Phone hacking was rife at News of the World, claims new witness

• Ex-NoW journalist says Andy Coulson 'must have known'
• Speaker paves way for second committee to investigate
• Poll finds 52% think PM's communications chief must go

A former senior News of the World journalist has gone public to corroborate claims that phone-hacking and other illegal reporting techniques were rife at the tabloid while the prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson, was deputy editor and then editor of the paper.

Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, says that he personally commissioned private investigators to commit several hundred acts which could be regarded as unlawful, that use of illegal techniques was no secret at the paper, and that senior editors, including Coulson, were aware this was going on.

"How can Coulson possibly say he didn't know what was going on with the private investigators?" he asked.

Coulson has always said he had no knowledge of any such activity. News International has maintained that royal reporter Clive Goodman, jailed for hacking phones belonging to members of the royal household, was the only journalist involved in the practice.

McMullan is one of six former News of the World journalists who have independently told the Guardian that Coulson, who was deputy editor from 2000 and editor from January 2003 to January 2007, knew that his reporters were engaging in unlawful acts.

McMullan's decision to speak publicly about illegal techniques at the paper came as the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, paved the way for a second, powerful committee of MPs to investigate the scandal.

The cross-party standards and privileges committee has more powers to summon witnesses than the culture committee which has already reported on the affair, and the home affairs committee which announced on Tuesday that it would examine phone-hacking.

Coulson also faced mounting pressure to step down from his £140,000 post as David Cameron's communications chief as a YouGov poll found that 52% of voters thought he should quit with just 24% saying he should stay in the job.

All six of the former journalists who worked for Coulson at the News of the World paint the same picture of a newsroom where private investigators were used routinely to gather information by illegal means and where some reporters did so themselves. They say senior editors knew about this, because reporters could not commission private investigators without going through their desk editor; because editors routinely demanded to know the source of information in stories; and because executives kept tight control of their budgets.

McMullan, who is now landlord of the Castle pub in Dover, was deputy features editor when Coulson arrived at the paper as deputy editor in 2000 and says he [McMullan] spoke regularly to Steve Whittamore, the Hampshire private investigator who ran a network which specialised in selling confidential information to newspapers from phone companies and government databases, among other services.

"I would speak to Steve nearly every day when I was deputy features editor, and we'd chat about what he'd done and if his bill was too big. Getting information from confidential records, we did that regularly, time and time again. I always hid behind the journalist's fundamental get-out clause that, if it's in the public interest, you can do what you like. Some of what Steve did was legal, like using the electoral register, but if he went a step further, I would not have given a second thought to whether that was illegal, because that's part of your job," said McMullan.

He believes Coulson was right to allow his reporters to invade privacy in order to nail wrongdoers: "Investigative journalism is a noble profession but we have to do ignoble things." He says that at the time, reporters did not believe it was illegal to hack voicemail and were quite open about it. "Most reporters did it themselves, sitting at their desk. It was something that people would do when they were bored sitting outside somebody's house. I don't think at the time senior editors at the paper thought it was an issue. Everybody was doing it.

"Coulson would certainly be well aware that the practice was pretty widespread. He is conceivably telling the truth when he says he didn't specifically know every time a reporter would do it. I wouldn't have told him. It wasn't of significance for me to say I just rang up David Beckham and listened to his messages. In general terms, he would have known that reporters were doing it."

McMullan argues that these techniques are essential to investigative work. "How can Coulson possibly say he didn't know what was going on with [private investigators]? He was the brains behind the investigations department [to which McMullan was transferred by Coulson]. How can he say he had no idea about how it works? It's just a shame that you are not awarded prizes for it. Instead, you are regulated so that wrongdoers can carry on with their corruption."

The New York Times last week quoted another former News of the World journalist, Sean Hoare, who said he had played illegally hacked voicemail messages to Coulson when they worked at the Sun and that Coulson had "actively encouraged" him to hack messages at the News of the World. In a BBC radio interview, Hoare accused Coulson of lying. Coulson has continued to deny all knowledge of illegal activity.

None of the former News of the World staffers who have spoken to the Guardian claim to have direct evidence of Coulson's involvement in law-breaking. All of them say that illegal activity, including phone hacking, was so widespread it is inconceivable senior editors did not know.

One former desk editor, who was working for Coulson in August 2006 when police arrested the paper's contracted private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, and the royal correspondent, Goodman, said: "The hacking was so routine that people didn't realise they were doing anything wrong. They were just doing what was expected of them. People were obsessed with getting celebs' phone numbers. There were senior people who were really scared when the Mulcaire story came out. Everyone was surprised that Clive Goodman was the only one who went down."

Former reporters say the newsroom was run with a heavy hand. One veteran who worked for Coulson, said: "Andy Coulson absolutely knew. They all knew. He sat in the newsroom, often on the backbench on Friday and Saturday. It was a regular daily joke in conference: 'say no more'. Andy would ask questions in conference. And he'd be told, 'nudge, nudge'."

Former staff say that tapes and transcripts of voicemail were common in the office but concealed from the outside world. "The News of the World are always very very careful not to use anything that was taped from a phone. We could use it as raw information. You listen to their phone, you know they're going to meet a lover at such a place and such a time, and you're there with the photographer."

One former reporter claimed that Mulcaire was used on almost every story, if not for hacking into voicemail then for accessing confidential databases: "The paper was paying Glenn Mulcaire £2,000 a week, and they wanted their money's worth. For just about every story, they rang Glenn. It wasn't just tapping. It was routine. "Even if it was just a car crash or a house fire on a Saturday, they'd call Glenn, and he'd come back with ex-directory phone numbers, the BT list of friends and family and their addresses, lists of numbers called from their mobile phones. This was just commonplace. He was hacking masses of phones.We reckoned David Beckham had 13 different sim cards, and Glenn could hack every one of them. How could senior editors not know that they are spending £2,000 a week on this guy, and using him on just about every story that goes into the paper?"

The claims by former staff contradict an internal inquiry at the News of the World. Les Hinton, former chair of News International, told the media select committee he had conducted "a full and rigorous internal inquiry" and was "absolutely convinced" Goodman was the only person who knew about the hacking. Scotland Yard and the Press Complaints Commission also found no evidence of the involvement in hacking of anybody at the paper other than Goodman. It has emerged neither the police nor the PCC interviewed any reporter or editor or manager from the paper other than Goodman.

Vitamin B supplements could delay onset of Alzheimer's, says study

Some participants in Oxford University trial see their neurological decline reduce by as much as 50% after using vitamin B tablets

Taking daily supplements of B vitamins may delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease, scientists have claimed.

The discovery that people in the early stages of failing memory can retain more of their mental faculties for longer if they take the tablets regularly could lead to treatments for the condition. Some participants in the Oxford University trial saw their neurological decline reduced by as much as half after using B vitamins.

That breakthrough has raised hopes that the vitamins, which are sold in chemists and health food stores, could at least slow down, if not prevent, the shrinkage that affects many older people's brains.

Vitamin B tablets are popular among vegans, who do not receive it because they shun the foods in which it is found – fish, meat and milk – and among sufferers of pernicious anaemia.

"It is our hope that this simple and safe treatment will delay the development of Alzheimer's in many people who suffer from mild memory problems," said David Smith, a professor emeritus in Oxford University's pharmacology department and co-leader of the study. About 1.5m people over 70 in the UK who suffer from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) – who have a 50/50 chance of going on to develop full-blown dementia within five years – could benefit from the discovery, Smith added. But while the results were "immensely promising", it was not yet certain, he stressed, if B vitamins could slow or prevent the development of Alzheimer's.

Healthy middle-aged people hoping to avoid dementia and older people exhibiting early signs of memory loss might now be tempted to start routinely taking the vitamins, he said. But they should not do without first talking to their doctor, as the tablets could help stimulate the growth of early-stage cancer, he warned.

Chris Kennard, chair of the neurosciences and mental health board at the Medical Research Council, said the findings "bring us a step closer to unravelling the complex neurobiology of ageing and cognitive decline and hold the key to the development of future treatments for conditions like Alzheimer's disease."

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said: "These are very important results, with B vitamins now showing a prospect of protecting some people from Alzheimer's in old age. The strong findings must inspire an expanded trial to follow people expected to develop Alzheimer's, and we must hope for further success."

Some 820,000 people in the UK have dementia, predominantly Alzheimer's, and their numbers are expected to soar as the population ages.

Smith and his colleagues at the Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Ageing gave one group of people with MCI daily tablets comprising folic acid, vitamin B6 and vitamin B12, and another group a placebo. The vitamins were chosen because they control the amounts of an amino acid called homocysteine in the blood. High levels of homocysteine have been linked to a greater risk of Alzheimer's.

After two years participants' brains were examined using MRI scanners and their mental faculties assessed using tests of cognition. They found that those who had been receiving the supplements had experienced on average 30% less brain atrophy than those receiving the dummy pills. The former saw their brains shrink by 0.76% a year, while the placebo group saw theirs reduce by 1.08%. Those who started the trial with the highest levels of homocysteine experienced the greatest benefit – 50% less brain shrinkage.

Turkish rafting guides still risking lives, says father of drowned schoolgirl

Despite death of nine-year-old Cerys Potter in July, rafts on Dalaman river still taking perilous risks, investigation reveals

Hundreds of British tourists are risking their lives on a perilous stretch of river in Turkey where white-water rafts are being overloaded with passengers and intentionally capsized.

An investigation into rafting on the Dalaman river has revealed the risks involved when boats are flipped on rocks so that dramatic footage of rafters scrambling around the capsized boats can be sold to passengers on £40 DVDs.

Inquiries focused on a company known as Marmaris Rafting, which is under investigation by Turkish prosecutors over the death six weeks ago of nine-year-old British schoolgirl Cerys Potter.

Her father, Terry, accompanied the Guardian on a trip to Turkey last week to gather evidence about adventure excursions being offered along a nine-mile stretch of fast-flowing rapids.

It was the first time Potter, a film producer from Wales, had visited the scene of his daughter's death, near the southern Turkish resort of Fethiye.

The stretch of river that descends down pine-clad mountains is advertised as "grade 4" on an industry scale of six ascending levels of difficulty. Experts say the grade is suitable only for children aged 12 and over, guided by experienced boatsmen.

Marmaris Rafting said inflatable boats used to ferry passengers should carry a maximum of eight passengers. However in late July, Cerys Potter was loaded on to the boat with 11 other passengers, including her brother, aunt, uncle and cousins.

Her boat capsized twice. The first time, she was pulled from the river by her 13-year-old brother. The second time, she and her 12-year-old cousin became trapped between the capsized raft and a rock. Her cousin was retrieved from the river unconscious and spent three days in intensive care. Cerys's body was found washed-up on rocks more than an hour later.

Her family allege that the raft guides refused to start a search for the girl for 40 minutes, insisting she must have been washed down the river.

Locals said nine people had died on the same stretch since 1997. Richard Manning, 66, a plumber from Tudweiliog near Pwllheli, died when his boat capsized last November and he was knocked unconscious.

Terry Potter said he embarked on last week's painful "re-enactment" of his daughter's fatal raft journey to alert other families to the dangers.

"Nothing can bring back Cerys," he said. "But I want people to realise the risks that are being taken on that river, and do all I can to prevent another death."

He joined about 80 mainly Russian and British tourists who were picked up from hotels on Friday and taken on a three-hour drive into the mountains.

When they arrived at the base of the dam, they were provided with paddles, life-jackets and helmets and given a safety briefing that lasted for two minutes and 46 seconds.

There was no advice about what to do if the raft overturned. The briefing was peppered with jokes about fatalities on the river. "If I can't pull you out," the instructor joked, "I'll come back for you tomorrow."

Holidaymakers, including young teenagers, boarded the rafts in groups of about eight, with each boat allocated a guide.

The guide in charge of the Guardian's raft said in broken English that he "did not know" what to do in the event of a capsize. "The worst thing you do is nothing," he said. "Extreme, extreme."

Moments later, the boat struck a large boulder and capsized on top of passengers. Trapped beneath, Potter said he swallowed water and feared for his life. He was pulled from the water by someone in a canoe and scrambled ashore.

The raft continued down-river for 15 minutes, before four more passengers said they felt unsafe and demanded the trip be halted. To exit the river, they had to climb a 20ft cliff face with the help of the guide who left two young women holding on to the rocks to prevent the boat being swept away.

Back at the Marmaris Rafting "base camp" – a hut in a pine forest surrounded by tents – footage from the trip was played to passengers. Edited to pop music, the DVD showed several boats that employees said had been deliberately flipped.

One clip showed a guide jumping from his boat and strumming his paddle like a guitar for the cameras. His raft, which contained novice rafters, was left to continue down river, until it struck a rock and overturned.

The footage was reviewed by Paul O'Sullivan, a white-water rafting specialist who has appeared as an expert witness in several court cases. He was also given information about the circumstances of Cerys's death and a recording of the safety briefing. "On the basis of what I have been shown and told, the operation would seem to be run in an unprofessional manner that could justifiably be deemed grossly negligent," O'Sullivan said.

He noted several "basic failures", including the absence of a head count of passengers. He said the safety briefing was too short and left out crucial advice. Helmets did not appear to fit all passengers, he said, and the boat carrying Cerys Potter in July was almost certainly overloaded.

Contacted by telephone, Ali Koru, who runs a Marmaris Rafting Facebook page (recently taken down), claimed his company was not involved in rafting expeditions. He said Marmaris Rafting only transported passengers to the river edge, insisting that another company, Marmaris Times, was responsible for the boat trips. He offered a general defence of rafting on the Dalaman river. "What you say is dangerous other people say is fun," he said.

Tickets for last week's Marmaris Rafting trip were sold by Seaside Tours, the Turkish agent that booked the expedition for Cerys and her relatives in the summer. A Seaside Tours manager denied the company knowingly sold rafting expeditions to boys under 14 and girls under 16.

The Guardian asked 10 agents based in nearby coastal towns of Dalyan, Gocek and Dalaman whether they would sell rafting tickets to children under 12. Two refused but four immediately agreed to arrange the expedition for underage children.

The remaining four were ambiguous, suggesting, for example, that young children could take part if they were "strong" and knew how to swim. One openly promotes the rafting as suitable for children as young as six.

Additional reporting by Kaamil Ahmed and Chris Atkins

US court rejects Binyam Mohamed torture case

British resident cannot sue firm for allegedly flying terror suspects abroad for CIA because of 'national security concerns'

A US court has narrowly ruled that Binyam Mohamed, the British resident secretly rendered to Morocco by the CIA before being held in the Guantánamo Bay prison camp for four years, cannot sue over his alleged torture in overseas prisons because it would compromise national security.

Mohamed was the lead plaintiff in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of five former prisoners who claim they were tortured after being transferred to other countries through the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme.

They are fighting for the right to sue Jeppesen Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for the CIA.

A US court ruled last year that the case could proceed, but the Obama administration appealed and yesterday the court of appeals for the ninth circuit dismissed the case – although the judges were divided by six to five on the decision.

Judge Raymond Fisher said the majority had "reluctantly" concluded that "legitimate national security concerns" meant the case should not be heard.

Although the alleged offences were committed under the Bush government, the decision is a victory for the Obama's administration's aggressive efforts to prevent anything it believes would jeopardise national security reaching the public domain. Earlier this year, after a British court ordered disclosure of a seven-paragraph summary of classified CIA information showing what British agents knew of Mohamed's torture, the White House said it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling and it could have an impact on intelligence-sharing between the countries.

The ACLU now plans to take the case to the supreme court, which will be called upon to make a crucial ruling on the president's power to restrict litigation that could reveal state secrets.

ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner told the New York Times: "To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture programme has had his day in court. That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation's reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers."

The prisoners' rights charity, Reprieve, which has represented Mohamed in the British courts, described the decision as regrettable.

"Yet again, those responsible for torture and rendition have used 'state secrecy' to avoid facing up to their crimes in court," said the executive director, Clare Algar. "The need for an independent inquiry into state involvement in torture has never been more urgent, and, if we are serious about learning from our mistakes, the UK must lead the way. We cannot learn from history unless we know what it is."

Obama had criticised the Bush administration's frequent use of the state-secrets privilege and last year the attorney general, Eric Holder, issued a new policy aimed at avoiding cases being shut down purely to prevent embarrassment or cover up illegality.

The judge said: "The government [in this case] is not invoking the privilege to avoid embarrassment or to escape scrutiny of its recent controversial transfer and interrogation policies, rather than to protect legitimate national security concerns."

Despite rejecting the lawsuit, Fisher urged the government to grant reparations where it could be proved that people had suffered human rights violations at the hands of the CIA.

But dissenting judge Michael Hawkins wrote: "Permitting the executive to police its own errors and determine the remedy dispensed would not only deprive the judiciary of its role, but also deprive plaintiffs of a fair assessment of their claims by a neutral arbiter."

The court ordered the government to pay the plaintiffs' costs despite the fact that Mohamed and the others had lost, and not requested payment.

Mohamed was detained in 2002 in Pakistan, where he was questioned incommunicado by an MI5 officer. The US flew him to Morocco, where he was subjected to more prolonged and brutal torture, including the repeated slashing of his genitals with a razor blade. He was then rendered to Afghanistan and finally Guantánamo. He was released and returned to Britain in February last year.

David Cameron pays tribute to 'amazing' father

Prime minister issues statement following sudden death of his father yesterday

David Cameron paid tribute to his "amazing" father today, describing him as a "life-enhancer" who had "touched a lot of lives in lots of different ways".

The prime minister was at Ian Cameron's bedside in hospital in the south of France as he died yesterday following a stroke.

David Cameron's brother, Alex, and sister, Clare, were also there.

Ian Cameron's death, which was described as sudden and unexpected, came after the 77-year-old fell ill while on holiday near Toulon.

The prime minister, who had cancelled his engagements and flown to France, thanked the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, for providing a helicopter for the last leg of the journey. He arrived shortly before his father died.

A statement released by Downing Street on behalf of David Cameron and his family said: "Our dad was an amazing man – a real life enhancer. He never let the disability he was born with or the complications in later life get in the way of his incredible sense of fun and enjoyment.

"He touched a lot of lives in lots of different ways and was a brilliant husband and father.

"You could never be down for long when he was around. We will miss him terribly but have a bank of memories that can never be exhausted."

His father had been born with severe physical disabilities, including having no heels, which after enduring several operations, eventually led to the amputation of both legs. He had suffered a stroke with heart complications on Tuesday night.

The family's statement said of his death: "This was unexpected and sudden, but he was having a wonderful holiday and was with great friends.

"Above all he was with Mum, to whom he was devoted, and he was happy - and the end came quickly. We will treasure all the joy he brought us."

The PM added: "I am extremely grateful to President Sarkozy, who helped me get to the hospital while Dad was still with us, so I could say goodbye.

"We would like to thank Nicolas and everyone at the hospital who worked so hard to look after Dad."

Cameron stayed overnight in France, where Sarkozy is thought to have put him up at his summer residence, the Fort de Brégançon. It is not yet known when he will return to the UK.

Politicians, including the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, Labour's acting leader, Harriet Harman, and former prime minister Gordon Brown, offered condolences to the Cameron family.

Cameron's mother, Mary, had called him at around 6am yesterday to tell him of his father's illness, which arose halfway through the couple's two-week holiday.

Friends said Ian Cameron, a successful stockbroker, had been proud to see his son become prime minister and had visited 10 Downing Street and Chequers.

But the family's holiday plans meant their paths had not crossed in time for him to meet his latest granddaughter, Florence.

Cameron has previously described his father as a "huge hero figure", and inspiration and praised his optimism.

Boris Johnson knows he has to be a very detached Tory | Hugh Muir

The mayor of London is cuddling up to Ed Balls to distance himself from the coalition's cuts – and who can blame him?

The axeman cometh and, unusually, he has an appointment – 20 October will see the coalition government cuts programme unveiled. Ed Balls says the cuts will go deep at precisely the wrong time and may well plunge us into a double dip recession. And Boris Johnson says he agrees with him.

Yes, Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London, agrees with him. What's going on? The short answer is that, undeclared, there is an election going on. Johnson has not yet confirmed that he will run for a second term in charge of the capital but most would be surprised if he did not and already the canny brain underneath the blond mop is manoeuvring.

It looks increasingly likely that his opponent in 2012 will be Ken Livingstone, rather than Oona King. Livingstone has the union votes for his party's mayoral nomination and a great deal of support among the London Labour party establishment. Normally Boris wouldn't mind that match-up. He beat Livingstone before. And having pioneered a laissez-faire kind of mayoralty, short of drama, cheap to maintain, he figures he hasn't done very much wrong and thus as a popular cove, would probably beat Livingstone again.

The only problem is that the wind is blowing in Livingstone's direction. The Labour veteran's stance is clear. He, the blurb says, is the man to fight the cuts in London. They are Tory cuts, he says. Johnson's cuts. And indeed some of them are Johnson's cuts. Not all by any means. But that won't matter in the fog of the election. It's a pretty old Labour way to fight an election. But then Ken is very much old Labour. For him, it's the people against the toffs. The GLC against Thatcher. A stereotype for sure. But the signs are that with the axeman on his way, this approach may have traction, especially in 2012, when the full effects of the cuts have kicked in.

Johnson probably figures he has the better of Livingstone on every other score. He will say he has held his demand on the council tax flat, while Livingstone increased it every year. He will say he has provided sunnier leadership for London, whereas Livingstone's last term in office was scarred by feuds and negative headlines.

But with Livingstone campaigning hard, and that is what he has been doing since he lost the mayoralty in 2008, Johnson knows he has to firmly entrench himself in the public mind as a very detached kind of Tory; willing to fight his own party over nationally imposed cuts – even while administering cuts of his own. Willing to fight for CrossRail. Willing to speak sharply to the City's bankers, urging them to forgo their bonuses, even if at the same time he is upholding their right to operate unfettered; to pay themselves as they like.

With the cuts likely to overshadow everything else, Johnson must bolster his image as a conservative but at all costs avoid being demonised as a Con-Dem cuts Conservative. If cuddling Ed Balls helps to address that vulnerability, so be it.

Does a harassment warning amount to a penalty without a fair hearing?

JHJones would like to know if non-contestable harassment warnings can be used as evidence of bad character

JHJones asks:

"I would like Liberty to comment on the use of harassment warnings by the police.
The police appear to be able to issue harassment warnings if a complaint is made, without needing to investigate. The subject of the warning cannot contest it, and unlike a caution it can be imposed even if the subject contests the allegations and puts up a defence. The warning cannot be appealed.
The harassment warning will appear on an enhanced CRB check and if any future legal proceedings are taken, it will be treated as 'evidential' ie can be used to demonstrate a course of action or as evidence of bad character.
Does this amount to a penalty without a fair hearing, and what rights does an innocent person subject to a harassment warning have?"

We get a lot of questions about harassment warnings and we are grateful to JHJones for raising this issue. In particular we have been contacted by a number of individuals who only really appreciated the implications of having been given a harassment warning once it appeared on a certificate following an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (ECRB) check. Harassment warnings can be issued by police officers with little or no prior investigation of the original allegation and there is a real concern that this is later incorrectly presented as, or perceived by some to be, little short of a conviction.

The legal background is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA). This act makes it a criminal offence to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person, where that person knows (or ought to know) that the act amounts to harassment (which can include alarming a person or causing them distress). There need to be at least two separate occasions of conduct which, together, can be said to amount to harassment. This is where the apparent need for a harassment warning comes in – a single act on its own cannot amount to a "course of conduct" within the meaning of the PHA, but it can be enough for a harassment warning to be issued.

A harassment warning can be given by police following an allegation which, if true and if repeated, would amount to an offence under the PHA. Until or unless further similar allegations are made, there is not enough evidence to charge the person with harassment, hence the warning. The warning lets the individual know that a complaint has been received and that a charge may follow if the conduct complained of is repeated. The rationale is to alert the individual about the complaint, to deter any future incidents of concern and prevent the individual from claiming later on that they did not know their behaviour was unwanted conduct. Clearly, it also saves the police money by not having to investigate each claim separately and at the outset. A harassment warning is not a criminal conviction – simply a notice that a complaint has been received. The behaviour complained of, by itself, does not amount to a crime.

There is no formal police procedure to follow when making a harassment warning. JHJones is right to say that the police are not obliged to investigate the allegation, however as a matter of common sense and law, we think that the police do need to be satisfied at the very least that if the complaint were true and were repeated, that those acts would amount to harassment. If the police did not reasonably believe this, then the issuing of a harassment warning might well be challengeable by way of judicial review, as an irrational act. Any challenge would need to be brought promptly and in any event no later than three months of the date of the harassment warning.

What is upsetting is that there is no procedure for appealing against the making of a harassment warning and for many, this can feel highly unfair. The person who is sent the warning can often feel as though they are being prosecuted, especially when they have had no opportunity to present their side of the story. It is of course always open to individuals who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the police to lodge a formal complaint (in the first instance to the police force that issued the warning and by appeal thereafter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, IPCC).

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to a fair trial in criminal and civil proceedings. It states that:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

Antisocial behaviour orders (asbos) have been held not to constitute a criminal charge and we think that the same applies to harassment warnings. This is because they do not amount to being charged with an offence or result in any penalty or conviction that would appear on a criminal conviction record. Neither are they considered to be proof that an offence has in fact occurred. If the conduct allegedly continued and did lead to a formal charge of harassment being made, then the allegations would still need to be proved by the prosecution to the criminal standard of proof in order to succeed. It would not be enough simply to point to the existence of the warnings themselves and so I do not think JHJones is quite right to suggest that the warning can stand as evidence of criminal conduct – it would be hearsay. Neither do I think the fact that a harassment warning had been given in the past could be presented as part of bad character evidence, the rules on which are complex and strict. If someone is charged with harassment, the allegations comprising the charge would still need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Neither do we think that the making of a harassment warning could be considered a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 – it does not prohibit or force the subject to do anything, it simply alerts them about the complaint and warns them against future conduct. So our conclusion is that this procedure is not protected by Article 6.

The main problem for people who have contacted us about harassment warnings is with enhanced ECRBs. In the same way that unsubstantiated allegations can be disclosed by police on an ECRB, so can the fact of a harassment warning having been issued. This can be disclosed in the section of the certificate entitled "other relevant information". This engages Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, your right to privacy. The courts have given chief constables a wide discretion in this area in deciding what should be disclosed. Recent case-law from the supreme court has examined how Article 8 rights are to be protected in this situation (the case of R (on the application of L) v commissioner of police of the Metropolis) and there has as a result been a shift back towards the subject again to some extent, in that now the chief constable has to give greater weight than before to the impact of disclosure on the private life of the subject. The guidance also requires that information should only be disclosed where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. In borderline cases, the subject should be given an opportunity to make representations as to why the information should not be included. We hear reports that not all police forces are applying the new guidance set down in this case properly so people do need to be prepared sometimes to try and pre-empt disclosure by writing in advance to the chief constable to ask that the information not be disclosed.

It has been suggested by some that harassment warnings are an all-too-convenient option for the police, as they require little or no investigation and can be dealt with quickly and cheaply and they have no awkward rights of appeal attached. If people are concerned about the circumstances in which they have been given a harassment warning, they should consider lodging a formal complaint and/or seeking prompt legal advice.

• If you'd like to post a question for next week's Liberty Clinic, post it here

Should Goldman Sachs have been fined more?

Goldman has been fined by FSA for its failure to report a US fraud case

Phone-hacking row: Nick Clegg urges police to investigate 'quickly and thoroughly'

Clegg says police are entitled to 'ask questions' about whether Andy Coulson, No 10's director of communications, knew of phone-hacking when he was News of the World editor

The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, today urged the police to probe new phone-hacking allegations surrounding No 10 communications chief, Andy Coulson, as another News of the World journalist gave details of the illegal practices at the paper.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme Clegg failed to give Coulson his full backing by ducking a question of whether he should resign.

As MPs prepared to debate whether the row should be referred to the Commons' powerful standards and privileges Committee, Clegg said police should examine the claims "as quickly and thoroughly as possible".

The deputy prime minister said people are entitled to "ask questions and make inquiries" on whether Coulson knew of phone-hacking when he was editor of the paper, something he has vehemently denied.

Asked if Coulson should step down Clegg said: "I can only repeat what he has said, which is he denies any of these allegations whatsoever. I think it's really important that the police should look into the allegations that have been made to see if there is new evidence.

"We all agree that it's for the police to look at these new allegations and to untangle claim and counter-claim.

"Of course this is not easy, but instead of simply trying to act as a judge over someone based on a series of claims and counter-claims, let's get the police to look at these allegations and see if there is new evidence that needs to be looked into, yes or no."

Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, told the Guardian that phone hacking was rife at the paper while Coulson was deputy editor and later editor.

He is the sixth former reporter to claim that Coulson knew of illegal methods to gather stories – something the News of the World denies.

Coulson has always denied any knowledge of the illegal eavesdropping at the News of the World, for which ex-royal editor Clive Goodman and a private detective were jailed in 2007. The News International-owned paper insists the Goodman case was isolated and there was no widespread culture of wrongdoing among staff.

But former reporter Sean Hoare reignited the row last week by publicly claiming his boss was aware of the activities.

Metropolitan police officers are planning to interview Hoare about his claims, and assistant commissioner John Yates said he is likely to speak to Coulson as he considers whether to reopen the police probe.

The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, yesterday accepted a call for an emergency debate from Labour former minister Chris Bryant, who has been one of the most prominent voices calling for a fresh inquiry after his name was found on a list linked to the Goodman case.

MPs will today be asked to refer the matter to the cross-party Commons standards and privileges committee, chaired by Tory ex-cabinet minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

Goldman Sachs fined £17.5m by FSA over failure to report US fraud case

The Wall Street bank failed to notify the City watchdog when Fabrice Tourre, the banker at the heart of the Abacus case, was accused of fraud by the SEC

The Financial Service Authority has hit Goldman Sachs with a £17.5m fine, one of the biggest ever levied by the watchdog, after the Wall Street bank failed to warn that one of its UK-based staff was entangled in fraud charges in America.

The case centres on Abacus, Goldman's notorious foray into the mortgage derivatives market. The fine was imposed because Goldman neglected to inform the FSA when Fabrice Tourre, the banker at the heart of Abacus, was accused of serious violations of US securities law.

Announcing the fine this morning, the FSA said that Goldman's failure to operate adequate systems and controls was not acceptable. The Securities and Exchange Commission told Goldman Sachs's US operations in September 2009 that it planned to file an enforcement action against Tourre. But this information was not passed to the compliance officers in Goldman's London offices, with the result that the FSA was unaware of this so-called Wells Notice until April 2010 when the SEC filed fraud charges against the bank.

This communications breakdown allowed Tourre to continue working in the City for several months. The fine would have been £25m, but Goldman received a 30% discount for settling the case early.

"This penalty should send a message – particularly to the senior management of large institutions – of the need to have their firm's UK reporting obligations at the forefront of their minds," said Margaret Cole, managing director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA.

"Goldman Sachs International did not set out to hide anything, but its defective systems and controls meant that the level and quality of its communications with the FSA fell far below what we expect of an authorised firm," Cole added.

Abacus was a mortgage-backed security known as a "synthetic CDO", which Goldman sold to investors as a way of investing in the US mortgage market. The SEC claimed it was fraudulent, alleging that Goldman had not told customers that one of its biggest clients – hedge fund Paulson – had taken a trading position intended to profit from a fall in the value of US house prices. Goldman was fined $550m (£355m) over the Abacus affair in July, when it admitted that it should have warned that Paulson had a hand in choosing which mortgages were placed into Abacus.

Tourre was named as the mastermind behind Abacus, but in late April he denied acting improperly.

British journalist freed in Pakistan

Asad Qureshi was working on a Channel 4 documentary in March when he was taken by the Taliban in North Waziristan

A British journalist held hostage by the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal belt for more than five months, has been released, the British high commission in Islamabad has announced.

Asad Qureshi was working on a documentary about militancy in Pakistan for Channel 4 when he was taken.

"We can confirm that Asad Qureshi has been released and our consular team are providing him with consular assistance," a high commission spokesman said.

A source close to negotiations said Qureshi's release was brokered by his own relatives and that he arrived in Islamabad last night, where he was being debriefed. The source was unaware of his physical or mental wellbeing.

Qureshi was abducted in North Waziristan on 26 March during a putative mission to interview the Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud. He was travelling with two former Pakistani intelligence officials, one of whom, Khalid Khawaja, was subsequently beheaded.

The other, Brigadier Sultan Amir Tarar, better known as "Colonel Imam", is believed to be still in captivity.

Nick Clegg: economic recovery will be 'choppy'

Deputy prime minister warns that spending cuts will have an 'uneven' effect across the country, but says the government is 'laying the building blocks' to rebalance the economy

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, warned today the economic recovery would be "choppy" and "uneven" because of the way spending cuts will hit different parts of the country.

Clegg sought to allay anxieties by insisting the government was laying the "building blocks" to prevent communities suffering from spending cuts.

But he warned that it would "take time" for the government to achieve a rebalancing of the economy to make it less dependent on public sector jobs. He defended the "hard decisions" being taken by the government for the country's long term good.

Research released today suggests that the towns and cities in England's industrial heartlands are the communities most vulnerable to the cuts in public spending planned by the coalition government.

A study conducted by business information group Experian found that the 10 areas least resilient to economic shocks such as an austerity budget or soaring business failures were all north of a line drawn from the Wash to the Severn estuary.

Assessing more than 30 separate measures of a local authority's ability to withstand tougher economic times, the report found that poor areas still feeling the effects of the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s were likely to be hardest hit.

Clegg, who sits in parliament as the MP for Sheffield Hallam, said that he was "acutely aware" of the dangers for the parts of the country like his, that had become arguably over-reliant on the public sector.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the comprehensive spending review on 20 October would set out a four-year departmental reduction plan that would begin in April next year.

This meant that a reduction of 25%, would in effect signify a 6% annual reduction. "As it happens, the previous Labour government's plans were about four fifths of that," he said.

"We are trying to rebalance the economy so that parts of the economy are not over-reliant on the public sector in the same way that as a national economy we were over reliant on one sector – financial services – in one part of the economy. I wish we could flick a switch and rebalance the economy overnight. One of the things I will be trying to say in my speech is that this does take time."

Clegg cited a £1bn regional growth fund, which would be specifically targeted only at those areas that he described as overly reliant on the public sector.

Other measures include plans to encourage increased bank lending, replacing regional development agencies with local enterprise partnerships, which would serve as catalysts to growth "from the bottom up" to create jobs, and giving national insurance tax breaks for companies that start up in areas overly reliant on the public sector.

Clegg also cited government efforts to give town halls more freedom over the way they spend money.

"Of course this recovery which is starting is likely to be choppy and uneven. Of course we appreciate we are dealing with a long-term problem about how you rebalance the economy in the way that I have described, away from over-reliance on financial services, away from reliance on public sector employment in parts of the country.

"That won't be something that can happen overnight. But what I have talked about I think illustrate that we are putting in place the building blocks to make that happen."

In a speech in Westminster later in the day, Clegg said the starting point for the government's spending plans was that a thriving economy cannot be built in the long term on "shifting sands of debt".

Outlining a "horizon shift" by the coalition government, Clegg stressed the merits of hard decisions in the short term for the longer-term good.

He quoted the Liberal thinker John Rawls, who insisted that people should consider the consequences of their actions over "at least two generations".

The most serious symptom of political short-termism was the failure to confront long-term problems requiring uncomfortable short-term solutions, notably climate change, pensions, and welfare reform, he said.

"The prime minister and I are from the same generation. And frankly, we know that both our generation – and the one before us – got it wrong. We have run up debts, despoiled the planet and allowed too many of our institutions to wither. For us, the horizon shift that guides our action in government will help to wipe the slate clean, and ensure that future generations can thrive, without being burdened with the dead weight of our debt, and our failings."

Claiming that short-termism had often "poisoned politics", Clegg cited other symptoms as the culture of "spin" and "initiative-itis" in the era of 24-hour news under the Labour government, and the turnover rate of government ministers, which averaged just 1.3 years.

Clegg said that ministers should spend more time in their posts, and said the "constant reshuffling of the ministerial deck" was not conducive to good government.

Why pawnbrokers have become respectable | Deborah Orr

The banks won't lend and loan sharks charge exorbitant interest

The pawnshop has been rehabilitated, and apparently this is not even such a Bad Thing. The decline of these seedy outlets was once measured in inverse proportion to the advance of the welfare state, until such businesses achieved vivid attention only when one was reading the novels of Dickens, Lawrence or Dostoevsky, or perhaps the early writings of Orwell, when he was down and out in Paris and London, or on the road to Wigan Pier.

Like the poor, naturally, pawnshops have always been with us, even if for decades now they have been thin on the ground, their unappealing window displays of little-loved jewellery sending a siren call to few. These days, they look different. The window displays are more sumptuous, for obvious reasons. But beyond the padded velvet display panels, pawnshops now resemble banks, with neatly barricaded counters looking more like the product of professional efficiency than of careful security. In recent weeks, even the gentle reader of the Telegraph has been advised to consider the pawnshop as a decent option when cash-flow problems occur, handy for securing one-off payments for school uniforms or, on occasion, school fees, and considerably cheaper than risking bank charges on unsecured overdrafts.

How crazy is that? In theory, bank loans have never been cheaper, with interest rates as close to zero as one could wish. Except that the banks are not lending and people are still borrowing. Since 2003, the number of pawnshops in the country has increased from 500 to 1,300, holding a loan book of around £192m. Britain's biggest chain of pawnbrokers, H&T, last week announced a 71% leap in half-year profits, up to £14.5m from £8.5m in the first half of 2009. While the majority of customers are seeking loans of less than £100, and more than two-thirds live on a household income of less than £300 a week, industry insiders also report an increase in custom from businesspeople.

And the ghastly truth is that the Telegraph is right. Pawnbrokers are these days a comparatively solid option. If you go to a pawnbroker, then monthly interest payments range from five per cent to 12%, with a loan of £100 over six months attracting an APR of 70% to 200%. If you have nothing to pawn, though, and you instead go to a pay-day loan company – otherwise known as a "legal loan shark" – you could find yourself faced quickly with an APR approaching a stratospheric 3,000%. The appalling truth is that these companies too have proliferated in recent years, offering loans over the internet or via the mobile phone, and filling the gap left as bank loans became harder to secure.

The Consumer Finance Association, which represents most short-term loans firms, told the Metro newspaper this week that: "People want to borrow a smaller amount of money for their immediate needs and desires and pay it back quickly. If this is not a product people really like, then why is there the growth? We really don't want to lend to people who can't pay back and we don't lend to people who aren't in work."

The Consumer Credit Counselling Service has another tale to tell though, as the Metro pointed out. Somebody is lending to people who aren't in work, because the charity says that one in eight people contacting them in the first half of 2010 were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, owing an average of £15,412 in unsecured debt each. Poor, poor buggers. Credit crunch? We ain't seen nothing yet.

Remarkably, however, there are strong arguments suggesting that little can be done. The government is already committed to taking action on the high interest rates that have for years been attached to credit cards, store cards and overdrafts, while plans to discuss capping the cost of credit more generally have been tabled at both the Labour and Lib Dem conferences this autumn. Yet a recent report from the Office of Fair Trading has already rejected the suggestion of price controls because suppliers might recover lost income by introducing or increasing charges for late payment or default. A further worry is that if the legal market is attacked, then truly unscrupulous lenders could flourish illegally, leaving the vulnerable open to intimidation and violence. The thought of such a scenario chills the blood.

The left-of-centre pressure group Compass is already running a campaign anyway, supporting price controls and arguing that they are already in place in Germany, France and Poland. Compass is also asking for the establishment of a People's Bank, administered via the Post Office, or a National Credit Union. It wants all banks to commit to providing universal and affordable banking services, like the Cooperative Bank's Cashminder account as well.

Such ideas have long been resisted by most high-street banks, which benefit from the fact that more or less every citizen is obliged to have a bank account if he or she is to exist in the real economy, but remain happy to cut people adrift if, for a time, their custom becomes unattractive.

The great irony, of course, is that it was the development of financial instruments which allowed loans to be made to people with little concern as to whether they could be paid back, that caused the credit crunch in the first place. Yet while politicians are fond of saying that the credit crunch was a worldwide phenomenon, the truth is that no nation embraced consumer borrowing more enthusiastically than Britain. It's a way of life now, and it is out of control. People have been urged to believe that there is no shame in debt. On the contrary, people have been urged to believe that only the naive and pathologically careful lived any other way.

This present situation is terrible – legitimate operators are allowed to behave like cowboys, for fear first that if they are reined in at one point in the operation they will move their excesses to another part of their operation, and second that if they are bludgeoned into respectability, then criminals will step into the breach.

But beyond such specifics, there is a further problem – the worry that curbs on any commercial activity will "slow the recovery". The hard-up must be allowed to get the cash to purchase what they need, whatever it costs them. So commerce of this kind flourishes. Pawnbrokers really are more straightforward and civilised than the unsecured loan guys, which is in part why they have quickly become quite respectable. Britain may well become a nation of shopkeepers again. But the shops will have three golden orbs dangling outside them, and will sell to their customers the stuff they own already. Here comes that private sector expansion. Grim.

Politics blog live - Thursday 9 September

Rolling coverage of the day's developments from Westminster and beyond

11.36am: Do read the Nick Clegg speech if you've got time. It's more thoughtful than the usual ministerial speech - Clegg quotes John Stuart Mill, Oscar Wilde, David Willetts, John Rawls, Benjamin Disraeli and Chris Mullin - and his analysis of "short-termism" is good.

Clegg says the government wants to introduce a "horizon shift". In other words, it wants to replace taking decisions for the short term with taking decisisions for the long term. Clegg's attempt towards the end to show that is already happening is not particularly convincing.

He says, for example, that the government is taking long-term decisions about the economy, but Gordon Brown would have said the same. But his description of the problems of "contemporary political myopia" is spot on.

Here are the points of interest.

• Clegg says that short-termism is a "generational failure". He says that all politicians of his age have got it wrong.

The prime minister and I are from the same generation. And frankly, we know that both our generation - and the one before us - got it wrong. We have run up debts, despoiled the planet and allowed too many of our institutions to wither. For us, the longer-term view we are adopting in government will help to wipe the slate clean, and ensure that future generations can thrive, without being burdened with the dead weight of our debt, and our failings. Ware absolutely determined that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say we did the best we could for them, even if this means taking some difficult, unpopular decisions today.

• He says ministers will not get reshuffled quite so often as they have been in the past.

The average tenure of a government minister in the last Labour government has been calculated as being just 1.3 years. Junior ministers were moved on a virtually annual basis. Particularly among junior ministers, the level of churn has been so great in recent years that very often, by the time the minister has got close to understanding their subject, they are moved on. Chris Mullin, in his excellent diaries, records the view of Janet Andersen, a former Labour whip and minister, on Tony Blair's attitude to junior ministerial posts: "He regards them as sweeties to be handed out to keep the children happy," she said.

Of course, it is dangerous just four months into government to raise the question of the rate of ministerial turnover. Just to be clear, I am not making any commitment today for a target average ministerial tenure. But I can say that this government recognises that constant reshuffling of the ministerial deck – often to generate the headlines I mentioned a moment ago – is not conducive to good government, and that we will aspire to greater stability in the way ministers are allowed to govern.

• He says the Lib Dems were the first to advocate Bank of England independence. Labour politicians have been squabbling over who should take credit for this. In his memoirs, Tony Blair suggests it was his idea. Gordon Brown's allies scoffed at this, suggesting it was Brown's. At the weekend Ed Balls says he wrote a paper adovocating this proposal in 1992. But today Clegg says the Lib Dems beat them all too it. Bank of England independence was an idea "first advocated by the Liberal Democrats", he says.

• Clegg praises marriage. Maybe he has praised marriage before, but I don't recall it. This sentence struck me because it sounds like an excerpt from a Cameron speech. "Institutions like marriage and civil partnerships are profoundly important commitment devices: a way of pledging to work at a relationship through thick and thin, and make a life together," Clegg says

10.35am: You can read today's politics stories from the Guardian here. And the Guardian politics stories filed yesterday, including some that have gone into today's paper, are here.

And here are the most interesting political stories and articles from the rest of today's papers.

• Andrew Grice in the Independent says Nick Clegg will today propose an extension of state funding for political parties.

Mr Clegg hopes that a new deal on party funding will be part of a "second wave" of constitutional reforms in the second parliamentary year of the Government, after Bills on electoral reform and fixed-term five-year parliaments in the current session. Turning the House of Lords into an elected chamber could also be part of phase two, although it could take years to implement.

Mr Clegg will say [when he addresses a committee on standards in public life event this afternoon] that changes to the funding system should include greater transparency and new rules on spending and donations, with parties relying on more small donations rather than on a few rich backers. One option would be for the state to match pound for pound the amounts raised by parties in small donations – of perhaps up to £10 – to encourage them to recruit new members and supporters.

• Chris Cook in the Financial Times (subscription) say ministers are considering a charge for graduates that would "feel like a graduate tax" without actually being one. The plan has been floated by Tories as a means of appeasing the Lib Dems, who are opposed to higher tuition fees, Cook reports.

Under the policies floated by the Tories, undergraduates would pledge to pay a share of their future income to the universities they attended as part of their fees. Civil servants have discussed a 1 per cent lifetime income contribution. When added to the current system, that would more than double the £9,870 that UK universities now receive on average in fees from a student taking a three-year degree.

• Jason Groves in the Daily Mail says Sinn Féin MPs have been invited to "write their own oath" by the government in an attempt to get them to take their seats in the Commons. Groves reports what Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary, told a Commons committee yesterday.

There is no reason for them to stay away. I have said if the oath is an obstacle, come to me with an alternative text, we already do it for people who are not Christians. So far they have not, the ball is in their court.

• Bendedict Brogan in the Daily Telegraph says ministers are worried that they have not done enough to prepare the public for the scale of the public spending cuts.

"We are in a canoe paddling down the Zambezi, and Victoria Falls lie dead ahead. Once we've gone over the edge, none of this [Andy Coulson etc] will matter," one leading Cameroon told me. The edge, for those at Westminster who worry about it, is the moment we discover just how bad the cuts are going to be. To judge by what Cabinet ministers and officials are saying, many worry that the Coalition has not done nearly enough to warn the public of the abyss into which the country is about to plunge. "If we have had a collective failure," one Cabinet minister says, "it is that we have underplayed the scale of the problem."

• The Sun says unions have spent £500,000 trying to help "Red" Ed Miliband win the Labour leadership.

• The Daily Telegraph says that taxpayers who have to repay tax to HM Revenue and Customs will be charged interest at six times the Bank of England base rate.

• The Independent says Bonnie Greer has written an opera based on her Question Time appearance with Nick Griffin.

10.14am: The Lib Dems have now posted a full text of Nick Clegg's speech on their website. I'll read it soon and post the key excerpts.

9.46am: David Cameron and his family have issued a statement about his father.

Our dad was an amazing man – a real life-enhancer. He never let the disability he was born with or the complications in later life get in the way of his incredible sense of fun and enjoyment. He touched a lot of lives in lots of different ways and was a brilliant husband and father. You could never be down for long when he was around. We will miss him terribly but have a bank of memories that can never be exhausted. This was unexpected and sudden, but he was having a wonderful holiday and was with great friends. Above all he was with mum, to whom he was devoted, and he was happy - and the end came quickly. We will treasure all the joy he brought us.

Cameron has also thanked President Sakozy for helping him to get to the hospital before his father died. (Sarkozy provided a helicopter to take Cameron from Nice airport to the hospital at Toulon.)

I am extremely grateful to President Sarkozy who helped me get to the hospital while dad was still with us so I could say goodbye. We would like to thank Nicolas and everyone at the hospital who worked so hard to look after dad.

9.42am: Clegg is taking questions at the end of his speech. The first came from the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, and it was about Andy Coulson. She asked Clegg if he believed Coulson when he said he did not know anything about phone hacking at the News of the World when he was editor. Clegg gave much the same answer that he gave to Jack Straw at PMQs yesterday, and to John Humphrys on the Today programme this morning. He said that Coulson's statement speaks for itself, and that the new allegations should be investigated by the police.

9.29am: Nick Clegg is delivering his speech to the Institute for Government now. I billed it earlier as a speech about public spending, but it really seems to be about governance. According to the Cabinet Office, it is designed to "emphasise the importance being placed on governing for the long-term as a guiding purpose for the government".

The Press Association has had a briefing on the speech and it has written a story saying Clegg is promising that ministers will be given "more time to prove themselves in their jobs without fear of being reshuffled". The PA story quotes this extract from the speech.

This government recognises that constant reshuffling of the ministerial deck... is not conducive to good government, and that we will aspire to greater stability in the way ministers are allowed to govern.

I'll post a full summary of the speech once I've read the whole text for myself.

9.15am: Anti-war protesters have got onto the scaffolding at the House of Commons to put up "Troops Home" banners. The protest has been timed to coincide with today's debate, which is significant because it is the first Commons debate on Afghanistan on a substantive motion ("that this house supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan"). In the past MPs have only debated this issue "on the adjournment", meaning that they have not had the chance to vote for or against a specific position relating to the war. Here's what it looked like

The protesters didn't just put the banners up. They've been sleeping on the scaffolding all night too. They're just outside an office used by some of my colleagues, not far from where I sit, and I managed to grab a picture. Apparently they're planning to stay there until after the debate is over early this evening.

8.58am: Nick Clegg was on the Today programme this morning doing his best to play down the impact of the spending cuts. He said that although the government is talking about cuts in some departments of 25%, these would be spread over four years and that meant spending reductions of 6% per year. About 80% of these cuts would have taken place under Labour's plans anyway, he said.

A misapprehension has arisen that somehow the cuts that we're going to announce on 20 October are going to happen the following Tuesday. What we will actually be setting out is a plan which starts from April of next year and goes on for four years ... I don't think we should aggravate that anxiety and fear by pretending that there's a sword of Damacles which is going to come down straight away.

8.21am: MPs will - briefly - debate the News of the World phone hacking affair today and there are two stories in this morning's papers that will make uncomfortable reading for Andy Coulson. In the Guardian Nick Davies says another former News of the World journalist has come forward to say that phone hacking was rife at the paper when Coulson was editor.

Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, says that he personally commissioned private investigators to commit several hundred acts which could be regarded as unlawful, that use of illegal techniques was no secret at the paper, and that senior editors, including Coulson, were aware this was going on.

And a YouGov poll (pdf) suggests that more than 50% of voters think Coulson should lose his job.

But there are other important stories in the diary too. Here's a full agenda for the day.

9am: Nick Clegg delivers a speech on public spending.

11am: Michael Gove gives a speech on vocational education.

12.15pm: MPs debate a motion saying the standards and privileges committee should investigate the phone hacking affair.

1pm: MPs start a debate on Afghanistan. The Commons has debated Afghanistan many times before, but for the first time MPs will get the chance to vote on whether they are in favour or against the deployment of British troops in the country. The votes are expected at 6pm.

2.30pm: The committee on standards in public life holds its annual public meeting. It is publishing a "key issues" paper on party funding.

As usual, I'll be looking at all these stories, as well as flagging up the best stories in the papers, covering breaking political news and bringing you all the best politics from the web.

Bank of England expected to hold interest rates

MPC likely to deliver 18th consecutive interest rate hold at 0.5% and maintain QE at £200bn

Signs of a weakening recovery are expected to see the Bank of England deliver its 18th consecutive decision to hold interest rates today.

The Bank's policymakers will give their latest verdict at noon as recent economic indicators led to fears of a double dip recession.

Economists widely expect the nine-strong monetary policy committee (MPC) to keep rates at 0.5% and to maintain its quantitative easing (QE) programme at £200bn, with members torn between the pressures of stubbornly high inflation and faltering growth.

The MPC has left rates unchanged at their historic low since March 2009.

But a split was emerging among members, with above-target inflation leading Andrew Sentance to vote for a quarter-point rate increase in each of the past three months.

Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation was 3.1% in July and warnings suggest cost pressures will worsen, with food prices expected to increase over the coming months.

Experts at Barclays Capital believe CPI edged up again in August, to 3.2%, which could leave the MPC facing a further dilemma.

However, the majority have so far opted to prioritise the need to support the economy over efforts to rein in inflation and this is likely to remain the case for at least the rest of the year.

While the UK economy expanded by a far-better-than-expected 1.2% in the second quarter, the signs point to slower growth since then.

Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics said the next move by the Bank was likely to be a boost to QE.

"With the economic recovery flagging, attention is turning to what further support policymakers can provide," she said.

"While there are question marks over whether further central bank asset purchases would actually do any good, we think the MPC has little choice but to persevere with its quantitative easing QE programme - albeit in perhaps a slightly different form."

The powerhouse services sector saw its slowest growth in more than a year during August, according to the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply's (CIPS) closely watched industry survey.

Recent CIPS data from manufacturers was also worrying, with growth in August hitting a nine-month low, while the latest official construction figures showed orders plunging 14% in the second quarter, suggesting a rocky road ahead.

Austerity

The impact of the government's austerity drive is hitting confidence across the economy, including the housing market. Nationwide reported a second month of falling prices in August - down 0.9%.

Ms Redwood said QE was one of the monetary-only tools left to the Bank, but fears "the extra support will come too late to stop the recovery from slowing".

She added: "The effects of the QE taken so far have hardly been overwhelming, begging the question of what good more asset purchases will do."

There has been some hope for the global economy in recent days, with US data giving some cause for optimism.

Key US employment figures on Friday showed 54,000 job losses in August against forecasts for more than 100,000.

Reports on manufacturing and housing also came in above expectations, helping ease fears of a double dip recession.

A hold decision by the MPC today would mark the longest time rates have been held since the Bank was given responsibility for setting monetary policy in 1997.

The previous record during the MPC's time was when rates were on hold for 15 months at 4%, between November 2001 and February 2003.

Selling sex is bad. But a few A-levels don't make it worse| Zoe Williams

From Jennifer Thompson to Belle de Jour, attitudes about breeding and education have polluted the prostitution debate

So what turns a middle-class public schoolgirl into a £1,200-a-night escort? That's what the Daily Mail wanted to know when Jennifer Thompson made her large claims about Wayne Rooney. I couldn't at first work out the question … what's a public school education supposed to inoculate one against? Escorting people for money? Fraternising with Rooney? Or charging such a lame amount? (You should charge in round thousands if you want to look classy. That's what they taught us in home economics.)

Of course this is a rhetorical question: a private education isn't meant to teach you specifically how not to be a prostitute. Rather, it is supposed to confer a set of values that would make prostitution an unthinkable proposition. In the very act of paying for something they could get for free (I'm still on the private schools; though nobody's suggesting that Rooney couldn't get laid for free), your parents demonstrate how much they love you. So you should be chock-full of self-esteem, too refined to be an attention-seeker, intelligent enough to know that sex doesn't pay.

Indeed, a private education is held to be a paradox for any woman sleeping with any footballer, getting paid or not. (Rebecca Loos was the daughter of a diplomat: oh the intoxicating irony, that a woman of breeding should do such an ill-bred thing.) Furthermore, an education, fee-paying or not, should alone be enough to keep you out of the sex industries, so long as it's advanced enough. (A GCSE won't do, ladies, not even an A*.)

Well, it isn't enough. Last week it emerged that one in four lapdancers has a degree. This is only news because of an assumption that all sex for money – indeed, all objectification – is abuse. You get into it via ignorance and poverty. Nobody would do it without profound problems of self-worth, and a warped relationship with their own sexuality. Team that with the inescapable idea that anyone selling sex undervalues their own identity in the process, swapping the lived experience for the role of service provider. It's accepted that there's no financial context to selling your body, no sliding scale. It is what it is.

And I always found the opposite view really irritating: the Belle de Jour trope of a high-class hooker, shagging for money but with a great 'do and a Prada bag at the end of it, so what's not to like? This epitomised everything airheaded about "postfeminism", with its coy, tacit, relativist assertion that it's sad when it happens to poor ladies, but emotionally neutral, even a little bit fun, for someone rich and pretty.

Nevertheless, we know instinctively that all types of prostitution are not created equal. Use your own offspring as a test. The idea of your daughter turning tricks in King's Cross is viscerally horrifying: a Belle de Jour type of arrangement doesn't stir the same feelings – terribly upsetting, but a Ralph Miliband-ish "It's against everything I stand for, but at least they're enjoying themselves".

Money changes everything. Something that would be degrading for a tenner isn't for £1,200, just as pickpocketing is tawdry while a jewel heist has a certain panache. Morality, as perceived by society, is indivisible from status, since only in the act of judging do we invest an act with moral weight, and we don't judge from a standing start. Sexual morality is particularly elastic. The cornerstones of the conversation are self-respect and dignity: an act that would be debasing if undertaken in desperation is empowering if you're the winner.

This is not the standard feminist line: the women's movement would have all women selling sex presented as victims of the violent irrepressibility of the male appetite. Yet the endpoint of this argument is that women, certainly in respect of their sexuality, are expected to operate under a bell jar, untainted by market forces, unmoved by money's charisma, heedless of its significance – when it is a given that these things beset and often define the rest of their lives.

And frankly, it is not just prostitutes but all women – particularly young, attractive ones – who are expected to move through the world in a bubble of purity, as though allergic to atavistic urges like competition. We talk about top-end prostitution in the same way as we talk about raunch culture: how could a nice girl consider it? Surely it represents a failure of female empowerment, to see young women measuring their bodies out by the pound, like they're at a car boot sale? But you'd be asking a lot of anybody that they imbibe the cultural values of competitiveness and capitalism yet keep their bodies sacrosanct, for reasons that are opaque and aren't even religious.

I am against sex for money. I think it reinforces the idea that women do sex as a favour to men; and for as long as we think this, the act will always be polluted by coercion of one sort or another. The slag/stud double standard will always hold. But whether or not a young woman with some good A-levels is selling her body couldn't be less relevant: we should be pulling this tree up by the roots, not hassling one of the apples.

City hoping to rival West End with new shopping centre

One New Change may rebrand London's financial district as a place to go for a day out

At first glance it looks like a big blob next to one of the capital's most elegant landmarks. Seen from the back, it comes close to resembling the architect's inspiration: a US stealth bomber.

But regardless of what it looks like, planners hope that this newly erected building next to St Paul's cathedral on Cheapside in the City of London will create an alternative shopping destination to rival the West End and Canary Wharf.

The eight-floor building at One New Change, developed by Land Securities, is almost fully let to retailers including Banana Republic, H&M, Topshop and M&S Simply Food, as well as cafes and a restaurant run by Jamie Oliver. The new mall, which takes Cheapside back to its roots ("cheap" means market), is expected to put pressure on other shops to extend their opening hours and could transform the Square Mile with its 10,000 residents from a ghost town at weekends into a tourist mecca.

Peter Rees, the City of London's planning officer, says: "You've got to keep rebranding in terms of making a place better all the time." He is convinced the City is becoming more fun, noting, for example, that the nightclubs clustered in Cornhill are busy well into the early hours.

When he took the job 25 years ago, the City was usually depicted in the media as populated by bowler-hatted men hurrying to work across London Bridge in the morning and leaving again at 5pm.

It was a pretty gloomy place then, he says, right down to the lunchtime eateries, which typically offered a choice of cheese or ham roll – a bit of tomato if you were lucky – and where pubs closed at 8pm.

Speaking in his clutter-free office in Guildhall, Rees says: "The City has become a much more rounded place. The quality of food available; the entertainment and leisure facilities have improved, and we're bringing shopping back to the City. It's not just a place to work any longer."

Rees, who trained as an architect and town planner, has been in the job since Big Bang unleashed a series of changes that transformed the cosy old boys' network and catapulted London to the forefront of global financial activity.

The 61-year-old Welshman, who describes himself as a Londoner, was brought in to review the City's planning policies just before the new regime came into force in 1986. The sweeping changes brought electronic trading to the City, allowed foreign companies to buy UK banks and British retail banks to set up investment banking operations.

His task was to prepare the Square Mile for London's transformation into a global financial powerhouse. He set about the job with gusto, bringing in new architects such as Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, who replaced the cartel of a handful of firms known as "business practices" that dominated building in the City.

The established practices had churned out unimaginative buildings that followed a standard formula, usually topped off with a thin veneer of Portland stone at the front to lend them respectability (never mind the glazed brick at the back).

Then came Rogers, who broke the mould with his radical steel-and-glass building for the Lloyd's of London insurance market, completed in 1986. Services such as staircases and lifts were banished to the outside to maximise usable space in the building.

"Back in the 1980s every arriving American bank wanted to have the largest dealing floor in London. There was no practical sense in it. In fact, virtually all of these mega-dealing floors were split up into smaller spaces," says Rees. "It's interesting to see that companies that moved to Canary Wharf for a million square foot [93,000 sq metres] are now coming back to the City for half a million.

"For instance, Lehman Brothers are being brought back by Nomura to a waterside site in the City." The Japanese bank is in the middle of moving all its staff to its new headquarters at Watermark Place near Cannon Street.

The Square Mile, which has been in fierce competition with its upstart rival to the east for nearly 20 years, received another big boost last month when the Swiss bank UBS decided to stay at Broadgate, next to Liverpool Street station, where it will build a new 65,000 sq metre European headquarters. The US fund manager BlackRock snapped up Drapers Gardens, while the Australian investment bank Macquarie took more than a third of British Land's 55,000 sq metre Ropemaker Place.

Rees points to Goldman Sachs, whose European headquarters is in Fleet Street, as an example of banks that opt for a cluster of short lets, rather than pile into one large tower, which allows for a more flexible approach should the bank's needs change. Similarly, JP Morgan has put plans to build a 185,000 sq metre European headquarters in Canary Wharf on hold as it tries to decide whether to take new offices in the City instead, where it is scattered over several buildings.

The City is in the midst of a "mini-boom" with a shortage of office space pushing up rents, which are still only half of what they are in the West End.

One of Rees' buzzwords is "place-making", by which he means the art of linking up the spaces between buildings with pedestrian routes – 90% of all journeys in the City are made on foot – and providing places where people can relax, such as small parks and fountains.

He sees the City as a "collection of beehives on top of a compost heap" and stresses the importance of having alleyways, pubs and coffeeshops where people can linger and gossip. "That's very difficult to codify and plan for, but very easy to kill with bad planning."

For example, he got Foster to design 100 Wood Street so it curves around an old tree at the back and to build a bridge over an old alleyway. A city like Frankfurt fills him with horror. "It used to be a quiet market town; now it's a quiet market town with skyscrapers."

Rees believes in an incremental approach to planning, rather than raising a new town from the ground like Canary Wharf. "These cities are all scorched-earth planning, going in with a flamethrower and start again. They're very simplistic in their plans, they don't allow for gossip, for this sort of organic growth and change, which is so important in any place."

Labour's three steps back to health | Patrick Diamond and Michael Kenny

The centre-left must reinterpret social democracy by committing to electoral reform, economic justice and community cohesion

Labour's next leader must develop a vision of the party's future in an utterly new context. He or she must remind the public of the achievements and successes of the period after 1997 – despite May's calamitous election result – while recognising that Labour needs to change if it is to win again.

Long-established features of the political landscape have been uprooted by the coalition government. The two-party mould may have been broken. By 2015, it will be 18 years since Labour's watershed victory in 1997. Britain has changed profoundly in its demography, its economy, and the size and scope of its state. This makes the rethinking of the party's purpose and mission unavoidable. Labour will not succeed by harking back to the mantras of yesterday. Instead, it needs to undertake a proper assessment of its years in power.

That is the focus of a symposium taking place today, sponsored by The Political Quarterly. Importantly, the event embraces the leading Liberal Democrat, Shirley Williams, the coalition's new social mobility tsar Alan Milburn and former ministers, including John Denham. It may be a foretaste of the kind of realigned, plural politics that Labour will need to undertake if it is to challenge Nick Clegg and David Cameron.

How can Labour develop an identity that enables it to leave behind the Blair-Brown era without negating the strategic insights upon which New Labour's modernising politics were founded? This involves much more than sloganeering and rhetoric. The centre-left has to reinterpret the very meaning of social democracy. Since 1945 the British left has taken stock and looked afresh at its ideological bearings every 30 years or so. The last bout of significant revisionism occurred during the long years of Thatcherism, when the journal Marxism Today enraged and stimulated with its mixture of theoretically informed iconoclasm and affinity for the modernity that was emerging from the wreckage of the 1980s.

Thirty years previously, intellectuals and artists flocked to the unconventional and eclectic New Left movement. They posed fundamental questions about the meaning of socialism in the era of affluence, advertising and the H-Bomb. This shared with Labour's more familiar revisionist thinkers – notably Tony Crosland – the appreciation that Labour is most likely to succeed when it is able to project itself as the party most attuned to the zeitgeist.

In the 1950s and the 1980s, it took more than one election defeat for the party to realise that Labour was facing a crisis of ideology and identity, not just short-term unpopularity. If history is not to repeat itself, strategic thinking and ideological renewal have to take precedence over tactical manoeuvring. In politics, it is always tempting to seize on the latest intellectual fashions and passing fads. This time, it would be wiser to reconnect with several of the most compelling themes that have a lineage to earlier periods of radicalism in Labour's history.

The first is the centrality of the democratic state to Labour politics. In 1930, Labour came close to passing legislation that would have introduced the alternative vote into British general elections. The party urgently needs to put together a new prospectus for democratic reform if it wants to talk credibly to liberal opinion. That has to mean strong support for next year's AV referendum. It also means taking forward New Labour's stalled proposals for elected mayors, a wholly elected second chamber, and fundamental reform of the Westminster model, so that ministers are directly accountable to Parliament and citizens.

The second is an agenda of economic justice which is about far more than redistribution by the state to the poorest, crucial though that is. It means returning to the case for a far wider diffusion of property and asset ownership in Britain, inheriting the mantle of radical reformers like Thomas Paine. Such figures understood that a more democratic culture requires far more people holding a meaningful stake in the economic system. Access to home ownership ought to be widened by giving those on middle and lower incomes access to finance, and expanding intermediate ownership and social housing. Tackling banks and financial institutions which give citizens a raw deal through far tougher consumer regulation is imperative. And it is essential to address the steady erosion of living standards among working families above the cut-off point for tax credits, whose desertion was a key factor in Labour's spectacularly poor electoral performance in southern England.

The third theme is the left's affinity with community-based radicalism. The coalition continues to advocate the theme of the "big society", though with varying degrees of conviction. Imprecise as it is, Labour is wrong not to engage with the spirit and vision that lie behind it. Countering this idea with a benign vision of "the good state" is mistaken. Labour has to reclaim the language of reciprocity and mutualism. The state is still only a means through which goals such as strengthening and enabling communities can be pursued. The party has to develop a new compact with the voluntary and community sector, and work through the implications of tasking mutual providers to deliver public services. Many more collectively owned assets and institutions – parks, libraries and leisure centres – should be run by the communities they serve.

The scale of the challenge facing Labour's next leader is hard to overstate. But there are signs that a credible strategy is starting to emerge. This has to take account of the pluralism which has become a hallmark of British politics, and the public's growing interest in politicians setting aside their differences and working together in common cause on certain issues. And it must provide a coherent plan for tackling the deficit with credible proposals on tax and spend, articulating a clear alternative to the austerity economics of George Osborne. But none of this will be enough unless Labour is able to tell a clear and simple story about what it is for, animated by a vision of the better society it aspires to create.

• Progressive Dilemmas: New Labour in Power is sponsored by The Political Quarterly, and is taking place at Church House in London on Thursday 9 September

Kipper Williams: Opening soon in the City

A new shopping centre is coming to the City. What services might it offer its well-heeled clientele?

Labour party urged to abandon tribalism

Patrick Diamond, who wrote 2010 election manifesto, urges party to reach out to Lib Dem voters to get back into power

The man who wrote Labour's 2010 general election manifesto today calls on the party to reach out to disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters in order to get back into government.

Patrick Diamond, who worked inside Downing Street in the year running up to the election, will convene the first public cross-party gathering of senior Lib Dems and Labour officials since the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, took his party into coalition with the Conservatives.

Labour MPs and leadership contenders have spent the last few months by turns wooing and ridiculing Lib Dems for accepting their leader's coalition decision. But Diamond and his co-author, Mike Kenny, professor of politics at Sheffield University, are now pushing Labour away from isolation in the realigned political landscape.

The Lib Dem Lady Williams will address the conference, as will the former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn, who has attracted criticism from the former deputy leader John Prescott for accepting an unpaid role with the coalition. Also speaking will be the former cabinet minister John Denham, who supports Ed Miliband for the Labour leadership.

Diamond and Kenny write that the conference "may well be a foretaste of the kind of realigned, plural politics that Labour will need to undertake if it is to challenge the coalition". They criticise the current Labour leadership race for revealing "little insightful engagement".

The authors want Labour to recognise the public has warmed to Clegg's and Cameron's lack of tribalism. Diamond said: "Labour has to find its own version of the new politics, not reject the new politics."

Both of the likely next leaders of the Labour party – the two brothers Miliband – will be receptive to their ideas. But Lib Dems believe Ed Miliband to be intent on absorbing disillusioned Lib Dems and David Miliband to be more receptive to the idea of a coalition of two discrete parties.

Laying out a series of policies towards which Labour should move in opposition, Kenny and Diamond call for the Labour leadership to offer "unconditional support" for the alternative vote (AV) referendum. This is something both the Milibands, by opposing elements of the bill that see changes to constituency boundaries, are at risk of obscuring.

"It [Labour] should support the AV vote," they write, "both so that it can talk credibly to liberal opinion in years to come, and to become a force that can shape the future, not just defend the past."

They also call for a shift towards areas of thinking the coalition has pioneered: "An agenda of economic justice which is about far more than redistribution by the state to the poor".

They write: "It is essential to address the steady erosion of living standards among working families above the cut-off point for tax credits, whose desertion of Labour led to its spectacularly poor performance in the south of England."

On the idea of the "big society", they argue: "Labour is wrong to not engage with the spirit and vision that lies behind it. Countering this idea with a benign vision of 'the good state' is mistaken."

'Superhead' Mark Elms defends plans to convert school to academy

Concerns raised over 'lack of transparency' surrounding pay, but Elms cites flexibility and freedom as advantages

A headteacher who was criticised for being paid more than £240,000 last year has defended controversial plans to convert his primary school to academy status.

When parents discovered in July that Mark Elms' pay package had reached almost £250,000, many defended him for transforming the fortunes of a school which has been rated "outstanding" under his leadership.

But since then, some parents have launched a campaign against proposals to turn Tidemill primary into an academy – which would be free from local authority control and able to set its own pay rates.

Concern has been fuelled by what one campaigner claimed was a "lack of transparency" over Elms' pay. He is thought to be the most well paid headteacher in Britain.

Elms said today that converting to an academy would enable the school to be more flexible in helping children who spoke English as a second language.

Speaking for the first time since the pay controversy, he said it would also free the school to set salaries at a level that would attract the best teachers.

"There are obviously lots of freedoms; there's the freedom to design your own curriculum. We have very unique characteristics, 65% [are non-native English speakers], 45% free school meals… lots of refugees."

"We need to make sure the curriculum is designed to match their needs, to reflect their background and experience."

Tidemill, in Lewisham, south-east London, has a high proportion of children who do not speak English at home. The school itself estimates that 30 languages are spoken there, including Somali, Farsi, French and Yoruba.

Elms declined to comment on his pay, but said: "Finances are very important. You can do an awful lot in terms of recruiting highly qualified, suitable staff."

Elms earned a basic salary of just over £82,700 in the last financial year. He also received payments totalling £102,955 for work he did over two years as part of Labour's City Challenge programme, which aims to use proven success stories to help underachieving schools.

His pay package reached nearly £250,000 with the inclusion of £10,000 for out-of-hours work, arrears of £9,317 for 2008-09, an employer's pension contribution of £16,700 and an "appointment and retention" payment of £26,413.

One of the parents campaigning against the proposals, Leila Galloway, said she was seeking greater transparency over the head's pay. She has asked for minutes of financial discussions at governors' meetings. Galloway, who has two daughters at the school, said she was concerned that the expansion of academies under the coalition government would create a two-tier education system.

"I believe in comprehensive education. Labour kickstarted [academies] but they've turned into a totally different beast. It drains funding from all the other schools. Personally, I think it will devastate the country. It's a huge social experiment," she said.

Galloway said she had organised a petition and a public meeting to campaign against the proposals.

Elms insisted that a broad consultation was taking place. He said the school had asked in its annual questionnaire whether parents would like more information, and 70% had said yes.The school is also carrying out a telephone survey of 8-10% of parents and held a public meeting yesterday to explain the plans.

"It's a very complicated, very controversal new policy, and we're not wanting to rush into it," he said.A total of 32 schools opened as academies this month out of 2,000 that had expressed interest since May

Over 140 schools are expected to convert to academy status in the coming school year after the government passed a new law to allow every school in England to opt out of local authority control.

Schools like Tidemill that are rated "outstanding" by Ofsted were pre-approved, meaning that those who applied immediately are the most likely to open as academies first.

The speed at which the legislation moved through parliament led to accusations that ministers rushed the reforms using a timetable usually reserved for emergency laws, such as anti-terror powers.

Phone-hacking: MPs set to agree top inquiry

Speaker paves way for standards and privileges committee to question top News International figures over scandal

The net was tightening round News International last night after the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, paved the way for parliament's most powerful cross-party committee to investigate the phone-hacking scandal.

As a new opinion poll showed that 52% of voters believe that Andy Coulson should resign as the No 10 director of communications, leading News International figures face the prospect of being summoned to answer charges that MPs' phone messages have been hacked on behalf of the News of the World.

The commons standards and privileges committee, which will decide the terms of its inquiry after a short parliamentary debate today, can impose a range of punishments on anyone who refuses to appear. These include being summoned to appear before all MPs at the bar of the Commons chamber.

Rebekah Brooks, the News International chief executive, last year refused three invitations to give evidence from the less powerful commons culture committee. Les Hinton, the former executive chairman who is now chief executive of Dow Jones and Company, agreed to give evidence by video from New York only after being invited for the second time.

The establishment of the second parliamentary inquiry in as many days came as an opinion poll showed disquiet about Coulson's role, putting extra pressure on him to resign from No 10. Coulson, who resigned as News of the World editor after the paper's royal editor was jailed for hacking into phone messages, has consistently denied any knowledge of illegal activity.

The YouGov poll found that 52% of those questioned believe Coulson should lose his job. Just 24% believe he should keep it. The poll also showed there is little support for the main News International and Coulson defence: that the NoW's former royal editor, Clive Goodman, was a rogue reporter. Just 6% of those polled believe the Goodman case was an isolated incident. An overwhelming number (80%) believe that other newspapers do the same thing.

The Metropolitan police enjoys little support. Nearly half (47%) believe the police have not fully investigated the allegations; just 14% believe they did. There is strong support (54%) for the police to reopen their investigation. YouGov interviewed 2,089 adults between 6-7 September.

The poll came as Sean Hoare, a former NoW journalist who told the New York Times that Coulson encouraged phone hacking, confirmed that he would be happy to repeat his allegations to police. Hoare rang the Met to say he would voluntarily give them his account.

Hoare could also be asked to appear before the standards and privileges committee. The second parliamentary inquiry in as many days, following the decision of the home affairs select committee to examine the law around phone hacking, was triggered by Bercow. In a statement at the end of prime minister's questions, the Speaker allowed the shadow Europe minister, Chris Bryant, to table a motion referring allegations about the hacking of MPs' phones to the standards and privileges committee.

A short debate will be held today after which the matter is expected to be nodded through. Bercow is understood to take the allegations seriously. There are concerns that parliamentary privilege could have been breached if the NoW, or a private investigator acting on its behalf, hacked into messages from MPs' constituents.

The Speaker's decision shows how the phone-hacking scandal has deepened in recent days. Members of the standards and privileges committee, which is chaired by the Labour MP Kevin Barron, had indicated they did not believe they should consider the matter. They said that privilege would only be breached if an outsider sought to put pressure on an MP.

Tom Clarke, a former Labour minister who sits on the committee, said it was right for it to consider the case. "There will be a neutral, non-political judgment of the evidence before us," he said.

Clarke said he expected high-profile figures to be asked to give evidence. "It is a matter for Kevin Barron, but I would be surprised if the inquiry did not lead to people giving evidence," Clarke said.

The speaker's statement came after Nick Clegg, who was standing in for Cameron, attempted to embarrass Labour by revealing that Gordon Brown was the first person to commiserate with Coulson when he resigned as NoW editor. "He told him not to worry, that he had done the honourable thing and that he knew he would go on to do a worthwhile job," said Clegg.

World's most expensive book comes up for sale

Sotheby's to auction Audubon's Birds of America and Shakespeare's First Folio from estate of late Lord Hesketh

By any standards they form part of a truly extraordinary library: a rare copy of the world's most expensive book, perhaps the most important book in English literature, a fascinating cache of letters from Elizabeth I to the jailor of Mary Queen of Scots, and more besides.

Sotheby's will today announce it is to sell items from the collection of the late Lord Hesketh, including a stunning copy of John James Audubon's Birds of America, a book that grabbed the world-record auction price of $8.8m 10 years ago.

David Goldthorpe, a senior specialist in Sotheby's books and manuscripts department, said: "To have all these items in one sale is remarkable; it's certainly never happened in my time, 15 years, and people who've been here longer can't recall it."

Frederick Fermor-Hesketh, 2nd Baron Hesketh, belonged to a family that had collected books from the 19th century onwards and was an obsessive. He was an example of what is known as "high spot collecting" in that he did not specialise but needed to have the very best of the best and, with a big splurge of collecting in the early 1950s, he achieved it. Now, 55 years after his death, trustees of his will are selling books, manuscripts and letters with an estimated total worth of £8m to £10m.

One of the highlights is a copy of Birds of America valued at £4m to £6m. The book is bound on a huge scale – a "double elephant" folio – because Haiti-born Audubon wanted to paint the birds life size. He would travel across America, shooting the birds before carefully hanging them on bits of wire to paint them.

Not only was Audubon a skilled artist, he was also a persuasive seller, travelling to Britain to print the volumes and then offering Birds of America to the very rich as a prestige product. The copy being sold was first bought by an early paleobotanist, Henry Witham, "subscriber number 11", after an apparently very boozy dinner. Audubon writes in his ledger: "I determined in an instant that this gentleman was a gentleman indeed … We all talked much, for I believe the good wine of Mr Witham had a most direct effect."

Only 119 complete copies of Birds of America are known to exist today and 108 of those are owned by museums, libraries and universities.

A copy of Shakespeare's First Folio included in the sale is almost as rare and has been valued at £1m to £1.5m. The volume of 36 of Shakespeare's plays was published in 1623, and, of the 750 that were probably printed, 219 are known to exist today, most in institutions and most in America. Goldthorpe said there were very few good copies in private hands and only two other textually complete copies with such an early binding. "To have it in this state of preservation is really quite extraordinary," he said.

The Elizabethan letters date from 1584-85 and were all written to Ralph Sadler – a name familiar to readers of Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall – who was being asked to take over from a fed-up Lord Shrewsbury as jailor of Mary Queen of Scots. "It was a completely thankless job, to be honest," said Sotheby's specialist Gabriel Heaton.

The letters give detailed instructions, such as where guards should be placed, how many women she could have, the circumstances in which she was allowed outside, and so on.

They are signed by Elizabeth – with her recognisably grand, flourishing signature – but are otherwise mostly in the hand of scribes. One letter does contain a handwritten message from the Queen, to "use but old trust and new diligence".

Other letters – about 180 pages, which could fetch £150,000-£200,000 – include some written by her chief minister, Lord Burghley, and her spymaster, Francis Walsingham. "As far as we know, this cache of letters has not been studied by historians," said Heaton. "It is really quite exceptional to get a group of letters like this."

Further highlights of the sale on 7 December include a copy of William Caxton's Polychronicon, a stunningly illustrated copy of Plutarch's Lives of Romulus and Cato the Younger, and many original drawings from Pierre-Joseph Redouté's Les Roses.

Afghanistan options are running out

The departure of Britain's special envoy reflects a loss of momentum behind political and diplomatic efforts to end the war

This is the second time Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles's departure as the UK's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan has been announced.

On the first occasion, back in June, he informed the new foreign secretary, William Hague, that he barely had a job any more. It involved little more than a weekly conference call to compare notes with the American diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, and his counterparts from other western capitals. It could just as easily be done part-time by someone else in the cabinet office or at the foreign office's south Asia desk.

Hague asked for time to reflect while Cowper-Coles left for several months' leave he was owed after three years' service on Afghanistan, including two stints as ambassador in Kabul.

By Tuesday this week, when the diplomat went back in to see Hague, the foreign secretary had come round to his point of view. So, with a few short paragraphs of Foreign Office prose, the role invented 18 months ago to embody Britain's joined-up thinking about Afghanistan and Pakistan was unceremoniously wound up. The search for stability in the region might be a foreign policy priority, but there is plainly not enough legwork involved to employ a top-flight diplomat one day a week. It is hard to think of a clearer illustration of paralysis.

That policy is founded on – and stuck on – support for the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai, which goes through the motions of reform and reconciliation with alienated Pashtun tribes, but has done little to change the status quo. Last week, Karzai set up a High Peace Council to pursue reconciliation, but in reality it has no mandate to negotiate. Likewise, the parliamentary elections due this month promise to be as riddled with fraud as last year's presidential poll, hardening the Kabul establishment's corrupt and self-serving image in the countryside.

Cowper-Coles spent most of his energy over the past few years pushing for a political approach to the Taliban. But both Washington and Kabul have been unwilling to lead that approach and are anyway deeply distrusted by the other side.

The window for talks may now be closing. In the absence of clear military progress from the military surge, there are growing calls in the west for a retreat from the counter-insurgency in southern Afghanistan. In Washington, a self-styled Afghanistan Study Group, made up of academics, former officials and ex-officers, has issued a call for a drastic rethink.

Noting that Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history, costing $100bn a year, the group argues for an end to combat operations in the south and a focus instead on power-sharing and political reconciliation, in tandem with counter-terrorist operations narrowly targeted on al-Qaida.

Writing in Politico, one of the authors, Steve Clemons, says

US armed forces have fought bravely and well. Their dedication is unquestioned. But we should not ask them to make sacrifices unnecessary to our core national interests – particularly when doing so threatens long-term needs and priorities both at home and abroad.

It sounds a lot like the strategy set out over a year ago by Vice-President Joe Biden, but eventually overruled by the president. It may yet re-emerge as a fall-back position if the surge fails, but it leaves open a lot of questions, like what to do if a retreat triggers all-out civil war? And why should the Taliban sit down to talk if they know the Americans are going to withdraw anyway?

Nato may yet turn to the UN to help it square the circle and escape Afghanistan. The idea of a newly empowered UN envoy, such as the veteran Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, is gaining ground. He could be a mutually acceptable front man for talks and bring in the regional players, without whom there can be no enduring settlement. But until such hard new decisions are made, there is precious little real work for diplomats like Sherard Cowper-Coles.

Government climbdown on detention of children in immigration centres

Immigration minister Damian Green announces intention to 'minimise' detention of children rather than end practice

The government was yesterday accused of abandoning its promise to end the detention of children in immigration centres in a climbdown that will be a severe embarrassment to Liberal Democrat ministers.

Two months after Nick Clegg told MPs the coalition would deliver on its pledge to end the controversial practice, Damian Green, the immigration minister, has revealed that the government only intended to "minimise" the number of child detainees.

The Lib Dems had hailed the policy as a sign of their influence within the Tory-led coalition. During his speech to the Commons in July, Clegg criticised the Labour government for committing a "moral outrage" by detaining 1,000 children held with their families while awaiting removal from the UK last year. The deputy prime minister, who announced the closure of the Yarl's Wood detention centre's family unit, pledged to "restore a sense of decency and liberty to the way we conduct ourselves".

The government's policy shift emerged in answer to a question by the Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland over the long-term future of Yarl's Wood following the decision to close the family and child wing.

Green replied: "At the moment, we are looking at alternatives to detention for children … It is our intention to minimise the detention of children in the future as a whole and, therefore, that aspect of Yarl's Wood's use will disappear, but clearly not its use for adult women."

Tonight Green said the government's intention remained to end child detention. In a brief statement released by the Home Office he said: "Significant progress has been made in working towards the commitment to end child detention for immigration purposes and we are currently piloting some proposed changes to our approach developed with partners. We have already announced that the family unit at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre will close.

The coalition agreement released in May said: "We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes," Green noted, adding: "That remains."

The Children's Society and refugee welfare groups urged Green to stick to the promise. Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "We would be hugely disappointed if the government reneged on its pledge to end child detention for good. 'Minimising' the use of detention for children is unacceptable and would still involve locking up innocent and vulnerable children. There is no practical reason why detention of children should not be stopped today."

The Guardian reported last month that families with children facing removal were being given an ultimatum to leave the country voluntarily or face deportation "within weeks" under a pilot scheme, dashing expectations of more liberal alternatives to child detention.

News of the government climbdown came as a report revealed the impact of child detention. In the first large-scale investigation in the UK, Medical Justice found that many who had been locked up suffered psychological and physical damage, with symptoms ranging from extreme anxiety to bed wetting. Three girls attempted to take their own lives.

"This report proves once and for all the terrible impact detention has on children," said Emma Ginn from Medical Justice. "There is simply no excuse for the government to continue with its policy of locking up children.. As Nick Clegg said, it is 'state-sponsored cruelty'."

Medical Justice gathered evidence from independent doctors, witness statements and interviews, assessing 141 cases between 2004 and April 2010.

It found that in 61 cases children had been picked up in dawn raids, leaving more than two thirds suffering from increased stress "food refusal and self harming".

Many of the children said they had witnessed violence against their families, including claims of racist abuse and taunting while in detention. In one case an eight-year-old boy who fled Nigeria with his family claims he witnessed his father being assaulted while in detention.

"I remember when my daddy was thrown to the floor and hit the radiator. There were lots of officers and they were pulling his hair and kicking him. They also kept blocking his nose and it looked like he couldn't breathe. They were shouting bad things at him and I was scared."

The study found that 74 children were "psychologically harmed", with symptoms ranging from persistent crying to loss of bowel control, 92 were found to have had suffered physically.

A spokesman for the Refugee Children's Consortium, which represents 30 charities including Barnados and the NSPCC, said: "It is clear after reading the shocking medical and legal evidence in this report that the government must make good its commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes."

The chief executive of the UK Border Agency, Lin Homer, said it took the needs of "vulnerable individuals seeking asylum in the UK, and in particular the need to safeguard and protect the wellbeing of children", very seriously."Significant progress has been made in working towards the commitment to end child detention for immigration purposes and we are currently piloting some proposed changes to our approach developed with partners."

She said she was unable to answer the specific points raised in the report as Medical Justice had declined to provide a copy.

Hugh Muir's diary

We have royalty flying with us today. Tighten your belts please

• We are equal in the eyes of God, and in theory we should all be equal on our leading budget airlines. But then some are more equal than others. And so it was on Tuesday when Prince and Princess Michael of Kent caught the easyJet flight to Gatwick from Athens. Easy? By jove, it certainly was. Two busloads of passengers, including those with children, preceded the royal couple on to the flight. Sit where you like, they were told; except for the two rows at the front. Another bus drew up; two passengers inside. Guess who? "We have saved you the front," gushed an attendant. "You can choose." Princess Michael headed for the window. Prince hubby took the aisle, and this left an empty seat between them, a fact seized upon by one of the later passengers. Unaware, he tried to sit there. He was quickly ushered away. It was an uneventful flight, during which the princess, once mocked as Pushy, was heard to remark that their two fares cost the equivalent of one ticket on British Airways. She slept for a while. He had a Mars Bar and a coffee. They cannot win, of course, for we implore them to save money, and mock them when they do. But that could be because no one really knows where they stand when exalted types move among us. "What do I have to do to get this sort of treatment?" one passenger was heard to ask, once the Kents were whisked away, having first met the captain. "Be royalty!" an acerbic crew member said.

• Just that. No call for airs and graces. And, according to former minister Peter Hain, this approach has served Nelson Mandela well. Launching his book Mandela, at the Speaker's House, Hain recalled how he tried to transport Madiba to meet Tony Blair but failed to get him there on time because the greater man was engrossed in his own conversations with the hotel workers. Hain's mother – like him a steadfast anti-apartheid campaigner – was ill in hospital. Nelson rang her. "This is Mandela from South Africa," he said. "Do you remember me?"

• We are chided for understating the strife at the House of Commons. Yes, beer prices have increased, a source complains, but what about the food? Up 30% in the cafeterias, penalising staff whose salaries were kept low because the food is subsidised. "The poorest-paid are now poorer," says our man with the empty soup bowl. "Well done, MPs."

• There is a saying that former chatshow hosts never die, they merely reappear with shows in Australia. And in the case of Sir Michael Parkinson and Sir David Frost, this would appear to be true – as both, it seems have plans to stage a joint production in which they would interview each other. Older they may be, but Parkinson for one has lost little of the sharpness he had when he graced the pages of the Guardian. For example, he told the Royal Television Society yesterday that he well remembers the BBC executive who spotted him in the car park after the corporation scuppered his show, and pointedly scurried off in the opposite direction. Yentob. Alan Yentob. Parky never forgets a name.

• And it's another day, another cancellation for Tony Blair, whose Tate Modern launch party for his book A Journey was scrapped amid fears that it would provoke public disorder. He may soon need an airlift to safety, perhaps to exile. It needn't be for ever. Look at Asil Nadir. But even if he goes now, the damage is done, for his memoir is out there, and readers tell us that some people are indeed buying it at the full price of £25, when all around there are knockdown copies available for £12.50 or less. Full-priced sightings reach us from London, north and east. The website Listen2 also has audio copies for £17.99, but that entails listening to Tony reading the entire thing, including – we presume – the gruesome sex scene. Thirteen CDs of Tony or waterboarding? Which is worse? You choose.

• Finally, was there anything one could usefully have said to an apparently morose Paul Weller as he stood outside the Grosvenor House hotel, fag on the go, having failed to land the Mercury music prize. Nothing that would have made it any better. That's Entertainment.

diary@guardian.co.uk

Business jet in near-collision with airliner over east London

Incident involving airliner with 232 passengers on board forces air traffic control to introduce stricter safety procedures in area

A near miss involving two planes, one carrying 232 passengers, has forced air traffic controllers to introduce strict safety procedures to prevent the risk of a mid-air collision at a potential blackspot over east London.

The new measures follow a "serious incident" when a business jet was forced to take action to avoid a Heathrow-bound Boeing 777, as the two passed just half-a-mile from each other at heights less than 61 metres (200ft) apart above the busy A12 near Hackney, an accident report reveals today.

The incident on 27 July last year highlighted the potential for human error to cause disaster above the heavily populated area between Hackney and Stratford where planes leaving London City airport routinely cross the flight path of incoming Heathrow-bound aircraft.

A misunderstanding between the German-owned Citation jet and air traffic controllers saw the jet attempt to climb steeply to 4,000ft after departing from London City just as the Turkish Airlines passenger plane had been cleared to descend to 4,000ft. The jet, with one passenger and two crew on board, saw the Boeing 777 and took avoiding action.

The consequences of a mid-air collision in this part of London "would be particularly serious because of the population density below", states the report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the air safety watchdog, said procedures were now in place to reduce the risk of human error in the future.

The jet had been cleared by the control tower at London City to climb, initially to 3,000ft. But, acknowledging the instruction, the crew said it would be climbing to 4,000ft – a "readback" mistake not noticed by the controller, and the same height as the Boeing.

The jet was able to take avoidance action because it saw the Boeing, said the report. But, had the weather been bad, "the only barrier to a potential mid-air collision" would have been the collision avoidance system. But, the report added, the avoidance system did not resolve the incident as the Boeing crew did not respond to the in-flight alerts in time, and the Citation did not have a collision-avoidance piece of equipment known as a TCAS II.

The AAIB recommended that all flights from London City maintain a height of 3,000ft until well clear of the Heathrow flight path, and that this instruction is given separately from the remainder of the take-off clearance.

It also recommends that the CAA consider whether TCAS II shoud be mandatory for certain aircraft operating in the area. A spokesman for the CAA said: "The pilot got it wrong and the controller didn't pick up on the fact he got it wrong. Nats [national air traffic service] has now changed its procedures on the way it communicates to the pilot about the route and the heights they want to fly, and the way they check that the pilot has actually understood what he should have understood, has written it down and inputted it into his flight control system.

"Basically you are talking about human error. What Nats and London City have tried to do is remove as far as possible anything that could lead to a pilot being able to make a human error".

Letters: Act now on child refugee detainees

The Refugee Children's Consortium is a group of 30 NGOs working to ensure the rights and needs of refugee children are promoted and respected in accordance with domestic and international standards. We have long campaigned for an end to the detention of children for immigration purposes and we welcome Medical Justice's report, State Sponsored Cruelty, launched today, which exposes the physical and psychological damage caused by detaining children.

In May 2010 the government pledged to end the incarceration of children for immigration purposes. Two months later Nick Clegg announced that the facilities for families at Yarl's Wood would be closed, describing this harmful practice as a moral outrage. It is now September, Yarl's Wood remains open and children continue to be detained. The UK Border Agency received 342 submissions during its review into the ending of child detention, yet, thus far, there has been no positive change in policy or legislation. Instead, new policies, described as pilot schemes, have now been put in place, such as one to remove families without sufficient notice – which, rather than limiting harm, could damage children even further. It is unacceptable to continue to detain children while alternatives are explored. Given the shocking medical and legal evidence from State Sponsored Cruelty, we urge the government to make good its commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes, and to ensure that the welfare of children is protected at all times.

Kamena Dorling

Chief executive, Refugee Children's Consortium

List of members at guardian.co.uk/letters

Phone-hacking questions leave Nick Clegg slashing and chopping

The deputy prime minister, standing in for David Cameron, had to face the flak from the News of the World hacking scandal

David Cameron had flown to be with his dying father, so Nick Clegg had to face the flak from the hacking scandal. It can't have been easy. Recently Chris Huhne, a Lib Dem and now energy secretary, said that the News of the World's Andy Coulson must either have been involved in incriminating activity or else was the most incompetent editor in Fleet Street. Which was it, asked Jack Straw, standing in for Harriet Harman.

Mr Clegg looked uneasy. He waved his hands a lot. It's as if he is telling us: "Look, what I say may not make much sense, but my hands tell the story. Watch them chop and slash the air in a totally convincing way!"

He was clearly unwilling to give any real support to Mr Coulson. So he flannelled, at length. It was up to the police to sort it out. If there was new evidence, they would examine it. That was what the police were there for.

This rather missed the point, since there is plenty of old evidence that the police appear to have ignored. Mr Straw continued. Did Mr Clegg seriously expect us to believe that the only man at the paper who knew nothing about the phone hacking was the editor? The very man the prime minister had brought into the heart of government?

There was some help. For one thing, Mr Clegg pointed out that when Coulson resigned as editor – over the royal phone hacking – "one of the first people to commiserate was Gordon Brown. He said he knew he had done the honourable thing, and would go on to do a worthwhile job!" Tories laughed in merry relief.

Mr Straw ignored the jibe. Labour MPs looked grim. Things weren't going quite as they'd hoped. They were also being reminded that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that would stop a New Labour prime minister sucking up to the Murdoch press. The shadow justice secretary produced his quote from Chris Huhne. Mr Clegg, torn between colleague and boss, said: "My Rt Hon friend and I are in complete agreement!" This anguished (and absurd) claim restored some Labour morale. Then Mr Straw let his big chance slide by.

Mr Clegg said that he would not take any lessons from the party of the dodger dossier, of cash for peerages, and of Damien McBride – the Gordon Brown apparatchik who quit after inventing scurrilous yarns about the Tories. "Let's have a little consistency on this!"

The correct answer was gazing Mr Straw in the face, jumping up and down, trying and failing to attract his attention. It is: "But we got rid of Damien McBride!" This would have brought roars of applause and ended the match as surely as two goals in injury time.

Instead Clegg said, rather piteously, I thought: "Look, we've got a war in Afghanistan, a flood in Pakistan, and he is inviting the government to second-guess the police!"

The logical extension of this nonsense is that as long as the war goes on in Afghanistan – ie forever – and as long as there are natural disasters anywhere, parliament should not debate anything else.

The Speaker disagreed and, no doubt to the silent rage of the Tories, announced an emergency debate on the phone-hacking scandal today.

Letters: Dial M for Muckracking

Revelations so far revealed about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal are only the tip of the iceberg (Report, 7 September). Surely the most compelling reason for having a fresh investigation into the scandal relates to the vast bank of information the News of the World and its owner News International holds on the many victims of the hacking practice that it can unleash at its time of choosing. In true NoW style, elements of that intelligence gleaned illegally on victims – from Royals to politicians – will be pumped out at will in the "Screws" or other News International titles in years to come – once the current interest in the scandal has died down.

Name and address supplied

• While his appointment illuminates the reality behind Cameron's affable public persona, the question of whether Coulson should stay or go is a side issue. The key issue, as Marina Hyde noted during the election campaign, is Murdoch. The New York Times, in a cheering and robust defence of its independence, clearly regards this family dynasty as a flailing monster whose grubby tentacles have become perilously stretched, and have chosen a story with a serious capacity to wound. Here at home, alas, the cringing double act of Theresa May and Alan Johnson at the Westminster variety theatre fails to amuse.

Tony Rowlands

Bristol

• For a democracy to work properly, the information upon which voting choices are made must be honest and transparent. As far as I am aware no one has singled out this basic principle and emphasised its essential nature in all the words that have been written about the current phone-tapping scandal. Until this basic principle is really understood, people in general are not going to make much of a fuss, so those with an axe to grind will be able to continue to fill our ears with half-truths and downright lies.

As Will Hutton noted in the Observer, "News International has no less cross-media power than Berlusconi's Mediaset" and the "blatant self-interested use of media power" does happen here. This fact needs to be blazoned across our TV screens and headlined in non-Murdoch newspapers.

David Weaver

Cranleigh, Surrey

• Claims that Max Clifford and Gordon Taylor, in return for silence, received substantial settlements from the News of the World, in relation to the phone-hacking case, underlines how, if your pockets are deep enough, it is possible to buy immunity from scrutiny. Police forces, NHS and local government are all frequent "settlers out of court". With not a lot of faith, I hope some victims of the News of the World, the Met and the Press Complaints Commission will insist on their day in court.

Eddie Dougall

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

• I'm baffled by the questions over whether Andy Coulson is fit to be in government after the News of the World phone-hacking issue. If he knew about his staff carrying out illegal phone interceptions, he should go for dishonesty; if he didn't know he should go for incompetence.

David Boardman

Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire

• So "phone-hacking inquiry was abandoned to avoid upsetting police".

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear ...

Mike Whittaker

Stapleton, Shropshire

• I write in response to the article by Nicholas Watt and Afua Hirsch (MPs to question Andy Coulson and police over News of the World hacking claims, September 8). I strongly object to the reference halfway through the article of Chris Bryant MP accusing me of giving a misleading account and stating in respect of part of my evidence to the home affairs select committee that "It was a fib."

I am writing to Chris Bryant indicating that the relevant paragraph is both wrong and defamatory and asking him not to repeat it.

John Yates

Assistant commissioner specialist operations, Metropolitan Police Service