£2.4m police bill for site eviction

The police operation to clear the UK's largest illegal travellers' site cost almost £2.4 million.

Essex Police confirmed the figure for the policing side of the clearance of Dale Farm, near Basildon, in October.

It had originally been estimated that policing could cost up to £10 million but the final bill is less than a quarter of that.

The clearance operation at
Dale Farm cost Essex Police
more than two million pounds

A report will be presented to Essex Police Authority's finance committee next week and a full breakdown of costs is expected later this month.

Basildon Council has not yet confirmed its costs for the operation, which includes paying a team of bailiffs.

It had set aside £8 million for the eviction - bringing the total forecast cost to £18 million.

Reports locally last week suggested the final cost would be £4.2 million. The council refused to confirm this but said it expected to be "under budget".

There were violent clashes as Essex Police led the operation to clear protesters from the six-acre site before council-employed bailiffs completed the clearance. The operation followed a decade-long row over unauthorised plots.

The Home Office had pledged to pay up to £4.65 million, or half of the policing cost. The Department for Communities and Local Government also contributed £1.2 million towards the eviction.

The remainder will come from policing and council budgets

Immigrants 'wrongly paid benefits'

Benefits are wrongly being paid to more than 5,000 immigrants with no right to claim state help, research carried out by the Government suggests.

They are among some 371,000 arrivals to this country on welfare identified by an exercise to match benefit, border control and tax records for the first time.

Records are not kept of the nationality of benefit claimants in what ministers described as a "scandalous omission" by the previous Labour administration.

The Government plans to begin doing so when Universal Credit is introduced from 2013.

The data-matching project found 371,000 working-age benefit claimants were non-UK nationals when they first applied for a National Insurance number, 258,000 of them from outside the European Economic Area.

So far, detailed work has been done only on a sample of 9,000 of the latter group - three quarters of whose records were able to be matched. It found 54% were now British citizens and most others had an immigration status that allowed welfare claims.

Chris Grayling said he was shocked to find the current system
does not record the nationality of benefit claimants

But two in every 100 appeared to have "no lawful immigration status", the work by the Department for Work and Pensions, UK Border Agency and HM Revenue and Customs found. Around 125 cases are now under investigation.

Employment minister Chris Grayling said: "We will root out those claimants who can not prove their immigration status and in turn they will be stripped of their benefits. I was shocked to discover that the current system does not record the nationality of benefit claimants and we are urgently taking steps to make sure we know exactly how many non-UK nationals are claiming UK benefits."

Immigration minister Damian Green said: "These findings uncover a worrying issue we have inherited, which is why we've ordered urgent work to pursue claimants suspected of abuse and to withdraw their benefits if they cannot prove they are entitled to claim."

Those found to be abusing the system will also have their details sent to other agencies including local councils to ensure other benefits were also stopped, the Treasury said.

©Press Association 2012

Celebrities settle hacking claims

Dozens of celebrities and politicians, including Jude Law and Lord Prescott, have now settled damages claims over the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, the High Court has heard.

Shaun Russell, whose wife and daughter were killed in Kent in 1996, and Sara Payne, the mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah, are also among 36 claimants who have reached settlements.

Details of some of the deals have been given in court.

Actress and designer Sadie Frost has received £50,000 in damages. Labour MP Chris Bryant received £30,000. Footballer Ashley Cole has also received damages but the figure was not disclosed.

The deals mean that 36 damages claims being brought against News International subsidiary News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the now-defunct News of the World, have been settled.

But Mark Thomson, of law firm Atkins Thomson, who represents some of the claimants, said others would press ahead with a trial scheduled for next month.

Actor Jude Law is among those who have settled


damages claims over the phone hacking scandal

Others whose settlements were confirmed include former cavalry officer James Hewitt, who had an affair with Diana, Princess of Wales, former MP George Galloway, Welsh rugby star Gavin Henson, singer Dannii Minogue, Calum Best, the son of George Best, and Meg Matthews, the ex-wife of former Oasis guitarist Noel Gallagher.

Mr Thomson said: "All of the claimants have been extremely brave to take on and succeed against a massive and influential multinational media organisation.

"They can take the credit for triggering the new police investigation, the parliamentary inquiries and the Leveson Inquiry. They should be very pleased with what they have achieved.

"A number of claimants are still pursuing the matter to trial and, as a result, NGN will continue to disclose further information and evidence."

Chris Bryant (MP) – £30,000 plus costs

Ashley Cole (footballer) – unknown

Sadie Frost (designer) – £50,000 plus costs

Lisa Gower (former partner of Steve Coogan) – £30,000 plus costs

HJK (anonymous member of the public) – £60,000 plus costs

Joan Hammell (former aide to John Prescott) – £40,000 plus costs

Gavin Henson (rugby player) – £40,000 plus costs

Ben Jackson (assistant to Jude Law) – £40,000 plus costs

Jude Law (actor) – £130,000 plus costs.

Denis MacShane (MP) – £32,500 plus costs

Ciara Parkes (PR to Jude Law) – £35,000 plus costs

Guy Pelly (friend of Prince Harry's) – £40,000 plus costs

John Prescott (former deputy prime minister) – £40,000 plus costs

Tom Rowland (journalist) – £25,000 plus costs

Graham Shear (footballers' lawyer) – £25,000 plus costs

Christopher Shipman (son of Harold Shipman) – "substantial damages" plus costs

Joan Smith (former partner of Denis Mac Shane) – £27,500 plus costs

Claire Ward (former MP) "substantial" plus costs.

Total declared damages: £645,000.


©Press Association 2012

E-petitions website 'misleading

The Government's e-petitions site is "misleading" people about their chances of influencing policy, MPs have said.

The website creates "unrealistically high" expectations for the impact of submissions and should be changed, according to the Commons Procedure Committee.

The e-petitions system was set up by the coalition last summer to make it easier for the public to make representations. When more than 100,000 signatures have been gathered, the House's Backbench Business Committee is notified and has the power to timetable a parliamentary debate.

So far discussions have been triggered on issues such as stripping benefits from rioters, disclosing official documents about the Hillsborough disaster and scrapping fuel duty rises.

In a report, the Procedure Committee said it welcomed the scheme's potential for engaging the public. It called for more parliamentary time to be allocated for debates on e-petitions, suggesting additional sessions could take place between 4.30pm and 7.30pm on Mondays in Westminster Hall.

However, the MPs also criticised the website for stating that e-petitions were "an easy way for you to influence government policy". They agreed with the chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Natascha Engel, that the wording was "deeply misleading".

"It is wrong for the Government to raise petitioners' expectations of the e-petitions process to unrealistically high levels," the report said. "E-petitions may be an easy way to raise awareness of an issue, to receive a response from the Government to a particular concern, or even to have a matter debated in Parliament. They are not, and should not be claimed to be, an easy way to change Government policy or legislation."

A report has called for more parliamentary time to be allocated for debates on e-petitions

The committee proposed changing the site's wording to "an easy way for you to make sure your concerns are heard by Government and Parliament". They also voiced concerns about the statement that e-petitions collecting more than 100,000 signatures would be "eligible for debate in the House of Commons". Instead the line should say that when the threshold is reached "the Government will ask the Backbench Business Committee of the House of Commons to consider scheduling a debate on it in the House".

Responding to the report, Leader of the Commons Sir George Young said the system had been a "great success", adding: "More than three million people have signed e-petitions since the system was set up, and it has enabled the strong views of hundreds of thousands of them to be debated by MPs in the House of Commons. It is clear that several of these debates have had a real influence over Government policy.

"We welcome the report of the Procedure Committee as a valuable contribution towards improving the public's engagement with the work of the Commons. We will consider the detailed recommendations of the committee's report in that context, and issue a response in the usual way in due course."

Lansley defends health Bill plans

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has defended the Government's controversial health Bill after the main medical unions became the latest bodies to declare all-out opposition to the reforms.

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) have called for the Bill to be scrapped. It follows a move by the British Medical Association (BMA) in December to also fully oppose the Health and Social Care Bill, currently going through Parliament.

The RCN, the biggest nursing union, said "serious concerns" have not been addressed during the parliamentary process, listening exercise or political engagement and the Bill will not deliver on the principles originally set out.

Recent announcements such as the rise in the cap on private patients being treated in NHS hospitals to almost half (49%) "make the Bill in its entirety a serious threat to the NHS", it said.

But Mr Lansley backed the reforms, saying the opposition to the Bill was more about issues of pay and pensions. He said the legislation was "essential in order to give nurses and doctors clinical leadership".

The leading medical unions have declared their
opposition to the proposed NHS reforms

"I'm afraid the only thing that has happened in the last few weeks that has led to this situation with the Royal College of Nursing is that the two sides of the Royal College of Nursing have shifted," Mr Lansley said.

"There used to be a professional association that was working with us on professional issues and will carry on doing that, but now the trade union aspect of the Royal College of Nursing has come to the fore, they want to have a go at the Government - I completely understand it - but they want to have a go about things like pay and pensions.

"The Bill actually enables the NHS to deliver efficiency savings and improve performance - not least because actually the Bill is part of the process of cutting administration in the NHS. It takes about £1.5 billion a year out of NHS administration costs because it reduces that superstructure of bureaucracy in the NHS - over the course of this Parliament it will deliver over £4 billion savings itself.

"Through the NHS Future Forum we have been out there, making sure, and doing it ourselves time and again, that we're taking staff with us in terms of understanding these issues. And the RCN and the RCM are very clear that they support the principles of the Bill. What they are actually unhappy about is pay, pensions and jobs. I complete understand that.

"But if there were no Bill the same issues would have to be addressed. We inherited a deficit, we are having to manage the NHS within limited increases, but actually next year the NHS budget is going to go up by 2.8%."

©Press Association

Met awaits 'kettling' appeal ruling

The Metropolitan Police will learn whether they have won their appeal against a High Court ruling over "kettling" tactics used during the G20 demonstrations in 2009.

The ruling, after officers were said to have used "unjustified force", led to a call from human rights lawyers for an "immediate change to police attitudes and tactics".

The decision did not outlaw kettling, when demonstrators are contained or corralled inside police cordons and prevented from leaving, but the police expressed concern when the High Court handed down judgment in April last year. They said that its adverse findings could have an impact on their ability "to prevent disorder within protests".

Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Sullivan, will decide whether the High Court was right on the law.

The ruling was won by Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid, who challenged the legality of "violent" restraint methods used against them when they were contained by officers at the Camp for Climate Action in Bishopsgate in the City of London on April 1, 2009.

It was the same day newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson died after being struck by a police officer at a separate G20 protest at the nearby Royal Exchange.

The police said the extended kettling was necessary to keep violent demonstrators at the Royal Exchange from "hijacking" the more peaceful climate camp, attended by up to 5,000 people.

Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger will rule on 'kettling' tactics

The High Court ruled that there had been no evidence of an imminent breach of the peace to justify the kettle, when a tight police cordon was thrown round the climate camp demonstrators from just after 7pm for more than four hours.

The judges criticised "unduly inflexible" arrangements for releasing people. Mr Moos said he became dehydrated after being refused permission to leave. The judges specifically condemned the police over the way officers armed with batons and riot shields pushed a 15-deep crowd of demonstrators back 20 to 30 metres. Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Sweeney agreed that "unjustified force" had been used.

When the Metropolitan Police Service announced an appeal they made it clear the judgment did not outlaw kettling, and containment tactics would continue to be used "to prevent serious disorder and violence".

©Press Association

Powell comes clean over spy rock

A former UK government official has admitted Britain was behind a plot to spy on Russians with a device hidden in a fake rock, it has emerged.

Russia made the allegations in January 2006, but they were not publicly accepted by the UK before now.

Jonathan Powell, then prime minister Tony Blair's chief of staff, told a BBC documentary: "The spy rock was embarrassing.

Jonathan Powell has admitted Britain was
behind a fake rock plot to spy on Russians

"They had us bang to rights. Clearly they had known about it for some time and had been saving it up for a political purpose."

Six years ago, Russian state television broadcast a film claiming British agents had hidden a sophisticated transmitter inside a fake rock which was left on a Moscow street.

Embassy officials then allegedly downloaded classified data from the transmitter using palm-top computers.

The Russian security service, the FSB, linked the rock with claims that British security services were making covert payments to pro-democracy and human rights groups.

Then president Vladimir Putin later introduced a law restricting non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from getting funding from foreign governments, causing many to close down.

After the broadcast Mr Blair refused to comment on the crisis, and the Foreign Office denied any improper relations with Russian NGOs.

The documentary series, Putin, Russia and the West, will be screened on BBC Two.

PoliticsUK Interview with Kate Green MP

Kate Green OBE, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston

Kate Green OBE has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Stretford and Urmston since 2010. Born in Edinburgh, she attended Currie High School then graduated from Edinburgh University with a Bachelor of Laws degree.
After University Green began a career at Barclays Bank, working for them until to 1997. From 1997 to 1999 she worked as a Whitehall and Industry Group secondee to the Home Office.

Kate Green was employed as Director of the National Council for One Parent Families between 2000 and 2004, then working as Chief Executive of the Child Poverty Action Group until 2009. Alongside this, Green also served as a member of the London Child Poverty Commission, eventually serving as the commissioner chairing the body. Green also served as a magistrate in the City of London between 1993 and 2009.Politics UK asked its users to submit questions to be put to Kate Green, here are her answers






What age did you become interested in politics and what perked your interest in getting involved in politics?

Mrs Thatcher economic policies
were the catalyst for Kate Green's
entry into politics

I first became involved in politics as a young woman, starting out my working life at the beginning of the 1980’s .
I was horrified at the impact of Mrs Thatcher’s economic policies on jobs, communities and families. My generation were worried we’d never get jobs , whole industries were being destroyed, and young people were sleeping on the streets.
I was shocked, angry and frightened for the future – and that’s what drove me into politics.




Why did you join the Labour Party?
Labour’s the party that’s always campaigned for equality, social justice, and an end to poverty. Those are the values I want to fight for and I believe you can do that most effectively in a political party.


Why did you forego a successful career in the financial sector for a career in politics that has no long term job security?


I don’t know what makes you think I had “a successful career in the financial sector”! I did work for a high street bank for a number of years after university, but I wasn’t very good at it, I didn’t enjoy it much, and by the time I entered parliament I’d spent well over a decade doing jobs in the civil service and in campaigning charities. I did love those jobs, but in the end I felt if I really wanted to make a difference , the most important place to be was in parliament.

Kate was a director of Gingerbread(formerly the National Council of
One Parent Families) between 2000 and 2004.

You were a director on the National Council of One Parent Families. Could you tell us more about your role you played and what achievement the National Council of One Parent Families achieved during your employment?


I was director of One Parent Families (now merged with and known as Gingerbread) from 2000-2004, a very exciting time to do that job, as the Labour government were engaged in a whole range of polices to improve the position of lone parents, from the new deal for lone parents that helped them into employment, to reforming child support , to introducing a national childcare strategy. It was great to be able to have influence on the development of those policies – and to force the Tory party to recognise that most lone parents never set out to be on their own, they want to work and do their best for their kids, and to declare their party’s “war on lone parents was over”.


Your were Chief Executive of the Child Poverty Action Group from 2004-2009, Can you tell us more about the Child Poverty Action Group and your role when you were employed with them.

CPAG - "one of the most important
campaigning and lobbying
organisations in the UK"

CPAG has been described as one of the most important campaigning and lobbying organisations in the UK – and I was privileged to work with some of the most knowledgeable thinkers and experts on poverty, social security and social policy as its chief executive. I’m particularly proud of the manifesto we produced on the policies needed to create a society free of child poverty, and our work on the importance of universal child benefit. CPAG was a founder member and at the heart of the End Child Poverty campaign, a coalition of over 100 organisations holding the government to its promise to halve then eradicate child poverty and working on the policies that could help achieve this.


Can you give us your opinion on unpaid internships?


Unpaid internships privilege the better-off and the well-connected. That’s why I’m opposed to them.


EMA- Do you support the restoration on EMA and why?


The EMA made an enormous difference to young people from poorer backgrounds in my constituency and across the country, and it’s a tragedy that the Tory-led government has abolished it. Young people now tell me they can’t contemplate staying on at college, and its removal had a really harmful effect on their ambitions and aspirations. It helped pay for books and materials, travel to school and getting your lunch - as one young woman in my constituency said to me , “it’s not a luxury, it’s a necessity”

"The Governments policies are deterring young
people from modest backgrounds from applying to university"

What is you view on University tuitions fees?


As with EMA, the government’s policies are deterring young people from modest backgrounds from applying to university. They’re worried about how on earth they can take on a debt of £9000 a year. That’s why Labour has committed to reducing the fees to £6000, and why I support calls for a review of student funding and whether a graduate tax would be a fairer form of repayment.


Why is there so few youths involved and engaged in politics?


You shouldn’t ask me –ask young people – I suspect it’s because politics don’t feel relevant to them or they don’t like the style of political behaviour. But it’s very important that we find a way to engage young people in politics, to learn their views and priorities, and respond to their concerns – we can’t build a fairer, more prosperous country if we’re not meeting the needs and addressing the concerns of the next generation.


Should the voting age be reduced to 16 and would this help in getting youths engaged with politics?


I support a reduction in the voting age to 16, alongside better political and citizenship education. Young people are making a big contribution to society, and we expect a lot of them, so they’re entitled to have their say in the political process and decisions that affect them . And we know that mid-teens is a good age to interest young people in politics and establish a habit of voting and political participation.


Do you believe that there is a literacy problem in the UK and if so, how can we combat it?

Literacy improved under Labour
with the help of projects such a Every Child a Reader

Reading and writing standards improved significantly under Labour, thanks to our programmes like Every Child a Reader and literacy hours, but there’s a need to do more to ensure no child leaves school unable to read and write to a level that enables them fully to function in society. Intensive one to one support is important, as is helping parents to read with their children, and ensuring all families have access to books.


How can we help youths reach their potential?


The education system’s key, as is ensuring that parents have the support they need to provide for and support their children.


Who is your inspiration, both inside and outside of politics?


I’m inspired by the people in my constituency who form a strong, supportive, diverse and welcoming community.


Do you support a North-East Assembly?


Well, I’m an MP in the North West not the North East, so I don’t think my opinion’s very relevant!


You were selected to stand using an all-women shortlist. How would you answer the criticism that all-women shortlist are not good for democracy?


AWS were in my view essential to significantly increasing the level of women’s representation in parliament, not just in the Labour party, but setting the bar for the other parties. That’s hugely important : we must have a diverse parliament, representative of the country as a whole. It strengthens democracy and ensures our policies properly reflect society's needs and priorities. It was having more women in parliament that forced issues like childcare and stronger maternity rights onto the political agenda – now they’re seen as mainstream but without women there I don’t believe that would have happened.

Kate, alongside Anne McGuire, are developing
policies that will reduce inequality.

 In October 2011 you were promoted to shadow the Ministry of State for Equality. Can you tell us what that job entails?


Ed Miliband has talked of the priority he attaches to reducing inequality in this country, and my job is to help develop and advocate the policies that can help to achieve that – whether it’s as a member of our women’s safety commission, helping to develop policies on childcare, working with my colleague Anne McGuire on strengthening rights for disabled people, supporting calls for gay and lesbian people to marry, campaigning for fair employment opportunities for people from ethnic minority backgrounds – there’s so much to get my teeth into.


Is the UK equal for all?


No, we have a long, long way to go. It can’t be right that so much power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a small minority.


You have close ties to unions, where do you stand on the prospect of future industrial actions over the pension dispute?


Noone wants to see industrial action, and both sides need to keep talking. I’m pleased there’s been progress in negotiations on a number of the public sector pension schemes, but I understand how worried low paid workers feel at the increasing cost of their pension contributions, and I’m very worried this will cause many to stop saving for a pension altogether because they can't afford it , leaving them struggling in retirement.


Finally, have you any advice for those who are hoping to become Politicians?


You need to be very determined, very energetic, very committed to what you believe in – and very lucky


PoliticsUK would like to thank Kate Green for this interview.

Kate Green's Website: http://www.kategreen.org

Abu Qatada saved from expulsion

Abu Qatada, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe”, cannot be extradited to Jordan the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

Radical cleric Abu Qatada cannot be sent back to Jordan while "there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him", judges have ruled.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled there would be a breach of his right to a fair trial "given the real risk of the admission of evidence obtained by torture at his retrial".

It is the first time that the Strasbourg-based court has found that an expulsion would be in violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial.

He was first arrested in 2002 and is currently held in Long Lartin jail after breaching his bail conditions.

The court ruled that key diplomatic assurances received meant there would be no violation of Article Three which bans the use of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

It also said there would be no violation of Article Five, the right to liberty and security and no violation of Article 13, the right to an effective remedy.

The judgment is not final. There is a three-month period in which the government may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court for a final judgment, although the request may be refused.

The European Court agreed with the English Court of Appeal but overturned a decision in the House of Lords.

It said that the use of evidence obtained by torture during a criminal trial would amount to a “flagrant denial of justice.”

“Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects” before a trial, it added.

“Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.”

The court found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of torture evidence by the Jordanian courts.

It also found that the evidence of his involvement in the two terrorist conspiracies with which he is charged, had been obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants.

When those two co-defendants stood trial, the Jordanian courts had not taken any action in relation to their complaints of torture.

The Court said there was a high probability that the incriminating evidence would be admitted at Qatada’s retrial and that it would be of “considerable, perhaps decisive, importance.”

In the absence of any assurance by Jordan that the torture evidence would not be used against Qatada, the court decided that his deportation to Jordan to be retried would give rise to a flagrant denial of justice in violation of Article Six.

On 18 February 2009 the House of Lords upheld findings by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) the diplomatic assurances would protect Qatada from being tortured.

They also found that the risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used in the criminal proceedings in Jordan would not amount to a flagrant denial of justice.

©Press Association 2012

Homes scheme helps OAPs to downsize

Elderly homeowners are to be encouraged to move into smaller properties under Government-backed plans, enabling councils to rent out their homes to families.

The scheme - announced by Housing Minister Grant Shapps - is intended to ease pressure on young families at a time when many are struggling to find affordable accommodation.

The scheme will ease pressure on young families.

Under the plans, local authorities would offer to help pensioners living in family homes to find more suitable places to live.

The councils would then take over responsibility for maintaining the property and renting it out at affordable rates, returning any profit to the elderly person or their estate.

Officials stressed the scheme was purely voluntary and no one would be forced to move.

Mr Shapps said that he wanted councils to follow the example of a Government-backed pilot project run by Redbridge Council in east London.

"For too long the housing needs of the elderly have been neglected," he said.

"Older people who should be enjoying their homes have watched helplessly as their properties have become prisons, and many have been forced to sell their homes and move into residential care.

"With nearly a fifth of our population expected to be over 65 by 2020, radical and urgent change is needed to ensure the nation's housing needs are met."

Mr Shapps said for some older people, the move to more suitable accommodation could make a "life-changing difference. They can live independently for longer and enjoy more disposable income without selling their home, and other families can benefit from living in an affordable home".

©Press Association 2012

Killers can die in jail, judges say

Britain's most dangerous and notorious criminals can be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives, European judges have ruled.

Jeremy Bamber has been told being kept behind bars for the rest
of his life is not a breach of his human rights

Killer Jeremy Bamber and two other convicted murderers lost their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that whole-life tariffs condemning prisoners to die in jail amounted to "inhuman or degrading treatment".

The whole-life tariff is not "grossly disproportionate" and in each case London's High Court had "decided that an all-life tariff was required, relatively recently and following a fair and detailed consideration", the judges ruled.

©Press Association

ISPs launch copyright law appeal

BT and TalkTalk have gone to the Court of Appeal in the latest challenge over Government moves to tackle online copyright infringement - particularly in music, films and books.

The pair are two of the UK's largest internet service providers (ISPs) and are attempting to overturn a ruling in favour of controversial measures to curb illegal internet file sharing.

They say the measures will invade privacy, result in disproportionate costs for ISPs and consumers, and are not compatible with EU law.

BT and TalkTalk have challenged the
Governments attempt to tackle
online infringement

High Court judge Mr Justice Kenneth Parker rejected the challenge in April last year, declaring the proposals under the Digital Economy Act 2010 a proportionate parliamentary response to the serious economic problem of peer-to-peer file sharing, and the likely costs were justified.

He upheld submissions made by lawyers for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that there were sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of consumers and ISPs .

The judge's decision was welcomed by supporters of the new laws, including employers and unions in the creative industries, who say copyright infringement is taking place on "a massive scale", costing millions and threatening livelihoods.

But BT and TalkTalk have now asked the appeal court to rule that the High Court had "erred in law", and the contested provisions were incompatible with a number of EU directives related to "electronic commerce".

BT and TalkTalk are submitting to the court that provision is also being made for the possible future introduction of certain "technical obligations" aimed at suspending, curtailing or limiting a subscriber's internet access.

A DCMS spokesperson said: "We are confident the High Court's original verdict will be upheld."

The hearing before Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Patten, is expected to last two days.

©Press Association

Concessions offered over disability benefit changes

Ministers are set to make further concessions over controversial proposed changes to disability benefits.

The government have agreed to halve the time seriously ill or disabled people will have to wait to be eligible for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) from six to three months.

The move came after peers defeated the coalition over other welfare changes.

No 10 said the government had listened to disability groups' concerns but campaigners wanted further changes.

Peers are currently debating the government's welfare bill, one of its flagship pieces of legislation, which ministers want to become law by the end of parliamentary session in May.

Ministers say the changes will substantially reduce the multi-billion pound welfare bill - helping to cut the deficit - while also increasing incentives to work and targeting support for the vulnerable more effectively.

But the government was defeated three times in the House of Lords last week over proposed changes to eligibility for employment support allowance (ESA), formerly known as incapacity benefit.

And ministers are set to come under further pressure when peers discuss changes to disability benefits on Tuesday.

Lord Freud has added his name to the amendment
of the Welfare Reform Bill

Under current proposals, the qualifying time for PIPs - which are replacing the longstanding disability living allowance (DLA) - would be extended from three months to six.

But it emerged on Monday that Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud has added his name to an amendment tabled by other peers that would revert the waiting period back to three months.

Lord Freud has tabled another amendment removing a clause that would have prevented disabled people living in care homes receiving a payment - worth £51 a week - to help with their travel and transport costs.

Ministers first signalled a U-turn on this policy in December. However, the mobility component of PIPs will still not be paid to people receiving treatment in hospital.

All 3.2 million people receiving DLA at the moment, both those in work and out of work, are due to be reassessed.

Ministers have insisted the benefit, introduced in 1992 to help disabled people cope with the extra costs they face in their daily lives, is complicated and inconsistent and needs to be simplified.

While the PIPS remain a non means-tested cash payment, ministers say they will be easier to apply for and administer.

The government says spending on DLA has risen by 30% in the past eight years and, even after the changes, projected spending in 2015-2016 would be equivalent to 2009-2010 levels.

Downing Street said the government had listened to concerns about aspects of its proposals but would continue with its central objective of reducing welfare spending.

"We are making some big changes to welfare policy and you would expect us to have discussions with the groups that are affected by these changes," a No 10 spokesman said

The Governments "change of heart" would
"protect the most vulnerable"

Macmillan Cancer Support said the government's "change of heart" would "protect the most vulnerable".

"Cancer patients experience the greatest costs in the first six months following their diagnosis," its director of policy Mike Hobday said.

"They will often have to give up work to undergo gruelling treatment and still find money to put food on the table. Extending the waiting time would have been devastating."

But disability charity, The Papworth Trust, said they were worried that people would now have to demonstrate they were likely to be afflicted for a further nine months - rather than six - to continue receiving the benefit.

"We believe it will be difficult for a disabled person or the new PIP assessment process to predict that they will be affected for nine months, especially for fluctuating conditions such as Crohn's Disease," said Matthew Lester, the charity's director of operations.

"This change to nine months means more disabled people will be unable to get financial support when they need it most, and risks pushing more people into poverty unfairly."


©BBC News