or break" for development in poorer countries Gordon Brown will say as he sets out UK goals for its EU and G8 presidencies.It was pathetic that Britain was the 4th richest country in the world but only the 11th most generous aid donor, he added.His proposals were effectively a new "Marshall Plan" for the world, including an international finance facility, which would issue bonds in an attempt to double global aid cash to $100bn a year.Oxfam's Paying the Price report this week said 45 million children will die needlessly before 2015 and aid budgets are half their 1960 levels.

Summarize the following article: UK needs tax cuts, Tories insist A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began. Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox had opened the forum in Brighton with an attack on Labour's record and party leader Michael Howard is due to speak later. Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure. But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league. "Can this country compete, can this country prosper, unless we do something about the burden of regulation and tax on our economy?" he said. "If we are going to take on the great challenges, the challenges like those posed by the Chinese and the Indians, we have got to do something about getting down the burden of regulation and getting down the burden of tax," he said. "The fact is the very carefully costed, fully funded plans we have laid out for saving £12bn by 2007-2008 are absolutely crucial to delivering an economy that will prosper and provide people with jobs and indeed provide the public services with the money they need on a sustainable long-term basis." Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste. Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver". He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime. A Tory government would sort out the "shambles" of immigration, put patients before statistics and bring discipline to schools, he said. Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech. His welcome address had to be postponed after he stayed in London to lead the party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in its lengthy progress through Parliament. The bill was finally passed on Friday evening, after more than 30 hours of debate. Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.

he said.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising.Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure.But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league.A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver".

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

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

Summarize the following article: Brown names 16 March for Budget Chancellor Gordon Brown will deliver his Budget to the House of Commons on 16 March, the Treasury has announced. The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time. The annual event is when the chancellor outlines the government's taxation and broader economic predictions. It is likely to set out much of the tax and spending battleground for the election, widely expected on 5 May. Next month's Budget will be Mr Brown's eighth since Labour came to power in 1997. If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election. A shortened Finance Bill would have to be rushed through Parliament with all-party support to allow the Government to continue collecting revenue. The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office. As Mr Brown announced the Budget date in a short ministerial statement, accountancy firm Ernst & Young urged him to put politics aside and focus on the long-term requirements of the economy. "In the Budgets that were given immediately before the last six elections, taxes were cut by the incumbent chancellor and, in many cases, taxes were increased soon after the election result," said Aidan O'Carroll, E&Y's UK head of tax.

The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office.If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election.The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time.Chancellor Gordon Brown will deliver his Budget to the House of Commons on 16 March, the Treasury has announced.

Summarize the following article: Ex-PM Lord Callaghan dies aged 92 Former Labour prime minister Lord Callaghan has died on the eve of his 93rd birthday. He passed away at home in East Sussex, just 11 days after his wife Audrey died aged 91. Lord Callaghan, who leaves a son and two daughters, was the longest living former British PM in history. He entered Downing Street in 1976 after the resignation of Harold Wilson. Prime Minister Tony Blair called him a "giant" of the Labour movement. He held each of the major offices of chancellor, home secretary, foreign secretary and prime minister during his career and became Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in 1987. Chancellor Gordon Brown said the former PM would be "mourned throughout the world". "It was a commitment to public service that brought Jim Callaghan into Parliament in 1945, and while Jim rose to the top he never forgot his roots." Former cabinet colleague Lord Hattersley said his first reaction on hearing the news was "immense sadness". "It was not a major surprise - I knew what a blow the death of his wife Audrey was a few days ago," he said. "He was a decent kindly man who helped me and my generation of politicians immensely. "The Labour party and the country will be poorer without him." Conservative peer Lord Heseltine said that despite their political differences, he and Lord Callaghan became friends. "You don't get to the premiership unless you have a streak of determination," he said. "But I saw the other side of Jim Callaghan, he became a personal friend in a way, and my family and I were very fond of him." Tory leader Michael Howard said he would be remembered with "affection and respect". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "When I was first elected in 1983 as the youngest MP, he was the "Father of the House" and as such took a very keen interest in my early days in Parliament. "He was always full of warmth and wisdom." Born in 1912 and educated at Portsmouth Northern Secondary School, Lord Callaghan became a clerk at the Inland Revenue. He enlisted in the Royal Navy in 1942 and rose to the rank of lieutenant. Elected for a Cardiff constituency at the 1945 general election, he represented Cardiff seats for more than 40 years. After serving as a junior minister in the Attlee government, he became chancellor of the exchequer when Labour returned to power in 1964. With sterling under pressure, he resisted devaluation for three years, before being forced into it in 1967. His political career was not without controversy. When he refused to support prime minister Harold Wilson and Dame Barbara Castle over the latter's trade union manifesto, In Place of Strife, in 1968, he said: "I am not going to resign. They will have to throw me out". When home secretary, he ordered British troops to march into the streets of Belfast to protect Catholic civilians amid rising violence - a decision that has dominated British politics into the 21st century. As foreign secretary in the early 1970s, Lord Callaghan kept an open mind about the UK's entry into the Common Market, seeing the advantages of the UK's entry. He once travelled to Idi Amin's Uganda in 1975 to plead for the life of a British lecturer, Dennis Hills, who was under a death sentence for treason. His political life was often tempered by battles against the hard left of the party. In the autumn of 1978, before the "Winter of Discontent" when trade unions carried out strikes that brought the country to a standstill, Lord Callaghan refused to hold an early election which may have delivered a Labour victory. As garbage lay uncollected in the streets and hospital staff, council workers and even gravediggers stayed off work, Lord Callaghan failed to predict the mood of the country. When Britain went to the polls in 1979, Tory leader Margaret Thatcher was swept into power in a landslide victory, and Lord Callaghan resigned as Labour leader.

He held each of the major offices of chancellor, home secretary, foreign secretary and prime minister during his career and became Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in 1987.Former Labour prime minister Lord Callaghan has died on the eve of his 93rd birthday.Conservative peer Lord Heseltine said that despite their political differences, he and Lord Callaghan became friends.Lord Callaghan, who leaves a son and two daughters, was the longest living former British PM in history.When Britain went to the polls in 1979, Tory leader Margaret Thatcher was swept into power in a landslide victory, and Lord Callaghan resigned as Labour leader."It was not a major surprise - I knew what a blow the death of his wife Audrey was a few days ago," he said.Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "When I was first elected in 1983 as the youngest MP, he was the "Father of the House" and as such took a very keen interest in my early days in Parliament.Former cabinet colleague Lord Hattersley said his first reaction on hearing the news was "immense sadness".In the autumn of 1978, before the "Winter of Discontent" when trade unions carried out strikes that brought the country to a standstill, Lord Callaghan refused to hold an early election which may have delivered a Labour victory."It was a commitment to public service that brought Jim Callaghan into Parliament in 1945, and while Jim rose to the top he never forgot his roots."His political career was not without controversy.Born in 1912 and educated at Portsmouth Northern Secondary School, Lord Callaghan became a clerk at the Inland Revenue.His political life was often tempered by battles against the hard left of the party.As garbage lay uncollected in the streets and hospital staff, council workers and even gravediggers stayed off work, Lord Callaghan failed to predict the mood of the country.

Summarize the following article: Blair says UK tsunami aid to soar Tony Blair has predicted the British Government will eventually give "hundreds of millions" of pounds in aid to countries hit by the tsunami. The prime minister was speaking publicly for the first time since returning from his holiday in Egypt. Mr Blair insisted he had been "intimately involved" in "all decisions at all times" despite being abroad. He was speaking before the UK joins a three-minute silence at noon across the EU for the estimated 150,000 dead. The Foreign Office says 41 Britons are now confirmed to have died in the Tsunami which struck south Asia on Boxing Day, with 158 others missing. Asked about criticism that he did not cut short his holiday, Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think this is a situation in which the British people need me to articulate what they feel. "I think they feel - as we all do - shock, horror, and absolute solidarity with those people who have lost their lives." The important thing was action and not words, he said, adding that of the £50m given by the government so far only "six or seven million" had been spent. It would become easier in the coming weeks to assess just how much money would have to be put in. "My estimate is we will need to spend from government several hundred million pounds. So we will far and away more than match the generosity of the British people," he said. Asked whether he had not returned to work immediately because he was under doctors orders to rest, Mr Blair said there was also a story he had been away for plastic surgery. "As you can see unfortunately I am still looking the same as I always did," he joked. The prime minister took personal charge of the UK's response on Tuesday, chairing a meeting of the emergency committee of ministers that has convened daily since Boxing Day. He also spoke on the telephone to US President George Bush, and the presidents of Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Chancellor Gordon Brown earlier backed a plan to freeze the foreign debts of all the affected nations. Mr Brown, who was not at the Downing Street meeting, says he has been in "intensive talks" with other G8 finance ministers. Germany proposed a freeze last week and Canada has begun its own moratorium. The chancellor said the plan would initially save the most affected countries about $3bn (£1.58bn) in repayments. Tory leader Michael Howard also backed the proposals but said ministers had been "playing catch-up" with public donations. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is to visit Thailand and Indonesia this week. During his trip, Mr Straw will represent the G8 at the international conference called in Jakarta, Indonesia on Thursday. On Friday, he will visit the Thai beach resort of Phuket, where British families are still searching for relatives. International Development Secretary Hilary Benn will also visit Aceh in Indonesia, as well as Sri Lanka. The British public has now pledged £76m in aid with emergency supplies from the British government starting to arrive in the region on three RAF flights in a joint operation with Scandinavian countries. Two ships - the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Diligence and frigate HMS Chatham - have arrived in the disaster area. A second Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel, the Bayleaf, is also being sent. UK charities have also begun chartering planes to deliver aid. - A BBC News Special: Asia Remembered, including the three-minutes silence, will be shown on BBC One and BBC News 24 from 1130 to 1215 GMT on Wednesday.

Asked whether he had not returned to work immediately because he was under doctors orders to rest, Mr Blair said there was also a story he had been away for plastic surgery.Asked about criticism that he did not cut short his holiday, Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think this is a situation in which the British people need me to articulate what they feel.Tony Blair has predicted the British Government will eventually give "hundreds of millions" of pounds in aid to countries hit by the tsunami.So we will far and away more than match the generosity of the British people," he said.Mr Brown, who was not at the Downing Street meeting, says he has been in "intensive talks" with other G8 finance ministers.International Development Secretary Hilary Benn will also visit Aceh in Indonesia, as well as Sri Lanka.Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is to visit Thailand and Indonesia this week.The British public has now pledged £76m in aid with emergency supplies from the British government starting to arrive in the region on three RAF flights in a joint operation with Scandinavian countries.Tory leader Michael Howard also backed the proposals but said ministers had been "playing catch-up" with public donations.The important thing was action and not words, he said, adding that of the £50m given by the government so far only "six or seven million" had been spent.UK charities have also begun chartering planes to deliver aid.The prime minister was speaking publicly for the first time since returning from his holiday in Egypt.

Summarize the following article: Hospital suspends 'no Welsh' plan An English hospital has suspended plans to stop treating Welsh patients who have waited more than three months. Hereford County Hospital had earlier said that from the new year patients waiting longer than this would be taken off waiting lists for hip and knee operations. GPs in Wales had feared patients could be pushed to the back of another queue. But after talks with Powys Health Board the hospital called off its plan until health chiefs meet early in January. Hereford Hospital Trust caused an outcry when it sent out a letter telling patients that for financial and administrative reasons it planned to turn down some orthopaedic patients. Shocked health officials in Powys said this meant they would be left with the prospect of patients and doctors having to find new appointments in other hospitals. Andy Williams, chief executive of Powys Local Health Board, had said it was "a totally unacceptable way to behave". Mr Williams had said he did not think it was a Welsh-English issue, but said Hereford hospital was "struggling financially and trying to pass the problem back to Powys". He had told BBC Radio Wales: "I have written straight back to the trust... to insist they withdraw this threat and treat the patients I am paying them to treat." But after the hospital had agreed to the suspension, Mr Williams said he was optimistic a compromise could be reached which would ensure Welsh patients continued to be treated there. He said the problem had been caused by the difference in waiting time targets between England and Wales. The target is 12 months for Welsh patients, but just three months in England. The contract with the Powys health board was worth £7m a year for the hospital and accounts for 12% of its patients. In a statement before the suspension of the idea, the Welsh Assembly Government said the situation was "unacceptable". "But Powys Local Health Board is committed to ensuring our patients receive the care that is appropriate," said the assembly government. "Although we will be challenging Hereford's decision we will put in place appropriate care for our patients. They will be contacted by their GPs in the next week." Earlier, David Rose, Chief Executive of Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust, had said: "It is with real regret that we have taken this step. "We want to continue providing an excellent and fast service to Powys people but can only do this if we are paid to provide the service. "In 2005 our waiting time will fall to a maximum of 6-months and we want Powys people to ask to be referred to our modern hospital. "We appeal to Powys Local Health Board to allow Powys people to choose Hereford for their treatment."

"But Powys Local Health Board is committed to ensuring our patients receive the care that is appropriate," said the assembly government.The contract with the Powys health board was worth £7m a year for the hospital and accounts for 12% of its patients.Mr Williams had said he did not think it was a Welsh-English issue, but said Hereford hospital was "struggling financially and trying to pass the problem back to Powys".Andy Williams, chief executive of Powys Local Health Board, had said it was "a totally unacceptable way to behave".But after the hospital had agreed to the suspension, Mr Williams said he was optimistic a compromise could be reached which would ensure Welsh patients continued to be treated there."We appeal to Powys Local Health Board to allow Powys people to choose Hereford for their treatment."Shocked health officials in Powys said this meant they would be left with the prospect of patients and doctors having to find new appointments in other hospitals.But after talks with Powys Health Board the hospital called off its plan until health chiefs meet early in January.Hereford County Hospital had earlier said that from the new year patients waiting longer than this would be taken off waiting lists for hip and knee operations.

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

But speaking after the report was published, Home Office minister Baroness Scotland said: "Murder is the most serious of crimes and we have no intention of abolishing the mandatory life sentence.The home secretary confirmed the review was to get under way in the wake of a Law Commission report which branded the current murder law as "a mess".In its report, the Law Commission said it had found wide support among criminal justice professionals for an end to the mandatory life sentence for murder.But the Home Office said mandatory life sentences would not be abolished and argued courts already had flexibility.He said the review would look at partial defences to murder, including provocation and at mandatory sentences.David Blunkett has apologised to MPs after the Home Office announced "prematurely" via press release a review of murder laws.The Home Office has already said the review will begin next year.On Wednesday, a Home Office spokeswoman said the terms of reference for the review had not been established but it was likely to include only England and Wales.Results of a consultation exercise showed 64 respondents out of 146 - among them 21 judges - believed a mandatory life sentence for every murder was "indefensible and should cease".

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Peace demo appeal rejected Peace protestors have lost a landmark appeal over police actions in stopping an anti-war demonstration days after the start of the Iraq war. They had appealed against a High Court decision that it was not unlawful for police to forcibly turn protestors away near RAF Fairford, Glos, in 2003. The police had also sought to overturn a breach of human rights ruling arising from the same case. Sitting on Wednesday, three Appeal Court judges dismissed both appeals. They were challenging decisions by two judges in the High Court in February this year. It followed action by police, when three coachloads of people were searched and detained on the way to RAF Fairford and forced to return to London under police escort. The demonstrators appealed against a finding by Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison that it was not unlawful for the police to turn the passengers away. The police were urging Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justices Clarke and Rix to overturn the ruling that they had breached the protestors' human rights by detaining them in the coaches. Craig Mackey, assistant chief constable of Gloucestershire Police, said: "We have always considered that our responses were proportionate and all our decisions on the day were based on intelligence." He said no one on the coaches accepted responsibility for items found on the coaches including body armour, a smoke bomb and five shields. "Given these circumstances, and the fact that RAF Fairford, and other military installations in the UK, had been the scene of increasingly destructive disorder in the weeks preceding this incident, the police commander on the ground made the decision to turn back the coaches. "From day one we have vigorously defended this decision, which was made out of a genuine concern that if the coaches were allowed to proceed it would have resulted in disorder and criminal damage at RAF Fairford." Fairford Coach Action, representing more than 80 people who appealed against the police actions, say they are prepared to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Their action is supported by Amnesty International and Liberty.

They had appealed against a High Court decision that it was not unlawful for police to forcibly turn protestors away near RAF Fairford, Glos, in 2003.Fairford Coach Action, representing more than 80 people who appealed against the police actions, say they are prepared to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.It followed action by police, when three coachloads of people were searched and detained on the way to RAF Fairford and forced to return to London under police escort.The police were urging Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justices Clarke and Rix to overturn the ruling that they had breached the protestors' human rights by detaining them in the coaches."Given these circumstances, and the fact that RAF Fairford, and other military installations in the UK, had been the scene of increasingly destructive disorder in the weeks preceding this incident, the police commander on the ground made the decision to turn back the coaches.Peace protestors have lost a landmark appeal over police actions in stopping an anti-war demonstration days after the start of the Iraq war.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Gurkhas to help tsunami victims Britain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said. The deployment would involve troops from the 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles, based in Brunei. Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province. Downing St said a similar offer might be made to the Sri Lankan government. However a spokesman pointed out that there were particular logistical difficulties in Indonesia which the Gurkhas might be able to help with. The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters. "This is in addition to the ships and aircraft we have already committed to the relief operation in the Indian Ocean." Indonesia was by far the country worst affected by the tsunami, with 94,000 of the 140,000 confirmed deaths so far. International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh. "We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said. "We've also had RAF aircraft flying in equipment which the UN desperately need in order to set up a truly effective relief operation on the ground in Aceh province as well." The offer comes as the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrives in Indonesia for a special summit meeting on the disaster.

Britain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province.The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters."We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said.International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: New foot and mouth action urged A senior Tory MP has criticised agriculture department Defra's "lackadaisical" approach to planning for a future foot and mouth outbreak. Public accounts committee chairman Edward Leigh was giving his reaction to a report by a government watchdog on lessons to be learnt from the crisis. The National Audit Office said Defra had improved its capacity to deal with future livestock disease outbreaks. But Mr Leigh said the department was "dragging its heels". That comment referred to the setting up of a scheme to share any future compensation costs with industry. He also said Defra had been "dreadfully slow" in paying some of its bills dating from the foot and mouth crisis. The outbreak, which began in 2001, led to the slaughter of 6.5 million animals, devastated many farms and rural businesses, and is estimated to have cost the UK up to £8bn. "Four years after the outbreak, Defra is yet to begin its planned review of some of its contractors' costs, and £40m of invoices remain unpaid," Mr Leigh said. Mr Leigh also pointed out that the introduction of an IT system to help control future outbreaks had been delayed. In November it emerged European Commission compensation amounted to just over a third of the money the UK government had hoped to get as reimbursement for the billions lost through the foot and mouth crisis. Ministers had hoped to get £900m from the European Union Vet Fund to help with animal slaughter and other costs but in the end was granted £349m. That was because the UK had valued the culled animals at between "two and three times" the commission's assessment of their likely market value. National Audit Office chief Sir John Bourn said a new compensation scheme was now being looked at. On the issue of the unpaid invoices, Sir John said Defra had paid 97% of the £1.3bn submitted by contractors since 2001, "but has not agreed a final settlement with 57 contractors pending the results of its investigations". Mr Leigh said being "better prepared" would also help avoid the need for "mass funeral pyres which provided an unsettling images of the 2001 outbreak". A Defra spokesman said: "We welcome the report. It acknowledges the progress the department has made since 2001 - particularly on contingency planning and our improved capacity and preparedness for combating another major disease outbreak. "However, the department is aware that there are some areas requiring further work and we are working to resolve them as soon as is practicable."

But Mr Leigh said the department was "dragging its heels"."Four years after the outbreak, Defra is yet to begin its planned review of some of its contractors' costs, and £40m of invoices remain unpaid," Mr Leigh said.The National Audit Office said Defra had improved its capacity to deal with future livestock disease outbreaks.Mr Leigh said being "better prepared" would also help avoid the need for "mass funeral pyres which provided an unsettling images of the 2001 outbreak".He also said Defra had been "dreadfully slow" in paying some of its bills dating from the foot and mouth crisis.Mr Leigh also pointed out that the introduction of an IT system to help control future outbreaks had been delayed.National Audit Office chief Sir John Bourn said a new compensation scheme was now being looked at.A Defra spokesman said: "We welcome the report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Cherie accused of attacking Bush Cherie Blair has been accused of criticising George W Bush's policies in a private address she gave during a United States lecture tour. The prime minister's wife is said to have praised the Supreme Court for overruling the White House on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Tories said she broke a convention that British political figures do not act in a partisan way when abroad. But Downing Street said she was speaking in her capacity as a lawyer. It said she was not expressing political opinions. Mrs Blair's remarks are said to have been made in a speech to law students in Massachusetts. She said the decision by the US Supreme Court to give legal protection to two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay was a significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law. She also described the US legal code as an outdated grandfather clock and welcomed a decision to throw out a law backed by Mr Bush relating to sodomy in Texas. BBC news correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said Mrs Blair was likely to face further calls for restraint, since the US election is imminent. "There have been some objections from people reasonably close to the Bush administration about her making these comments in their backyard just two days before a presidential election," he said. "Conservatives here too have made their feelings clear. "Cherie Booth has always regarded herself as having an independent career. She has continued to practise as a major human rights lawyer in the courts. "It's not unusual for her to make these sorts of criticisms clear but it can be embarrassing."

She said the decision by the US Supreme Court to give legal protection to two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay was a significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law.It said she was not expressing political opinions.But Downing Street said she was speaking in her capacity as a lawyer.Mrs Blair's remarks are said to have been made in a speech to law students in Massachusetts.BBC news correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said Mrs Blair was likely to face further calls for restraint, since the US election is imminent.The prime minister's wife is said to have praised the Supreme Court for overruling the White House on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Tories outlining policing plans Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives. Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities. He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable. The Lib Dems said the plan could let extreme groups run policing, while Labour criticised "extravagant" Tory promises on policing. Responding to the plans, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, said it was essential operational independence was retained. Jan Berry said: "It is a service, not a political football to be kicked around every time an election approaches. "These plans could result in those with extreme political views dictating what actually happens on the ground," she warned. Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates. "The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The trouble is, and it's no reflection on the people who are on the police authority - they are good people - but hardly anyone knows who they are." Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible. Critics fear the move could hand control of the police to single-issue campaigners who would ignore the needs of the wider community. Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician. "That is overturning nearly 200 years of the way in which we have organised policing in this country to avoid the politicisation of policing decisions," he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the plan was dangerous and "could create conflict between chief constables and elected officials". Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables. A Labour Party spokesman criticised Michael Howard's record, saying police numbers had fallen by 1,132 when he was home secretary. He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system." The Tories insists the commissioner role would not be like that of an American sheriff. Other Tory law and order plans include building more prisons and making criminals serve full jail sentences.

Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates.Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities.Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables.Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system."Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician.He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable.

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

Ministers have insisted they are committed to free personal care for the elderly despite research suggesting the cost of the policy was under-estimated.But the Scottish National Party called on ministers to reassure people that enough funding is in place to support the free personal care policy."We will look in great detail at any contribution to this, because we need to be sure we can provide free personal care and nursing care for our older people into the future.A report by the Fraser of Allander Institute says the decision to push ahead with the flagship policy was based on flawed research.Ms Sturgeon said that while she had no reason to doubt the executive's support for the policy, there were questions which needed to be answered and, if necessary, sums redone.The rise in costs stems from a series of mistakes in the research used by the "care development group" of Scottish Executive experts who prepared the original costings, according to findings published in the Quarterly Economic Commentary of Strathclyde University's Fraser of Allander Institute.

Summarize the following article: Tory expert denies defeat warning The Conservatives' campaign director has denied a report claiming he warned Michael Howard the party could not win the next general election. The Times on Monday said Australian Lynton Crosby told the party leader to focus on trying to increase the Tories' Commons presence by 25 to 30 seats. But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view." Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report. The strategist helped Australia's PM, John Howard, win four elections. Mr Howard appointed Mr Crosby as his elections chief last October. Mr Crosby's statement said: "The Conservative Party has been making an impact on the issues of lower tax and controlled immigration over the past week." It added: "The Labour Party will be wanting to do all they can to distract attention away from the issues that really matter to people."

Mr Howard appointed Mr Crosby as his elections chief last October.Mr Crosby's statement said: "The Conservative Party has been making an impact on the issues of lower tax and controlled immigration over the past week."Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report.But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view."

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

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

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

Efforts are being made to 'protect' workers' days off on Christmas Day and New Year's Day.Usdaw general secretary John Hannett added: "Christmas Day and New Year's Day are special days for everyone in Scotland and the fact that shops do not open is an important part of making them special.In recent years, more stores have been opening on traditional holidays, with some starting their end-of-year sale on Christmas Day or New Year's Day."We want people to tell Karen, through her consultation, whether they want the special nature of these days to remain, or whether they want them to become like any other trading day, with shops open for business as usual."The consultation on a Christmas & New Year's Day Trading Bill has so far attracted almost 500 responses and closes on 7 February.

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: Kilroy launches 'Veritas' party Ex-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk has said he wants to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party. Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party,said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration. He told a London news conference that Veritas - Latin for "truth" - would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he was glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election. He said Veritas would also announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks. And he announced the party would be holding a leadership election. On Thursday he is due to announce which constituency he will run in at the next general election - that will come amid speculation he has his sights set on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's Ashfield seat. He was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney who is now Veritas' deputy leader. UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left. Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his decision to quit UKIP at a public meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire last week. It came after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party. He said he was ashamed to be a member of a UKIP whose leadership had "gone AWOL" after the great opportunity offered by its third place at last June's European elections. "While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said. "I will be standing at the next general election. I shall be leading a vigorous campaign for the causes I believe in. "And, unlike the old parties, we shall be honest, open and straight." Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party. A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly. The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down. Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said. UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead. This is just what the Europhiles pray for. As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe. Having multiple parties with the same view point just splits the vote further. Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election! It is very sad to see the cause of Britain regaining its proper relationship with Europe damaged by this split within UKIP. Robert Kilroy-Silk could have a lot to offer. Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause. Under the present electoral system, people must work together, and small parties have no hope of representation. Last summer, UKIP achieved a major advance, partly and only partly due to Kilroy-Silk. It is a great shame this has been dissipated in in-fighting. UKIP has a wide platform of policies, not just withdrawal from the EU. This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party. Neither the English Democrats nor the New Party were interested in letting him join them and take over their leadership speaks volumes. Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk. If he believes in truth and democracy then he and the two assembly members should resign and force a by-elections to stand on their own platform rather than this backdoor approach to politics of being elected for one party then defecting to another. So UKIP was good enough for him to lead, not good enough for him to follow! Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name! Every opinion poll points to an overwhelming anti-Europe feeling in this country. Kilroy-Silk could be on the verge of something huge if he can broaden his appeal beyond this one issue. He is an extremely able communicator with years of political experience. We wants quality schools, top hospitals, clean and efficient public transport, punishments that fit the crime, limited asylum, a purge on bureaucracy and less taxes. It needs courage and honesty, two qualities sadly lacking in our politicians. Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities. Recruit the right colleagues, Robert, and your time may have come! Well if you cannot get enough limelight being an ordinary MP then go out and start up your own Party. It's all flash and no real policy here Let's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity. Veritas? The name will doom it. But perhaps I am wrong for surely all modern schoolchildren will understand it since they do still learn Latin in the classroom do they not? The whole essence of what RKS represents is Euroscepticism, so explain to me how the too-twee label of Veritas symbolises that?

UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party."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.Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he was glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!Ex-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk has said he wants to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party."While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said.Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his decision to quit UKIP at a public meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire last week.This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party.Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.And he announced the party would be holding a leadership election.Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election.Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause.The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down.UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe.It's all flash and no real policy here Let's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party,said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration.A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly.Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Increase in the stamp duty threshold from £60,000 - A freeze on petrol duty - An extension of tax credit scheme for poorer families - Possible help for pensioners The stamp duty threshold rise is intended to help first time buyers - a likely theme of all three of the main parties' general election manifestos.The chancellor is expected to freeze petrol duty and raise the stamp duty threshold from £60,000.The Tories are also thought likely to propose increased thresholds, with shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax".Tax credits As a result, the number of properties incurring stamp duty has rocketed as has the government's tax take.Since then, average UK property prices have more than doubled while the starting threshold for stamp duty has not increased.For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said.The Liberal Democrats unveiled their own proposals to raise the stamp duty threshold to £150,000 in February."If Labour is elected there will be a very substantial tax increase in the Budget after the election, of the order of around £10bn."

Summarize the following article: Commons hunt protest charges Eight protesters who stormed the House of Commons chamber during a debate on the Hunting Bill have been charged with disorderly conduct. The men were arrested in September after bursting into the chamber causing a hunting ban debate to be halted. Those charged included Otis Ferry, the 22-year-old son of rock star Bryan Ferry and Luke Tomlinson, 27, a close friend of princes William and Harry. They were charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, police said. Five of the eight men held an impromptu news conference outside Charing Cross Police Station on Monday evening, after the charges were formerly put to them. The men's solicitor Matthew Knight, said that at no time had it occurred to the men that they were committing a criminal offence. "There is no offence of trespassing in the House of Commons - it is not a criminal offence," he said. "If Parliament wanted to make entering the House of Commons chamber on foot a criminal offence it should have done so, but it can't do so retrospectively. "We are not prosecuted for that. We are prosecuted for a Public Order Act offence. We are not guilty of it." They will appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 21 December, a police spokesman said. Otis Ferry, a former Eton pupil and joint leader of the South Shropshire Hunt, said: "I have no regrets. "We have done nothing wrong beyond the obvious which was to stand up for our rights and not act like a sheep like the rest of the country." One of the men, David Redvers, 34, from Hartpury, Gloucestershire, said he and the other seven protesters would plead not guilty to the charges. The other protesters are John Holliday, 37, a huntsman from Ledbury, Herefordshire, Robert Thame, 34, who plays polo with Princes Charles in Team Highgrove, auctioneer Andrew Elliot, 42, from Bromesberrow, near Ledbury, point-to-point jockey Richard Wakeham, 34, from York, and former royal chef Nick Wood, 41. The 15 September protest came on the same day as a huge pro-hunting demonstration in Parliament Square. Four of the men ran out from behind the speaker's chair while another wrestled past a doorkeeper from a different entrance. The five tried to confront MPs before they were bundled out of the chamber and later led away handcuffed by police. Three others had been intercepted by security staff as they tried to join the five in the chamber. Speaker Michael Martin later said the men had used a forged letter to gain access to the House of Commons and had been helped to get close to the chamber by a parliamentary pass holder. In November, the use of the Parliament Act meant a total ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. However, many pro-hunt activists remained defiant after the law was passed, saying they would ignore the ban and continue to hunt. Last week, the Countryside Alliance said more than 250 hunts would meet legally the day after the ban on hunting with dogs comes into force. The alliance said the 19 February meets would show the new law was "impossibly difficult to determine" and open to different interpretations.

They were charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, police said."There is no offence of trespassing in the House of Commons - it is not a criminal offence," he said.One of the men, David Redvers, 34, from Hartpury, Gloucestershire, said he and the other seven protesters would plead not guilty to the charges.We are prosecuted for a Public Order Act offence.Last week, the Countryside Alliance said more than 250 hunts would meet legally the day after the ban on hunting with dogs comes into force.Speaker Michael Martin later said the men had used a forged letter to gain access to the House of Commons and had been helped to get close to the chamber by a parliamentary pass holder.The men's solicitor Matthew Knight, said that at no time had it occurred to the men that they were committing a criminal offence."If Parliament wanted to make entering the House of Commons chamber on foot a criminal offence it should have done so, but it can't do so retrospectively.Eight protesters who stormed the House of Commons chamber during a debate on the Hunting Bill have been charged with disorderly conduct.The men were arrested in September after bursting into the chamber causing a hunting ban debate to be halted.

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

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

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

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