• Lansley 'has PM's full support'

Andrew Lansley has David Cameron's "full support", despite a Downing Street source reportedly saying the health secretary "should be taken out and shot".

  • Call for Paisley support prayers

The family of former first minister and DUP leader Ian Paisley remain at his hospital bedside.

  • 'Gobsmacking' tax and NHS costs

Estimates showing £10.9bn in unpaid tax was written off and medical negligence could cost £15.7bn are examined by the Commons spending watchdog.

  • Abu Qatada ruling 'unacceptable'

It is "not acceptable" that the UK cannot deport radical cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan, the home secretary has said.

  • 'More openness' over arms sales

Ministers say they plan to open up the licensing process for arms exports to more public scrutiny, saying it must be seen to be "working properly".

  • Police failed over hack warnings

Police should have warned people whose phones were hacked by the News of the World, a judicial review - pushed for by Lord Prescott - rules.

  • RBS boss: 'Prove critics wrong'

RBS boss Stephen Hester breaks his silence on the controversy surrounding his bonus, saying the attention had been "discomforting, to say the least".

  • 'Project training' for mandarins

Senior civil servants are to be given special training to help them manage major infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail.

  • Watchdog acts on Motorman queries

The Information Commissioner says efforts to inform people whether they may have been illegally targeted by private investigators will be speeded up.

  • Press watchdog 'made a scapegoat'

The Press Complaints Commission was made a scapegoat over phone-hacking at the News of the World, its former chairman tells the Leveson Inquiry.

  • May faces questions about Abu Qatada

Home secretary expected to address national security concerns after ruling that radical Islamist cleric must be released

The home secretary is to face urgent questions in the Commons over a judge's decision to free on bail the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada.

It is expected the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will challenge Theresa May to both explain the national security implications of the ruling and urgently accelerate talks with the Jordanian authorities to clear the way for his deportation.

The Home Office has sharply criticised the decision by the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) ? effectively Britain's anti-terror court ? but May has not yet made a statement on the affair. She will make her statement in the Commons at around 3.30pm.

The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has voiced his concern about the decision, but said courts could not allow people to be held in indefinite detention without trial.

The government was bound by the rule of law, its chief legal officer told the BBC after Siac ruled on Monday that Qatada should be freed on strict bail conditions after six and a half years' detention, despite the Home Office saying he continued to pose a risk to national security.

Mr Justice Mitting made the decision in the wake of a judgment at the European court of human rights last month that sending Qatada back to Jordan to a face a terrorist trial based on "torture-tainted evidence" would be a flagrant denial of justice.

Qatada is expected to be released from Long Lartin maximum security jail within days. Grieve told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We obviously don't have indefinite internment without trial in this country. Individuals enjoy the right to liberty and government is bound by the rule of law and has to observe it.

"The government is obviously very concerned about this case and very much wishes to see Abu Qatada deported to Jordan and, when he is in Jordan, tried fairly if the Jordanian authorities wish to put him on trial.

"He cannot be deported unless the assurances which are required following the judgment in the European court of human rights can be secured."

Hazel Blears, the former counter-terrorism and security minister, said she wished the judge had said he would consider bail only if negotiations with Jordan over deportation were "fruitless". Qatada should be held for "as long as it takes" to put in a "satisfactory security regime", she told Today.

David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said Qatada's release on bail would provide an incentive for the government to finalise deportation to Jordan.

Siac has imposed some of the most draconian bail conditions seen since 9/11, including a 22-hour curfew, but this has done little to assuage the anger of Home Office ministers or politicians from all parties.

Qatada's lawyers had argued to the commission that a curfew of more than 12 hours would amount to "deprivation of liberty" under human rights legislation. Qatada had been detained under immigration laws pending his deportation.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "This is a dangerous man who we believe poses a real threat to our security and who has not changed in his views or attitude to the UK."

The government is considering an appeal against the European court's ruling and will continue to try to secure diplomatic assurances from Jordan that Qatada will not face a trial based on torture-tainted evidence.

The former Labour home secretary David Blunkett said: "It is an unholy mess. We are left in the absurd position of not being able to remove a man even though everyone accepts he won't be tortured, not being able to keep him in prison because his human rights trump the protection of the British people, and a government that has watered down control orders so that they are more lax than was previously the case."

The Conservative backbencher Dominic Raab echoed Blunkett's anger: "It makes a mockery of human rights law that a terrorist suspect deemed 'dangerous' by our courts can't be returned home, not for fear that he might be tortured, but because European judges don't trust the Jordanian justice system."

The 22-hour curfew is stricter than the "overnight residence requirement" specified in the coalition's replacement for control orders. The other bail conditions include an electronic tag, MI5 vetting of all his visitors except for immediate family, and monitoring of his communications. The delay in his release is to allow the security services to check the proposed bail address and organise their surveillance operation.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said that although the six and half years Qatada had been detained under immigration powers was "unusually long", he agreed with the home secretary that it was also lawfully justified. However, he said: "The time will arrive quite soon when continuing detention or deprivation of liberty could not be justified."

The Siac judge warned May that Qatada's "highly prescriptive" bail terms would be relaxed after three months if there was no demonstrable progress made with the Jordanians.

The bail conditions mirror those set in 2008 when Qatada was released for six months before being returned to prison on unspecified national security grounds. The judge said the risks to national security and of absconding in the case had not significantly changed since then.

Cooper said May had to explain what action she was taking on the national security implications of the ruling. "Abu Qatada should face terror charges in Jordan, and the home secretary needs to urgently accelerate discussions with the Jordanian government to make that possible," she said.

Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, 51, featured in hate sermons found on videos in the flat of one of the 9/11 bombers. Since his original detention in October 2002, every attempt to deport him to Jordan has been frustrated. The law lords ruled three years ago that he could be sent back but the Strasbourg decision overturned that ruling.

  • NHS reforms live blog

The NHS reform bill is about to return to the House of Lords, amid widespread opposition from doctors, nurses and other health workers

11.33am: Welcome to Day One of the NHS reform live blog. We'll be monitoring the NHS reform bill debate at a crucial and dramatic point, when the future of both the bill, and its architect, the health secretary Andrew Lansley, appear to be uncertain.

Though many thought Lansley damaged by last year's "pause" in the bill (you can read our live blog coverage of the three month listening period here), he survived. But for how long?

This morning an extraordinary piece in the Times (£) by political columnist Rachel Sylvester quotes Number 10 sources suggesting Lansley's days may be numbered.

Here's a key quote from the piece, headlined "Is he the exception to the no-sacking policy?":

"Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot," says a Downing street source. "He's messed up both the communication and the substance of the policy"

Sylvester refers to "an intriguing idea circulating in number 10": offering one-time Labour health secretary Alan Milburn a seat in the Lords and the job of health secretary.

This would , she suggests, create " a government of national unity" around the NHS, and help neutralise an increasingly toxic issue for the Coalition. But how likely is it?

The government's case will not be helped by another extraordinary story, this time in the Daily Mirror, which claims that prime minister David Cameron's former adviser James O'Shaughnessy admitted last year's pause - ostensibly a chance to listen, reflect and improve the reforms - was a sham.

It was, O'Shaughnessy is reported to have said, a tactic to push the bill through. He said:

Actually if you look at where we got to on the health bill, the fundaments of what we were trying to do was still there.

Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said it showed the pause was little more than a "public relations con." The Government has denied the pause was an empty pledge.

But Dr Steve Field, the GP appointed to lead the "listening period" last year is angry. He has tweeted:

I am furious - I was appointed to lead an independent group - independence guaranteed at first meeting with PM

More on these stories, and new developments, over the course of the day.

Over the next few days we'll be discussing the implications of the bill, the political developments around it, and reporting the House of Lords debates live.

I'll be sharing the blogging duties with my colleagues: health correspondent Denis Campbell; Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor; and our social affairs leader writer Tom Clark.

We welcome your contributions to the blog. Please leave comments below the line, or tweet me a @patrickjbutler

12.02pm: More on the claim that the NHS reform listening period last year was a "sham".

We reported earlier that Professor Steve Field, the GP and chair of the NHS Future Forum - the government's listening exercise - was "furious" at claims that it was an empty pledge.

That response followed a tweeted question to him by Labour peer Lady Thornton. She asked:

Well Dr Steve Field - Listening exercise just a tactic. Did you know? How do you feel? Has Lansley even done what you recommended?

Field replied in a series of tweets:

Glenys - I am furious - I was appointed to lead an independent group - independence guaranteed at first meeting with PM

[...] acted independently, met with politicians of all parties, coordinated reports without interference and have rigorously

[...]defended our independence - I have never met or heard of this person! Our reccomends were challenging and comments reflected

... Real concerns and fears - see page 9 - Govt accepted our reccomends - I look forward to see further amendments in Lords

... If they had wanted a report that just rubber stamped the original Bill then I wasn't the one to ask! We were robust...

[...] we listened to thousands incl many hostile to the Bill and as you know we heard concerns from all parties - but we acted..

We described concerns, made recommends - govt responded -as you know I am passionate about our NHS and making it even better

Field is susequently asked about the "pause -as-tactic" by @WLancsGP. He replies:

Complete nonsense - never heard of him - independent and if you read the reports you will see very challenging - not anonymous

The "him" Field refers to is presumably the prime minister's former advisor, James O'Shaughnessy. He was Conservative director of policy and is now a lobbyist.

12.24pm: A quick recap of today's NHS coverage in the Guardian:

My colleague Denis Campbell reports that two prominent backers of the Coalition's NHS reforms, GPs Mike Dixon and Charles Alessi, have joined the "growing chorus of critics" of the proposals.

Dixon and Alessi are leading lights in, respectively, the National Association of Primary Care and the NHS Alliance. In a joint statement, the two bodies say that GPs will be:

"suffocated rather than liberated" by the planned changes.

Columnist Polly Toynbee argues that the reforms could finish the NHS - and prime minister David Cameron.

About the possibility that the government could scrap the bill, she writes:

A U-turn would be greeted with guffaws by the opposition, but that would be less politically dangerous than the cataclysm likely to engulf the NHS shortly. Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP and member of the health select committee, puts it like this: "It will now cause havoc either way, but going ahead is even more catastrophic".

My colleague Tom Clark has produced this guide to where we are on the bill. It's also in interactive digital form here.

Randeep Ramesh asks if the coalition's reforms are doomed to fail. He concludes:

Lansley's plan is to blow up 13 years of Labour history, taking with it more than a decade of retained knowledge. This is hubris. Lansley's nemesis will be the unravelling of his plans in public by the time of the local elections.

And what's the Guardian's line on the NHS reforms? Here's our leader column from yesterday. It concludes:

It is hard to think of a starker failure in domestic government since the poll tax.

12.39pm: Will the bill survive? My colleague Denis Campbell sends me this report on a stormy few weeks ahead in the Lords.

Here we go again. The health and social care bill, some of the most contentious legislation in living memory, returns to Parliament tomorrow for the latest stage of its long and troubled journey over
the last 13 months.

Report stage in the House of Lords will see a replay of many of the reactions it has roused. Some amendments agreed by the government with concerned Liberal Democrat, Labour, Crossbench and in some cases Conservative peers.

Dire warnings that the Bill represents the end of the NHS as we know it, its opening up to system-shattering competition, England ending up with an
American-style healthcare set-up, and so on.

Lashings of highly-technical argument about a hugely-complex Bill. And lots of
lobbying of our noble friends in the upper house by medical and NHS
organisations, many of whom are involved in the ongoing, slightly belated, "NHS Arab Spring" of protest against the coalition's NHS plans.

Private meetings in recent weeks between Lord Howe, the health minister in the Lords, and key concerned peers - such as Shirley Williams of the Lib Dems, Glenys Thornton for Labour, and crossbenchers Naren Patel and Peter Hennessey - have led to amendments being agreed on key issues such as the health secretary's future duty to ensure (or not) the provision of a comprehensive health service across England.

But, as with so many other issues in this Bill, what ten days ago looked likely to satisfy peers who might otherwise have voted against, is already unravelling as some critics deem the concession too weak and the alleged clarification still too opaque.

Other areas of apparent agreement, such as the duties of clinical commissioning groups, may also prove divisive, despite the negotiations producing apparent harmony.

Yesterday brought a claim by influential NHS blogger Roy Lilley that the Department of Health has quietly got consultants in to work on a 'Plan B' for the NHS if the Bill fails.

Certainly the next few weeks will be stormy in the Lords, especially when discussion turns later this month to Part Three of the Bill containing the measures to introduce much greater competition into the NHS, the role of the
regulator Monitor and letting hospitals raise 49% of their income from
private patients.

Peers' judgements and loyalties will be sorely tested then. But at the moment the government seems in no mood to let the Lords force major changes on those pivotal issues, which most critics view as the most destructive in the Bill - what the British Medical Association calls its over-reliance on "market forces" to improve healthcare.

In recent weeks both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have defended the expansion of competition. They both believe that is what the NHS needs more of in order to drive up standards and thus benefit patients.

And rank-and-file Lib Dem MPs, bar the odd exception such as Andrew George, have been distinctly non-rebellious since their supposed great victory in the Bill's unprecedented "pause" last year. So the Bill's ultimate passage seems assured.

But then, amid some extraordinary drama ministers have already been
forced to pause, rethink and change aspects of the shake-up at regular intervals since the Bill was published in January 2011, due to both internal coalition tensions and the ever-rising torrent of criticism.

With the medical establishment increasingly unhappy, renewed speculation about Andrew Lansley's future, and many indicators of NHS performance nowgoing in the wrong direction (waiting times, cancelled operations,rationing etc), the Bill's most dramatic days may soon be upon us.

1.14pm: The Times piece quoting Number 10 sources as saying the health secretary Andrew Lansley "should be taken out and shot" (before being replaced by former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn) has triggered a splurge of comment:

Paul Waugh, editor of Politics Home notes that:

Is Andrew Lansley on his way out? The pressure is certainly building today. The Health Bill returns to the Lords tomorrow with a few concessions in train. But it looks like the Health Secretary is in big trouble.

But @ianBirrell a former speech writer for the prime minister, tweets:

I am told the suggestion Alan Milburn may return as health minister is a non-starter. 'No chance' says No 10 source. Shame...

Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph reports that Cameron met with Lansley and Clegg yesterday and "agreed to press on". He writes:

The Health Secretary will be allowed to continue with the reform, despite concerns about the way he has handled it.

And he quotes a Number 10 official:

"We have shed blood on this issue because we believe in this Bill. There is no appetite for concessions. We have already had a listening exercise, now it's time to get on with it. The government will stand firm."

Blogger Iain Martin, dubs Lansley "the latest fall guy" (former banker Fred Goodwin was last week's victim):

There are conflicting signals about what the Prime Minister's intentions really are. Someone well-plugged in told me last week that Lansley was "a dead-man walking," another a few days later that Cameron would stick with him as he still, after everything, feels loyal towards him. He wouldn't want to go for a major re-shuffle unless he absolutely had to.

Martin Beckford, the Telegraph social affairs editor (@martinbeckford), tweets:

Straying back to Health, why wd Govt ditch Lansley & bill now? Reforms have been happening for 1 yr already & wd be v hard & costly to undo

But if Lansley is safe, where did that vicious Number 10 quote come from? As Labour advisor Paul Richards (@Labourpaul) points out, via Twitter:

Rachel Sylvester's Downing St source saying Lansley should be shot is dynamite. Either the source is out of control, or was sanctioned.

Meanwhile, @Richardblogger tweets:

"Lansley should be taken out and shot" lucky for him we do not have the 2nd amendment otherwise there may be quite a few volunteers

1.31pm: There's a brilliant, and very funny, analysis of the Andrew Lansley stay-or-go debate by Andy Cowper, who blogs at Health Policy Insight.

Cowper suspects Lansley may "lumber on for a while" but argues that departure is inevitable:

Mr Lansley's career has been ending in slow-motion since the publication of his White Paper announcing the very same top-down NHS-wide reorganisation that the Coalition Agreement explicitly ruled out.

It may not end today, or even this week. The health policy community is well-acquainted with Robert Evan's excellent concept of "healthcare zombies: discredited ideas that will not die": Mr Lansley shows what happens when one becomes Secretary Of State.

Cowper is scathing about the prospect of Blairite former health secretary Alan Milburn reprising his most famous government role for the coalition:

Somebody in Number 10 is smoking something serious to even consider this. Milburn undoubtedly hated Gordon Brown (hence his infamous 'flying fuck' strategy over his own 2003 Health And Social Care Bill, which created foundation trusts), but is basically a Labour tribalist. Milburn is going to accept a Coalition peerage like he's going to dance naked down Whitehall: only in someone very weird's dreams.

Cowper also spots this tweet on the matter from Tory MP Nadine Dorries:

If No10 aide said Lansley should be taken out and shot, Cameron said it first. If rumour is Alan Milburn for health, Cameron started it.

1.43pm: Alastair Campbell, who was Tony Blair's former communications supremo, has analysed the Rachel Sylvester Times column questioning health secretary Andrew Lansley's future. On his blog, Campbell writes:

Wow! Let's just re-run some of that. First, it is a columnist on a paper broadly favourable to the thrust of the Cameron government. Second, she has clearly come across a lot of opposition inside the government, and not just from Lib Dems. But when people are talking of taking out ministers and shooting them, that is quite something. As for the Alan Milburn as a minister in the Lords, I have two words on that ? Alan, don't (not that I think it is a runner.)

When David Cameron announced 'the pause', one of the more bizarre moments in our constitutional history, I assumed he would then make sure Number 10 got a grip of the Bill, and of Mr Lansley. But what was already a dog's dinner is now something that even a dog would not touch. They are ending up with the worst of all worlds, with some of the measures effectively already being implemented, and costing plenty, and with doctors angry and confused.

I met one such at the football on Sunday, a Reading GP who said they just could not understand what they were meant to be doing now. I met another yesterday when I went to get more drugs for this bloody chest infection that won't go away, and was met with another exasperated doctor saying they just don't understand why, when everyone can see the car crash coming, Cameron, Osborne and Lansley just plough on so that the pile-up gets bigger and bigger.

My football GP said the only people supporting the Bill were those who saw the chance to expand their private practices. But now even Lansley's medical profession backers are deserting him

Campbell adds:

If Rachel Sylvester's briefing came from deep within Cameronland, then the key complaint is the one questionining Lansley's emotional intelligence. Cameron has more of it, and he will be looking for a way out. If not, he is daft.

But as Lansley is set up as the fall-guy, never forget this ? it was Cameron who said there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS; and Cameron who said there would be no cuts. The cuts are already happening. The surgery I visited yesterday has lost its alcohol support and advice service. The mental health units in my area have been halved. Waiting times around the country are rising. Nurse numbers are falling. On every day in many ways, Cameron's promise is being broken. The NHS got better under Labour. Fact. It is getting worse under the Tories. Fact.

As for 'no top-down reorganisation' this is as big a top-down reorganisation as it gets. If this Bill goes through, the NHS is no longer the NHS as we know it. That is a move Cameron will regret. It could yet be the end of him.

2.00pm: Exactly what are the financial risks of the proposed NHS shake up? The government has compiled a "risk register" - but won't publish it. As my colleague Denis Campbell reports below, there's now increasing pressure for it to be released.

Unison, the health union, which represents more NHS staff than any other union, has today joined the chorus of those demanding that Ministers publish the risk register - the Department of Health's official assessment of the risks posed by the coalition's shake-up of the NHS.

Christina McAnea, the union's head of health, said peers needed to see the document before they resume considering the health and social care in the House of Lords tomorrow. The DH has appealed against the
Information Commissioner's ruling last November that the public interest means they should publish it.

"The government needs to be upfront and honest. It must publish the risk register. It is said to contain damning revelations about the bill - exposing the risk of costs spiralling out of control, rendering the NHS unaffordable, as private companies siphon off profits", said McAnea. "GPs are also said to be neither ready nor willing to take on the lion's share of the health budget."

McAnea's comments about the pitfalls of the shake-up apparently identified in the risk register are based on recent alleged leaks about its contents which appeared last week in Dr Eoin Clarke's The Green Benches blog about Westminster politics and also yesterday in the nhsmanagers.net blog run by Roy Lilley, an ex-NHS mental health trust chair and arch-critic of the Bill.

According to Clarke: "The chief warning in the report is that Lansley's reforms will spark a surge in health care costs and that the NHS will become unaffordable as private profiteers siphon off money for their own benefit. The report specifically warns that GPs have no experience or skills to manage costs effectively."

Last month the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Academy of Medical Royal Colleges made a joint appeal to health secretary Andrew Lansley urging him to publish the risk register.

Critics claim it is a constitutional outrage that parliamentarians are debating legislation that will fundamentally alter the NHS while being denied full information about the Bill's inherent dangers.

But, despite growing calls for publication, the department will not release it until, at the earliest, its appeal fails. Ministers and DH spokespeople claim it would set an unhealthy precedent for future risk assessments of government policies to publish the NHS one now.

They have given every impression of wanting to keep a document some believe could prove to be political dynamite under wraps at least until the bill has finished its parliamentary stages, which may not be until April or even May.

By which time, of course, its contents - dynamite or otherwise - will emerge too late to change things.

? Denis adds: An Early Day Motion in the House of Commons demanding publication, organised by Labour MP and health select committee member Grahame Morris, has so far gathered 38 signatures - including nine Lib Dem MPs.

4.02pm: Some interesting NHS reform bill debate contributions in the comments section below.

Parrotkeeper provides a link to this neat graph which shows the balance of support for and against the health bill among health professionals.

Qualitician, who works in a primary Care trust (PCT) writes:

We in the PCTs predicted right at the beginning that it wouldn't deliver what Lansley was promising - we all knew that the CCGs wouldn't be given the commissioning freedom that he claimed, bureaucracy wouldn't be reduced and the DOH would continue to micro manage the service.

We also predicted that whatever their good intentions, the GPs would not be able to sustain the level of involvement that would be required of them. Already we are seeing a considerable number of GPs retiring from or cutting back their involvement in the CCGs and the Bill hasn't been passed yet. At the end of the day you can't be both a committed GP seeing patients and an experienced clinical commissioner making strategic decisions to provide quality health services for the population of your CCG.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been a legal challenge to all of this - we all know that there was no mandate for the Bill, that Cameron hadn't even read it before he agreed to it but that it is being implemented anyway without Royal Assent.

DCarter wonders if Alan Milburn would really be the "government of national unity figure" that the Times suggests he might be. And besides, as an advisor to Bridgepoint, a private equity group, wouldn't he have a conflict of interest in a bill that opens up the NHS to private competitiors?

Bridgepoint, incidentally, has investments of over £1bn in British private healthcare companies.

GraGraGra writes:

The Milburn story has all the appearance of Downing Street spin, put out through, who else, Murdoch. It's a crude attempt to imply to cross-benchers that Lansley may not carry on if the bill is passed. But of course it's all lies and innuendo.

The non-publication of the NHS reform bill risk register is "utterly indefensible," writes Thackur:

[Labour leader Ed] Miliband needs to hammer the issue of the blocking of publication of the risk register at PMQs. It's not something Cameron can get round by citing a made- up statistic or his imaginary GP friend in Doncaster, it's a clear attempt to withhold information from democratic scrutiny...

Thankyou. Keep your comments and tweets coming.

4.28pm: The BBC reports that the prime minister, David Cameron, has given his beleaguered health secretary Andrew Lansley his "full support."

Andy Cowper points out via Twitter that the last minister to get Cameron's full support was Liam Fox. Quips Andy:

Taxi for Mr Lansley

Or as @KeithRoberts49 tweets

Full support for Lansley from no. 10. That's what football managers get from the chairman the day before the chop.

Meanwhile, The London Evening Standard is reporting that today the "crisis deepened over the government's NHS reforms."

It quotes three Liberal Democrat figures in the piece:

The chair of the Liberal Democrat backbench committee on health, John Pugh MP, who said:

"I'm coming round to the conclusion that we would be better without [the Bill] than with it."

Lorely Burt, Lib Dem MP for Solihull, who chairs the Lib Dem parliamentary party, said:

"If it were to be ditched and we started again, I would be glad."

And one unamed "loyal senior Lib Dem MP," who said:

"I'll hold my nose and vote for it [the NHS bill]."

4.41pm: So what is the Labour Party up to? As my colleague Randeep Ramesh reports below, the opposition is focusing its firepower on cutting or delaying the bits of the bill which expose the NHS to freemarket competition.

The bill returns to the Lords tomorrow with peers beginning at least seven days of key debates with the opposition saying that Andrew Lansley's reforms are "unnecessary and pose risks to patient care".

The Guardian understands that Labour will be focussing attacks over the controversial elements in the bill concerning competition and capping hospitals' private patient income.

Emphasising that the bill has been botched, with 1,200 amendments tabled since last year, Labour will seek delays to prevent a free market in NHS providers emerging until 2016. It argues the NHS regulator Monitor lacks the resources and staff to oversee such a change immediately.

The opposition will also focus on the government's proposed 49% private patient cap, arguing that most hospital trusts - except a few global brands with large research wings such as the Royal Brompton in Chelsea - need just a 5% limit on income from the private patients.

Although Wednesday's debate will focus on education and training, one of the key issues for Labour is that too much power still rests outside of ministerial control. To prevent EU competition law from being applied the party will be pressing ministers to incorporate a "social solidarity" clause into the legislation.

This would effectively put the NHS outside of competition law, sealing it off as a universal good delivered by government and under ministerial control. "That's the government's red line," said a party source. "But competition is the ideology behind the bill and that's what we want to expose".

While the Lords will consider the technical aspects of the bill, and with expectations running high that the government will face defeat on a number of fronts, Ed Miliband will make the NHS the centrepiece of party campaigns in the run up to the local elections.

Party insiders are developing a plan of how the NHS could be stabilised if the bill was dropped and how existing "legal powers and structures" could be used to continue with reform.

5.44pm: What's remarkable about the NHS reform bill is the unusual level of disquiet it engenders among Conservative ranks. Sarah Wollaston, the Totnes GP turned-Tory MP is an exemplar. Norman Tebbit is another.

Blogger and LibCon editor Sunny Hundal has alerted me to two freshly dissenting voices:

First, Craig Barrett, a City solicitor and former Tory party council candidate. Writing on the Tory Reform Group's Egremont blog, Barrett argues:

His [Lansley's] reforms carry no support among the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition and there are very few Tories who appear to be ready to put their heads above the parapet and defend him or his ideas. Is this because of a lack of support, a fear of electoral disaster or a genuine incomprehension of what Mr Lansley might be trying to achieve?

Barett argues that it was a big mistake to push reform through a bill, even though few of the reforms require primary legislation. It has no proper mandate, and so looks undemocratic. He concludes:

Mr Lansley seems like a man clinging to a time-bomb that only he cannot hear ticking. The Government urgently needs to look at what he is trying to do and accept that it needs drastic, perhaps total, reconsideration.

Is politics truly the art of the possible? What is certainly impossible is ploughing on without confidence. This is the situation in which Andrew Lansley now finds himself, where self-confidence is no match for the lack of confidence held other people.

That we need urgently to consider what this Health Bill is doing is obvious. In all likelihood that means starting all over again. Moreover, it is clear to me that the current Health Secretary is not the man to preside over this process.

For the good of the NHS, Andrew Lansley must admit defeat and head to the backbenches.

Second is Dr Rachel Joyce, writing on the Conservative Home blog. Joyce, a Tory parliamentary candidate in Harrow West in the last election, is a former NHS medical director and director of public health. She writes:

I personally know dozens if not hundreds of doctors who voted Conservative at the last election, partly because of the promise of no top down re-organisations. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary methods to achieve these aims would probably have been much more popular than the current health reforms which the NHS chief executive said are so large "you can see them from space".

You can read her post here.

5.57pm: It's hard to know exactly how serious Jon Trickett MP, Labour's Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, was when he sent this letter to the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood outlining his concerns over the notorious "Shoot Lansley" briefing from Number 10.

Here's an extract from the letter:

"Today, a column by Rachel Sylvester in The Times quotes a Downing Street source saying: "Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot."

"I know that you will be concerned about such anonymous briefing from within Downing Street.

"Indeed, in December, the Prime Minister rightly distanced himself from remarks made by his friend, Jeremy Clarkson, who had suggested that public sector workers should be "taken out and shot".

"Will you now launch an investigation into how a Downing Street source could make similarly tasteless remarks about a member of the Cabinet?".

Of course, a Labour prime minister would never brief tastelessly against cabinet colleagues...

6.27pm: More great comments below the line.

Thanks to PleaseSeeSense2 for alerting me to this piece on the Pulse website detailing the splintering support for the bill among GPs - even among those who once supported it.

The piece contains this extraordinarily desperate sounding quote from Wallasey GP James Kingsland, the national clinical lead for the NHS clinical commissioning community:

'We have lost the narrative of the reforms and there is a short time until the Queen's Speech ? if we don't make it, the bill will fail. We have to just get the law in place ? forget about whether it is right or wrong.'

Also in the comments, MajorMisundrstanding writes about his attempt to get the government to explain why it would not publish the risk report into its reforms.

I wrote to my MP about the DH's refusal to publish the NHS risk register and to complain about MP Simon Burns calling members of 38 degrees 'zombies'. I received contradictory replies from Earl Howe and Simon Burns (who are both which the DH).

On the department's refusal to publish the risk register, Earl Howe wrote

'we believe the way these risks are expressed in worst-case terms would present a misleading picture and be open to misinterpretation if placed in the public domain...we therefore consider that making this information publicly available at this time would have compromised both the register's quality and value as a basis to ministers and decision making'.

However, Simon Burns complained in his letter that

'38 degrees have selectively used information about our plans to modernise the NHS to mislead people into believing something that is not true. People deserve better. They should be presented with all the facts, so they can make an informed decision and engage in a meaningful debate'.

So which is it?

Meanwhile, Andrew Craig, for nine years a lay member of Wandsworth PCT Professional Executive Committee (signed in as Lycomedes) speculates on what a Plan B might look like if the bill is withdrawn.

It would have to be built on the present interim structures of "cluster" PCTs and SHAs with all their inherent problems. But at least that would be a platform for sensible reform along the lines proposed by the Future Forum (all of whose recommendations have been accepted by Government).

Roy Lilley and Kieran Walshe have discussed this from various angles recently. As Peter Carter of the RCN observed recently, the turbulence of abandoning the Bill now will be bad, but that is preferable to the worse turbulence to come - at local implementation level - if it is rammed through. He is right. The public has no idea of what could happen if government persists in pushing this legislation through.

The current Bill is a sow's ear of legalese. No amount of tweaking is going to turn it into a silk purse of convincing narrative for change. It has to go and be replaced by something that is comprehensible and that people in the health service and the public of course can all support.

What people who work in the NHS should be focused on - at every level - is making the systemic changes to deliver better quality and more effective services to the right people in the right place at the right time. That is what "QIPP" (quality, innovation, productivity and prevention) is about. It's no joke. If we don't achieve these sorts of changes, through engagement with patients, carers and communities, as well as clinicians, then no new structure - "Plan B" or anything else- is going to be affordable or effective.

Thanks for your comments and tweets - keep them coming.

6.40pm: Labour and the Lib Dems have been rehearsing a few arguments over the bill in the Commons this afternoon, as Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman accused the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg of "destroying the NHS."

Here's the PA account of the tussle:

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was accused by Labour today of "abject betrayal" over his support for the coalition's controversial NHS reforms.

Shadow deputy prime minister Harriet Harman claimed the Government's health service reforms would pave the way for NHS hospitals to earn up to half of their income from private work.

Urging him to drop the Health and Social Care Bill, she argued that lifting the cap for private patients would mean "NHS patients will be put at the back of the queue".

Mr Clegg defended the changes, which have come under fire from some within the medical profession, saying the alternative to reform would be to "condemn a number of hospitals into outright financial crisis".

Speaking in the Commons, Ms Harman said: "It is clear that yet again the Deputy Prime Minister is simply going along with the Tories. Giving half the NHS to private patients is not reforming the NHS, it's destroying the NHS.

"Isn't this an abject betrayal of everything the Lib Dems claim they ever stood for? Will he now drop the Bill?"

Mr Clegg replied: "What is wrong with allowing hospitals who already do private work from doing so in a manner which can only benefit NHS patients?"

Ms Harman called on the Deputy Prime Minister to oppose raising the cap, saying: "There's widespread concern that the NHS Bill lifts the cap for private patients from what is now typically 2% to up to 50%.

"Half of all NHS beds and services being given over to private patients, half of all NHS doctors and nurses caring for private patients, which means NHS patients will be put at the back of the queue."

Mr Clegg hit back, saying it was important there was no "misrepresentation of the current situation".

He said: "She will know that some London hospitals, the Royal Marsden for instance, has a cap of around 30%, so it's not nearly as low as she implies.

"What we are saying is that ... no NHS hospital should be able to earn 50% or more of its income through private practice, it should be less than half, and all of the money raised, every penny in every pound, should be ploughed back into improving services for NHS patients.

"The alternative is to actually condemn a number of hospitals into outright financial crisis. How would that benefit families? How would that benefit thousands of NHS patients who would otherwise benefit from extra income coming into the NHS?"

6.53pm: Professor Steve Field, chairman of the government's advisory NHS Future Forum, has rejected the former Number Ten policy adviser James O'Shaughnessy's claim that last year's "listening exercise" was nothing more than "a tactic" employed to smooth the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill.

My colleague Denis Campbell spoke to him this afternoon, and Field said:

I'm not embarrassed by this row; just irritated

Here's a full account of his interview with Denis:

No, I don't feel used [by the government], not at all, because I know that the politicians of all parties with whom I had sessions respected how I was handling the forum. I don't know James O'Shaughnessy and have never met him.

If it [the forum and 'listening exercise'] was "a tactic", what I know is that by the time I was asked to chair it I said that I wouldn't do so unless it was independent and that I could meet anyone I wanted to, including politicians of all political parties. Many people will be disappointed that the forum didn't say "Kill the Bill", but we were appropriately critical.

The forum was a truly independent exercise. No one interfered with us or pushed us around. I sought assurances at the start of the 'listening exercise' that it would be independent, which the secretary of state supported, and chaired it in that spirit.

I feel that our first report [in June 2011] was very challenging to the government. People who know me would know that I wouldn't be the sort of person who'd be asked to do a report that was simply a rubber-stamping exercise. The Future Forum process was robust and challenging, even for the members of the forum, who had different ideas and backgrounds.

During our evidence sessions we heard a lot in favour of lifting the private patient cap and a lot against it, so we decided not to put anything in about it. I was challenged about it later at the Bill committee. But I don't regret not putting that in.

I'm not embarrassed by this row; just irritated, because having done a professional job in politically difficult circumstances I remained true to myself and the members of the forum, and I robustly defended our independence throughout.

We made a significant contribution to helping the debate about the Bill and making the Bill better and helping to ensure that the values laid down in the NHS Constitution are taken forward.

7.12pm: OK, that's it for Day One (of Round Two) of the NHS reform live blog.

We'll be back on Wednesday with analysis of the Commons health committee report on health and social care (which is published at midnight Tuesday), live coverage of the first report stage debate in the Lords, and much more besides.

I'll leave you with an extract from this statement put out today by Lord Owen, the respected crossbench peer and (back in the 1970's, when he was Dr David Owen MP) a former Labour health minister:

Of course, halting the Health and Social Care Bill will be a political rebuff, a 'U' turn over which the Labour Party would be bound to crow for a while.

But the Prime Minister showed over the Government's forestry proposals that that sort of criticism lasts for a few days and is soon forgotten.

The prize for foregoing the Health and Social Care Bill is potentially immense. A relieved workforce, a uniting of the health professions, an accompanying readiness to adopt a reform programme within existing legislation at a faster pace than ever before.

These are major advantages worth far more than temporary political embarrassment.

An NHS that is all working together can and will adopt a positive reform programme. There is no appetite within the health professions for the status quo. What they all want is coherent evidence-based reform.

Thanks very much for your tweets and comments, and for following the blog. We hope you enjoyed it.

  • Ian Paisley's family maintains bedside vigil

Former Northern Ireland first minister critically ill with respiratory problems

The family of Ian Paisley remains at his bedside in Ulster hospital where he is critically ill.

Paisley was admitted to the east Belfast hospital on Sunday and is understood to be suffering from respiratory problems.

In a statement on Monday, the 85-year-old's wife, Lady Paisley, requested "the family's privacy be respected at this difficult time".

Among those at his bedside are his son Ian Jr, who succeeded his father as MP for North Antrim.

Democratic Unionist party colleagues have been briefed about his condition at the Northern Ireland assembly.

The DUP MP for Lagan Valley, Jeffrey Donaldson, appealed to everyone in Northern Ireland to pray for the DUP founder and former first minister.

"Whatever your political viewpoint I know that his family would deeply appreciate your prayers. Ian is a man who always prayed for those in need across our community. Now we can do the same for him," Donaldson said.

Last February, Paisley was fitted with a pacemaker after emergency surgery in St Thomas's hospital in London. He had been taken ill in the House of Lords, where he is known as Lord Bannside.

At the end of January, more than 3,000 people gathered to hear him preach his farewell service at Martyrs Memorial church in east Belfast.

The service marked the official end of his six decades of full-time ministry.

  • David Lammy condemns police for failing to show up at riots meeting

Tottenham MP expresses sadness that senior officers did not attend meeting aimed at 'rebuilding relations' following unrest

Police in Tottenham were criticised by a cross-section of community groups on Tuesday after they failed to show up at a meeting designed to "rebuild relations" after last August's riots.

David Lammy MP led the condemnation of police in the borough, after they turned down an invitation to a meeting organised by church and community groups.

Hundreds of people had gathered in the town hall to discuss the launch of a community-led inquiry into the riots, which called for renewed attempts at "rebuilding relationships between the community and police."

"We are here very much today as a community," he said. "So it is with tremendous dismay and disbelief and huge disappointment that I express my sadness on behalf of the people of Tottenham that senior police officers have not come today. I believe that is a strategic mistake and is indicative of some of the strategic mistakes that have led us to this point."

The event, which marked the launch of the "citizen inquiry" report into the riots, had to be relocated when twice the number of expected guests arrived, including more than 300 schoolchildren, teachers, council officials and representatives from churches, mosques and local businesses, as well as Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

Senior police officers are understood to have objected to some findings of the inquiry, which concluded that a "long-term deterioration" in the relationship between the community and the police was one factor that had led to disorder in the borough.

Lammy was one of a number of local politicians to endorse the report, which also cited high unemployment as a key factor contributing to the riots.

He argued that central government should provide a Tottenham regeneration programme similar to those seen in other nearby boroughs, such as Canary Wharf in Tower Hamlets and the Olympic Village in Newham. "For too long, we in this part of north-east London have watched east London and been left wondering what the regeneration story is for us," he said.

More than 700 local people took part in the grassroots inquiry, which began in the aftermath of the riots that started in Tottenham following the shooting of local man Mark Duggan before spreading across England.

Organisers said the borough commander, Chief Superintendent Sandra Looby, declined to attend, citing "operation reasons". However, she also failed to send a replacement, meaning the police were the only local stakeholders not present at the meeting.

Speakers at the event, which was sponsored by Reading the Riots, the Guardian and LSE study into the summer disorder, repeatedly stressed their willingness to engage with police. One commissioner, Father Bunmi Fagbemi, vicar at Holy Trinity Church, expressed his disappointment.

"We regret that neither she [Looby], nor any other Haringey police representative, has been able to join us today to comment on the report. Several of our recommendations require action by the borough commander and the local police force and they are not here to respond. We hope that we can build a constructive relationship in the future." He added: "We have to work with the police to build a positive relationship. Never mind that they are not here."

Father Simon Morris, vicar of St Mary's Church in Tottenham, another commissioner for the inquiry, produced with support from the campaigning group North London Citizens, called on the borough commander to speak publicly to the community.

In a statement, the Metropolitan police said it was "very interested" in the findings of all the various reports into the summer riots, adding that Looby "met with and contributed to" the Tottenham citizens' inquiry. It added: "She was unable to attend the launch on Tuesday 7 February." The force did not explain why no replacement was sent, but said some other senior officers were involved in a north London operation.

Among its raft of proposals, Tuesday's report asked for local people to be involved in "orientation" of police officers in Tottenham and called for the creation of 1,000 new jobs for young people. The jobs target was endorsed by the local council and prompted a response from one student from Willow Primary School on Broadwater Farm.

The boy, who gave his name as David, stood on his chair and asked: "You said you're going to employ 1,000 people ? so when are you going to start?"

  • Falkland Islands: Argentina's president to raise stakes in address to nation

President Fernández summons political elite for announcement expected to intensify diplomatic standoff with Britain

The Argentinian president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has summoned the country's political elite and veterans of the 1982 Falklands war to the presidential palace for what is expected to be a significant announcement about the islands.

The Casa Rosada made the rare gesture of inviting opposition leaders to the Hall of Latin American Patriots for what is speculated to be an escalation in the diplomatic row with Britain over the islands' sovereignty.

Diplomats cleared their schedules for the event, scheduled for 10pm British time, after a week of increasingly heated rhetoric on the south Atlantic archipelago, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas.

Having mobilised much of South America and the Caribbean in its diplomatic and commercial squeeze ? ships flying the Falklands flag are barred from the region's ports, depriving the islands of bananas and other fresh fruit ? there was speculation Argentina would close its air space to Falklands flights, effectively blockading the civilian population. The weekly service by the Chilean flag-carrier, LAN is the islands' only air link with South America and main connection with the outside world.

In a separate move, the Argentine Football Association is considering a government proposal to name its top division after the General Belgrano, the navy cruiser sunk by a British submarine during the war. It is also due to debate naming the cup "Gaucho Rivero" after Antonio Rivero, a cattle herder feted as a folk hero by some Argentinians for killing five prominent British settlers in 1833 ? the year London is accused of stealing the territory.

The diplomatic sparring has intensified in the runup to the 30th anniversary of the war, which started with an Argentinian military occupation on 2 April 1982 and ended 10 weeks later in victory for a British naval task force. Tension flared last year when Argentina protested at oil drilling and London's refusal to discuss sovereignty.

Two weeks ago, Argentina's official news agency, Telam, started a Malvinas page with banner pictures of Argentinian jet fighters, helicopters, tanks and soldiers. Last week Britain dispatched the destroyer HMS Dauntless and Prince William, a search and rescue pilot, claiming both deployments were routine.

A correspondent for the newspaper Clarin reported harsh sentiments from Port Stanley on Tuesday. The article quoted islanders referring to "fucking Argies" and was illustrated with a photograph of a gift shop mug with an altered map of South America that replaced Argentina with blue emptiness named "Mierda Sea". Mierda means "shit" in Spanish.

A senior European diplomat in Buenos Aires said Europe's economic crisis had emboldened Argentina, which was riding high on nine years of strong economic growth. "South America doesn't have the respect it used to have for Europe, it feels it is on top now and is flexing its new muscles."

A summit of leftwing leaders in Venezuela last weekend backed Fernández's campaign as a pan-regional cause. Her Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chávez, said Caracas would support its ally in a military conflict. "Thirty years ago Argentina was left on its own, but things have changed. The old dismantled empire should not believe that Argentina is alone because South America is here, Latin America is here." Ecuador's Rafael Correa called for sanctions against Britain.

Argentina's foreign minister, Hector Timerman, welcomed the solidarity. "Argentina is not alone, Great Britain is alone."

  • Why chess deserves a place in schools | Jonathan Calder

In Armenia all six-year-olds study chess; in UK schools it 'fell off a cliff' in the 1980s. But its educational benefits are plentiful

Primary school children in Armenia have more to contend with than just the three Rs. From the age of six, they all study chess as a separate subject for two hours a week. Chess is important to the very identity of this landlocked little country. Armenia suffered massacres and repression in the 20th century and has recently experienced an economic collapse. Yet in the 1960s, it provided the Soviet Union with one of its succession of world champions in the shape of Tigran Petrosian. A master of defence, his relentless grinding down of opponents made him the Geoffrey Boycott of the chessboard. And today, Armenia ? with a population of just 3 million ? holds the men's world team title.

So it was no surprise when an official of the Armenian education ministry told the Associated Foreign Press that teaching chess in schools would "create a solid basis for the country to become a chess superpower". But there is more to it than that: Armenia is one of a growing number of nations hoping to see wider educational benefits from encouraging chess in schools. India, Turkey and Norway have all made similar moves recently, and a summary of research produced by the Quad Cities Chess Club in America talks of enhanced mental abilities and an improvement in conventional schoolwork.

This is not a new idea. The Soviet dominance of the game was rooted in the new regime's embrace of chess immediately after the revolution. The game was seen as a cheap way to bring culture to the masses and display the new state's superiority to the decadent capitalist west. "We must organise shock brigades of chess players and begin the immediate realisation of a Five-Year Plan for chess," declared Nikolai Krylenko, the father of Soviet chess ? some years before Stalin had him arrested and shot.

The international master and chess journalist Malcolm Pein, a gentler soul, is one of those who want to see the game flourish again in British schools. "There is no other activity that costs so little to organise and that cuts across so many barriers," he says. "Age, sex, race, religion ? they mean nothing in chess. Anyone can enjoy it. Around 500 million people in 167 countries play the game and only football can rival that. Yet it has long been in decline in our schools."

Two years ago, Pein's organisation, Chess in Schools and Communities, launched a pilot programme involving 60 primary schools and 6,000 children. By 2015 it aims to have introduced the game to 17,000 schools and to have a million children playing. It is an ambitious target, but so far they are on track. Chess is still played by many British children, and Pein praises the Delancey UK Schools Chess Challenge. However, his impression is that many of the 2,000 schools that take part come from the private sector.

Does this mean British chess has always been confined to a social elite? Pein suggests not. Talking about the match held by radio between Great Britain and the Soviet Union in 1946, he says: "Yes, the British team were all Oxbridge types ? probably because everyone else was too busy earning a living. But if you look at photographs of the audience, they don't look particularly middle class." My own experience as a member of the feared Market Harborough team of the 1980s bears this out. When we won a trophy, it would be engraved with the names of all its previous holders. Until the 1960s these were overwhelmingly works or company teams: after that they barely featured. Looking at those trophies was like discovering a lost culture.

Chess held on for longer in state schools. Pein dates its decline ? "it fell off a cliff" ? to the 1980s, a decade that saw the narrowing of the curriculum and a subsequent disaffection among teachers. But it may not be too late to reverse that decline, because the memory of the benefits and pleasures of chess lingers. "When I talk to headteachers," says Pein, "they often say: 'We always had a chess club when I was at school. Why haven't we got one now?'"

  • Abu Qatada should remain behind bars, says Theresa May

Home secretary tells MPs she finds it unacceptable that bailed Islamist cleric cannot be deported to Jordan

The home secretary, Theresa May, has tried to assuage cross-party anger over the decision to grant bail to the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada, telling MPs it "simply wasn't acceptable" that such dangerous foreign criminals could not be deported.

Labour MPs, including two former home secretaries, voiced strong concern on Tuesday over a judge's warning that in three months' time he will relax the stringent bail conditions imposed on Qatada if a fresh diplomatic attempt to secure a fair trial for him in Jordan proves unsuccessful.

May told MPs she wanted to deport Qatada "so he is not in this country when the Olympics come". But this may prove a forlorn hope as his lawyers have already warned the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) ? which made the decision to bail Qatada on Monday ? that they will start a fresh round of litigation in the British courts if negotiations with Jordan clear the way for deportation.

Mr Justice Mitting made the decision to release Qatada in the wake of a judgment at the European court of human rights last month that sending Qatada back to Jordan to face a terrorist trial based on "torture-tainted evidence" would be a flagrant denial of justice. Qatada is expected to be released from Long Lartin maximum security jail within days.

May faced strong criticism from her own backbenchers, with several demanding immediate legislation be introduced to repeal the Human Rights Act and suspend Britain's membership of the European convention on human rights.

May assured them she shared their anger by telling them that she "disagreed vehemently" with the original European court of human rights ruling that blocked Qatada's deportation.

"I continue to believe Qatada should remain behind bars," she said. "The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain."

She told MPs Britain was "working very actively" to ensure the Strasbourg judges could not override the decisions of the British courts.

She said Qatada would only be released next week on the "most stringent bail conditions", including a 22-hour curfew, and would not be able to claim benefits. She implied that an original move to allow him to take his children to school during the remaining two hours of the day would not now go ahead: "The exact details have yet to be decided by Siac," she said.

Qatada's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, dismissed MPs' fears as a small storm: "He has been on bail before and somehow there wasn't a kerfuffle then. He has been under a control order before and there wasn't a kerfuffle then. I think one has to get a grip on reality here," she told the BBC.

Peirce said British judges had rejected sending people back to their home countries to face trial based on evidence extracted by torture: "That is something we say ? our judges in this country say repeatedly ? we will not stomach. So it isn't a European opinion superimposed on what the courts of this country would reject. It is the same message."

In the Commons, the home secretary was forced to answer an urgent question by Labour on the case. She confirmed that the Home Office strategy was to seek new diplomatic assurances that Qatada would not face a trial in Jordan based on evidence obtained by torture ? the issue that led the Strasbourg court to block his deportation.

Home Office lawyers are considering whether to refer that decision to the Grand Chamber of the European court of human rights, but that move could add a further 18-24 months to the process.

Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, was granted bail on Monday by Mr Justice Mitting after hearing that he had spent almost nine years in detention without charge on the grounds of national security ? the last six and half years under immigration powers, pending his deportation to Jordan.

May told MPs the Home Office had vigorously opposed efforts to grant Qatada bail: "However strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe that Qatada should remain behind bars. It simply isn't acceptable that after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after the British courts have found that he is dangerous, and after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals."

But two former Labour home secretaries, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, raised the prospect that Qatada will face much lighter bail conditions from April if the talks with Jordan fail.

Blunkett said that when Qatada went into hiding before he was first detained in October 2002 he had been found in a flat full of sophisticated communications equipment just 400m from MI5's headquarters. He said he feared for the situation when the 22-hour curfew on him was lifted.

Straw urged May to negotiate directly with the Jordanians, as he had tried before her, and warned that the coalition government's weaker form of control orders ? terrorism prevention and investigation orders ? would not provide the same level of public protection.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, pressed ministers to get directly involved in the negotiations with Jordan and suggested that May go back to Siac and ask that Qatada be kept in Long Lartin maximum security prison in Worcestershire while those discussions took place.

  • Andrew Lansley has prime minister's 'full support' over NHS reforms

Health and social care bill continues to come in for fierce criticism, but No 10 says health secretary has full backing

Downing Street has said the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has the prime minister's "full support", as pressure on the coalition government mounts over its NHS reforms.

Speculation over Lansley's future in the cabinet was sparked by an unnamed No 10 insider quoted saying he should be "taken out and shot".

The comment in the Times came as the health secretary faced another embarrassing blow when the Guardian reported that two doctors who had previously been prominent supporters of the proposed health service structure had turned against the reforms.

However, the prime minister's spokeswoman dismissed the anonymous briefings, saying she "did not recognise" the name of Labour's former health secretary Alan Milburn being floated as a possible successor.

"The prime minister backs Andrew Lansley and he backs the reforms we are pushing through parliament in order to deliver a better health service for the future," she said.

Lansley's health and social care bill enters the crucial report stage in the House of Lords from Wednesday, where Labour and crossbench peers are hoping to defeat the government on a number of key issues.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, was accused by Labour of "abject betrayal" over his support for Lansley's bill. Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, claimed the reforms would pave the way for NHS hospitals to earn up to half of their income from private work, putting NHS patients "at the back of the queue".

Clegg defended the changes, saying the alternative to reform would be to "condemn a number of hospitals into outright financial crisis".

At least nine Lib Dem MPs have signed an early day motion demanding that Lansley is forced to publish a Department of Health risk report on the reforms, which critics say warns that plans to allow GPs to commission health services on behalf of patients would lead to a surge in costs.

Senior Lib Dems expect the Lords to inflict some defeats on the coalition over the bill, but even opponents are not expecting a rebellion as strong as that against the welfare reform bill last month.

Clegg could be squeezed further by the largely supportive parliamentary party if the NHS furore continues into the Lib Dems' spring conference in early March and local elections in early May.

Speaking to The House magazine, Clegg appeared to recognise the dissent in his own ranks, saying: "Let's be blunt: I'm asking, day in, day out, Liberal Democrat peers to vote on things that they wouldn't do in a month of Sundays if it was a Liberal Democrat government."

Clegg praised Lady (Shirley) Williams, one of the bill's strongest critics in the Lords, claiming that as a result of her intervention the bill was "a whole lot better than it would have been otherwise, a whole lot better".

The reforms have come under fire from an unprecedented coalition of critics, including the Royal College of GPs, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and a joint editorial by three influential health journals: the British Medical Journal, the Nursing Times and the Health Service Journal.

Fifty doctors who are already implementing the changes wrote to the Daily Telegraph warning that dropping the changes would put the NHS "in peril". Their letter was followed by another from more than 350 GPs, health specialists and academics in the field claiming that the majority of doctors opposed the changes and warning that the bill would "derail and fragment" the health service.

  • Politics live blog: Tuesday 7 February 2012

Hélène Mulholland with all of today's politics news

5.55pm: I'm wrapping up for the afternoon. A summary of this afternoon in the Commons.

? Theresa May has told MPs that the government will do "everything we
can" within the existing legal regime to deport Muslim cleric Abu Qatada. She said the government "disagrees vehemently" with Strasbourg's ruling and it was "simply not acceptable" that Britain cannot deport a radical Muslim cleric who "poses a serious risk to our national security" after his removal has been approved by the highest court in the land. "The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell; the right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain".

? Ministers were looking at "all the legal options" to deport Qatada including the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg. The government will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances can be given about the evidence used against Qatada in their court.

? She said Qatada's bail conditions would be the most "stringent". If breached, he will be re-arrested and the government will seek his
immediate re-detention.

? May said the government will continue to consider the case for a British Bill of Rights and that the prime minister is leading the government's attempts to reform the European court of human rights.

? She faced down calls by Tory MP Peter Bone to "become a national
hero" by ignoring the ECHR judgment, amid anger from the Tory benches at the way the Strasbourg court has overriden the British courts who ruled he could be deported.

? May was pressed from the Labour benches about the Tpim regime, which replaced control orders. TPims are thought to be more lenient as they allow suspects to use the internet and mobile phones. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said if negotiations with the Jordanian government fail and bail cannot be extended when it lapses in three months' time, he would be subject to the weaker restrictions. "We support you in your actions to protect the public and to take action to get deportation in place. But you should be straining every sinew on behalf of the public to get him deported and if you can't, you should make sure we now have the legislation and safeguards in place to protect the public now." May said the bail conditions were stronger than possible either under Tpims or control orders. She also made clear she wanted Qatada to have been deported by the time the Olympics come round.

? On other fronts, Harriet Harman challenged deputy prime minister, Nick
Clegg, to say whether he supported the cap on the number of private patients being treated in NHS hospital. She argued that lifting the cap for private patients would mean "NHS patients will be put at the back of the queue". "Isn't this an abject betrayal of everything the Lib Dems claim they
ever stood for? Will he now drop the bill?" Clegg defended the changes in the health and social care bill, insisting that the money raised would prevent some hospitals closing. Taking questions in the Commons this afternoon, Clegg said: "What is wrong with allowing hospitals who already do private work from doing so in a manner which can only benefit NHS patients?

? Finally, good news for the justice secretary Ken Clarke, who has won the
Oldie of the Year award. The 71 year old said he was surprised he had been offered it "so soon". Lady Trumpington, who in November made a two-fingered gesture in the House of Lords after taking exception to ex-cabinet minister Lord King's suggestion that second world war veterans were getting "pretty old" - won an award for peer of the year.

Good night.

4.37pm: I now have May's statement in full:

Since December 2001 successive British governments have sought to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan ? his home country ? because he poses a serious risk to our national security.

Qatada has a longstanding association with al-Qaida. British courts have found that "his reach and the depth of influence is formidable. He provides a religious justification for acts of violence and terror".

In Jordan, he has been tried and found guilty in absentia of terrorism offences including conspiracy to cause explosions at western and Israeli targets, and involvement in the bombings of the American School and the Jerusalem Hotel in Amman in 1998.

The House of Lords agreed with the government that Qatada can be deported to Jordan to face a retrial because of the diplomatic assurances negotiated by Britain and the Jordanian government. This agreement ensures that individuals deported to Jordan will not be tortured upon their return.

Despite the agreement of the House of Lords that Qatada should be deported, and despite accepting that he would not face mistreatment in
Jordan, last month the European court of human rights ruled against his deportation. It did so on the grounds that deportation would be in violation of article six of the convention ? the right to a fair trial ? because of the risk that evidence obtained from the torture of others would be used against him. Hon Members should be aware that this argument had already been considered by a British court, who rejected it.

Mr Speaker, I hardly need to tell the house that the government disagrees vehemently with Strasbourg's ruling. We believe Abu Qatada should be deported.

We are considering all the legal options available ? including whether we refer the case to the grand chamber. As we do so, we will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances we can be given about the evidence used against Qatada in their courts.

Following the Strasbourg ruling, Qatada's lawyers appealed to the special immigration appeals commission for bail. We opposed that appeal vigorously, but yesterday it was granted, and will start within a week.

The bail conditions are amongst the most stringent imposed for anybody facing deportation from the UK, and reflect the conditions set out when Qatada was bailed in 2008. He will be under a 22-hour curfew; he will not be allowed to access the internet or any electronic communication devices; he will not be allowed to travel outside an approved boundary. Visitors will need to be approved under very strict conditions. He will be subject to a specific condition preventing attendance at mosques and leading group prayer.

If any of these conditions are breached, he will be re-arrested and we will seek his immediate re-detention. But however strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe Qatada should remain behind bars.

Mr Speaker, it simply isn't acceptable that ? after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous, after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land ? we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals.

We continue to consider the case for a British bill of rights. And the prime minister is leading the government's attempts to reform the European court of human rights.

The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell and the right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain. That's why we will do everything we can within the existing legal regime to deport Qatada, and we're doing everything we can to reform that regime to avoid these cases in future.

4.35pm: Robert Halfon, Tory MP for Harlow, says it was never the intention of the ECHR to allow terrorists "go free". May says that's why the government is keen to look at reforms to ensure the government can in the future deport those who pose a danger to us.

Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, has called her gusty. He says May
could become a "a national hero" if she picked up the phone to the
Jordanian and got Qatada deported tonight. May says they are in talks
with the government.

4.25pm: May is under pressure from Tory colleagues on the ECHR. She says the government's policy has been to be a signatory to the ECHR. The move is to bring about necessary changes.

She is asked about the progress on a bill of rights. This is a reference to the fact that the prime minister has expressed his desire to replace the Human Rights Act, which integrates the European convention on human rights (ECHR) into domestic law, with a new bill of rights. May says there is a commission looking at this.

Bob Stewart, Tory MP for Beckenham, is amazed that it isn't possible to keep Qatada in prison unless he can be deported. That was the government's desire, that he stay in prison, she says.

An MP has just asked whether the "absurdity" of the ECHR means that Abu Qatada may appeal against his bail conditions? Time for a bill of rights? A patient May repeats that it's being looked at by a commission.

4.24pm: Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, asks whether there is not a case for fastracking cases with such security concerns in the European court. May says the question is which cases go through the european court. (You'll remember that David Cameron used a speech as part of Britain's six-month presidency of the council of Europe to outline a series of reforms to streamline the work of the court which enforces the European convention on human rights.

Labour's David Winnick asks why, if Qatada was inciting murder, he wasn't charged. May says all cases are looked at carefully and appropriate decisions made.

Phillip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, says there's no point huffing and puffing about the decision. If reforms to the ECHR cannot be made, are we going to withdraw from it? May says the government is pushing for reforms to avoid such decisions in the future.

4.20pm: David Blunkett, the former home secretary and MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, raises security for the 2012 Olympics, given that the tough bail conditions being imposed next week will no longer be in place by the summer. May says she's made clear she intends to get him deported.

Jack Straw, another former home secretary, says he personally sought to get the reassurances from the Jordanians. He raises concern that the TPims, that replaced control orders, are much weaker than the bail conditions. She points out that the bail conditions are tougher than the control orders that preceded them.

May is being faced again and again with questions from Labour about what happens once the bail conditions lapse?

4.20pm: May says the government has begun discussions with the Jordanian government and will be pursuing these talks "at every level". Legal options will also be considered, including whether they should bring the case to the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court. The bail conditions are the most stringent. These are stronger than the terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPims) or the control orders. "We should be able to deport Abu Qatada," she says. "That is the view across the house."

She reminds the house that Abu Qatada was previously released on bail in 2008. but the government will do what it can to provide security for citizens.

4.19pm: Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, asks what May is doing to get further assurances with Jordan so that he can be deported now. What actions have ministers taken? Has she herself taken it with the Jordanian government. Will she go back to Siac to ask for a stay of the bail until those talks have taken place. Cooper asks what will happen if the negotiations fail with Jordan and it is not clear what next if the bail arrangements are stopped within three months.

The restrictions she will have available to her are a far cry to those she feels are necessary now - ie no access to the internet or to the phones. Cooper says Labour support her to take action and she should be straining every sinew to get Qatada deported.

4.17pm: Bill Cash, Tory MP for Stone, asks whether the government intends to carry through the commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act. May says her words have been slightly twisted. She says she has expressed the view she would like to repeal it, not that she was about to do it.

4.16pm: Goggins says he appreciates the minister is in a difficult position, but the public will want reassurances about their safety. He asks her to say more about discussions with authorities in Jordan and whether she's asking for reassuring about the use of evidence. Does she intend to make more representations to Siac? He asks a number of other questions.

May says if assurances can be achieved - and we are working very hard on this - it will change the scenario and change the approach of Siac. Regarding work being done on the ECHR, because the UK has the chairmanship of the council of Europe for six months, it is going to work "very hard on this".

She says it's absolutely right not to have indefinite detention without trial in this country, but the UK government should be able to deport people who are a danger to us.

4.13pm: May says that successive British governments have sought to deport Qatada since 2001. He has a longstanding association with al-Qaida and his reach and influence is formidable. He has been found guilty of terrorist offences in Jordan in absentia. She lists a number of atrocities. Despite an agreement with the House of Lords that he should be deported, last month the ECHR decided otherwise.

She says the government disagrees vehemently with the ruling. She says Abu Qatada should be deported and the government is considering an appeal to the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court. Bail starts within a week. The bail conditions are among the most stringent for someone facing deportation: a 22-hour curfew, barred from accessing the internet or other electronic devices, visits will have to be approved. If any of the conditions are breached, he will be detained. But the government want him detained. May says that after his deportation has been approved "in the highest court in our land" he cannot be deported.

4.13pm: Labour's Paul Goggins has been granted an urgent question on the matter.

4.12pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, has come to make a statement to the Commons on Abu Qatada, the radical islamist, who is to be released on bail within days. As my colleague Alan Travis reported this morning, the decision will see the man once described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, walk out of Long Lartin maximum security prison in Worcestershire after more than six years. The decision was taken by the high court judge at the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) following the ruling by the European court of human rights (ECHR) that he could not be deported to Jordan because he would face a "flagrant denial of justice" - a retrial based on evidence obtained through torture. The bail conditions are strict - including a 22-hour curfew.

4.02pm: Back to the NHS. Labour's Robert Flello asks about reports that a Downing Street source had suggested Andrew Lansley should come to "an unpleasant end". I think he refers to the report that the health secretary should be "taken out and shot". Clegg rallies to the defence of a government trying to improve the NHS.

Clegg is asked by Tory MP Helen Grant about what action is being taken to improve social mobility. Clegg says it has to start as early as possible, which is for the time ever that hundreds and thousands of two-year-olds will receive 15 hours of pre-free school support, then later support through the pupil premium.

4.01pm: Hazel Blears, MP for Salford and Eccles, points out that 25% of internships on a certain website are unpaid. I think she was referring to this site. What are they doing to do to ensure more are paid? Clegg says they are looking to improve things.

4.00pm: Kevin Brennan, Labour MP for Cardiff West, goes in for a joke. Since Jeremy Hunt gave Clegg a copy of Oliver Twist, as part of a private gift to cabinet colleagues to mark Charles Dickens's anniversary, did his colleagues break into song with "consider yourself one of us"? Ho?

3.58pm: Harriet Harman asks about the NHS bill and the plans to lift the cap on the use of private beds, which she says will see "NHS patients put at the back of the queue". Will he support the cap?
Clegg says the plans mean no more than 50% of beds should be used for private patients. NHS patients will benefit from extra income coming into the NHS.

Harman says giving half the NHS to private patients is not reforming the NHS, but destroying it. Clegg says it could lead to hospital closures if they can't raise income. What is wrong with allowing hospitals that already do private work, from working in a manner that helps NHS patients? What is wrong with that? he asks.

3.53pm: Sandra Osborne asks whether the commission to consider the West Lothian question will affect reform of the House of Lords. Mark Harper, the cabinet office minister, says he's not sure the two are connected.

A lot of questions on improving the electoral register ? ie people registering ? and individual voter registration being lobbed by Harper.

Back to the commission on the West Lothian Question. Clegg says it will report in the next parliamentary session (earlier this year, government announced the panel of experts who will look at issues raised by the so-called West Lothian Question ? ie whether Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs should vote on legislation that affects only England).

Clegg says the commission is focused on procedures in the house and how they are affected by the process of devolution. He is asked by Labour's Ann Mckechin whether it's a serious error not to get cross-party consensus. Clegg says the government will be seeking discussions, but at the moment they don't know what recommendations the commission will be making.

3.52pm: Party funding has come up. John Spellar, Labour MP for Warley, raises the money Michael Brown donated to the Lib Dems. Brown bankrolled the party with £2.4m of stolen money. He was arrested last month in the Dominican Republic, three years after being convicted of multimillion pound theft. Clegg says the electoral commission had made it "chrystal clear" that the money was received at the time by the party "in good faith".

3.49pm: The monthly Commons grilling with Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister. Lords reforms come up. Tory MP Nick de Bois says there are more pressing issues than those reforms. Clegg says government is able to deal with several issues at a time. Labour's Sadiq Khan points to all the additional peers that have been appointed in recent time. He wants assurances that there won't be anymore. Clegg says pending "wholesale reform of the other place", appointments will continue. Clegg points out that Labour didn't stop appointing them when they were in power.

2.34pm: By the way, I should say happy birthday to parrotkeeper, a regular contributor to Andrew's blog. Parrotkeeper has posted a political wishlist, prompted by another contributor, Tizher. Let's bring it above the line.

1. the NHS demolition job must be stopped
2. the PIP plan must be reviewed to make it realistic - this plan excludes wheelchair users from getting mobility awards - how bloody stupid is that?!!
3. the Lib Dems to remember what they stood for when they were touting for votes then to cross the floor but I know that's pie in the sky because they like the power currently afforded to them; I suspect they already know they won't be getting it back after 2015
4. the media to lay off the scathing attacks on Ed Miliband when it is his speeches that lay the foundations that the Tories then follow ie. witholding RBS bonuses
5. the abolition of the phrase 'the mess we inherited' - by the time 2015 comes around, Labour will be in line to be saying that for the next term of office - aarghhhhh, 10 years of hearing 'the mess we inherited'!!!

2.10pm: Time for a lunchtime summary:
? The home secretary, Theresa May, will make a statement in the Commons this afternoon in response to an urgent question on the decision to release the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada.

The prime minister's spokeswoman said the government is considering its legal options. (see 1.11pm) "Basically our view is that it's not the end of the road."

Former Labour minister Hazel Blears told BBC 2's Daily Politics show earlier that Qatada could end up going free. She said: "We have in this country a handful of people ? no more than a dozen ? for whom the evidence against them is intelligence evidence and if you were to bring that into a normal criminal court, you would then need to reveal your agents, sources and capability and those agents would be compromised, put in very dangerous situations."

"What we did was brought in a system of control orders ? which were very controversial. Qatada was held under deportation conditions, but my worry is that if we don't get this issue sorted out with Jordan, those bail conditions will be relaxed and he will be virtually free on our streets."

? The Metropolitan police has formally admitted they were wrong not to warn victims ? and potential victims ? of phone-hacking that their privacy had been, or might have been, invaded. Lord Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, who was among a group who brought judicial review proceedings to challenge the police over failures to warn them their phones had been hacked, said he didn't intend to sue for damages. He had just wanted them to admit they hadn't done their job properly. (see 12.46pm)

? MPs will discuss excessive pay at the top during an opposition debate this afternoon. (see 9.20am). Lorely Burt for the Liberal Democrats has described Labour's decision to point the finger at bankers' bonuses as "sheer hypocrisy". Burt, co chair of the Lib Dem parliamentary committee on business, innovation and skills, said it was Labour that presided on the "biggest boom in bonuses this country has seen, from £3.1bn in 2001 to £11.5bn in 2007".

Burt added: "The coalition government inherited this economic mess from Labour and has taken decisive action to put the country back on track. We've capped cash bonuses at state owned banks to £2,000 and overall, the bonus pool is smaller than last year and considerably less than under Labour."

? Downing Street has insisted that David Cameron backs both Andrew Lansley and his health reforms amid reports that a No 10 source said the health secretary should be "taken out and shot".(see 9.54am). The prime minister's spokeswoman said: "As far as we are concerned, the reforms are going to deliver a better NHS, one that will be much freer of bureaucracy and less interference, which means that health care workers can get one with delivering good care for their patients." (see 1.11pm)

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, issued a statement saying the prime minister should make an urgent statement to clarify whether these remarks come from a rogue source, or reflect his own and majority opinion in Downing Street. He also seized on reports that two backers of the coalition's shakeup have joined the large band of critics.

Burnham said: "A campaign is clearly underway to scapegoat Andrew Lansley. But it is David Cameron who has put the NHS on a knife edge and it can't afford to have a lame-duck secretary of state in charge who does not have authority and the personal support of the prime minister. Rather than looking for someone else to blame, he must now take responsibility for breaking his personal promises to NHS staff."

? A report by the public accounts committee into the whole of government accounts (WGA) for 2009-201 has revealed that the Treasury was "surprised" to learn that £10.9bn of unpaid tax had been written off by HM Revenue & Customs in one year. It was apparently not fully aware of the estimate until after it appeared in the accounts. The report says that the WGA has the potential to help the government identify the "risks it needs to manage", but it found the Treasury's understanding of some aspects of the WGA was "poor. (See 10.57am)

? David Cameron has announced an additional £6m in government funding to support thousands of degree-level higher apprenticeships. "By making apprenticeships a gold standard option for ambitious young people, we are sending a message that technical excellence is as highly valued as academic prowess," said the prime minister.

? The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has given cabinet colleague a Dickens novel each as private gifts. (See 1.11pm) David Cameron got two: Hard Times and Great Expectations. Nick Clegg received Oliver Twist.

1.12pm: More on the bailing of Abu Qatada. It's the subject of an urgent Commons question by Labour's Paul Goggins at 3.30pm. We'll cover it here.

1.11pm: Here's a summary of points from this morning's lobby briefing.

? The government said it is considering its options following the decision to free on bail the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada. Asked what the next steps were, the prime minister's spokeswoman said: "Clearly the home secretary is considering the judgment made yesterday. We are absolutely committed to protecting national security and we are going to take all necessary measures to do so. We are under no doubt this is a dangerous man and he poses a real threat to our security."

She added: "As you know, he's on strict bail conditions. Basically our view is that it's not the end of the road. We are considering our legal options."

? The prime minister's spokeswoman has said that David Cameron backs his health secretary, Andrew Lansley, and the health reforms. The comments follow reports of a Downing Street source saying that Lansley "should be shot" for the way he has mishandled the health reforms. The spokeswoman said: "As far as we are concerned, the reforms are going to deliver a better NHS, one that will be much freer of bureaucracy and less interference, which means that health care workers can get one with delivering good care for their patients.

She was also asked to comment on reports by Cameron's former adviser James O'Shaughnessy, who claimed that last year's two-month listening exercise was just a "tactic" to push the reforms through.

The spokeswoman said the exercise was to pause, reflect and listen, and it did just that. We are running our NHS blog here.

? David Cameron left cabinet to chair a meeting of the National Security Council at which the deteriorating situation in Syria was the main focus.

? Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, gave every cabinet colleague a book by Charles Dickens to mark the author's 200th anniversary. It was a private gift. Nice touch. David Cameron got Hard Times and Great Expectations - read into that what you may. Here's the full list.

David Cameron ? Great Expectations and Hard Times
Nick Clegg ? Oliver Twist
William Hague ? The Uncommercial Traveller
Andrew Mitchell ? Dombey and Son
George Osborne ? A Tale of Two Cities
Danny Alexander ? Hard Times
Kenneth Clarke ? Little Dorrit
Theresa May ? Little Dorrit
Justine Greening ? Dombey and Son
Philip Hammond ? Dombey and Son
Vince Cable ? A Christmas Carol
David Willetts ? The Haunted Man and Ghost's Bargain
Iain Duncan Smith ? Oliver Twist
Ed Davey ? Little Dorrit
Andrew Lansley ? Nicholas Nickleby
Michael Gove ? A Child's History of England
Eric Pickles ? A House to Let
Caroline Spelman ? Bleak House
Owen Paterson ? Pickwick Papers
Michael Moore ? Pickwick Papers
Cheryl Gillan ? Pickwick Papers
Lady Warsi ? The Old Curiosity Shop
Francis Maude ? The Old Curiosity Shop
Oliver Letwin ? The Old Curiosity Shop
Lord Strathclyde ? Bleak House
Sir George Young ? Bleak House
Patrick McLoughlin ? Bleak House

12.46pm: Lord Prescott said earlier on the BBC that he wouldn't have needed to go for a judicial review if the Met had just admitted in the first place that it had made mistakes. He recounted the way he was told there was "nothing there" when he initially asked the Met whether his phone had been hacked. He said he didn't intend to sue for damages, he just wanted them to admit they hadn't done their job properly. Quotes courtesy of politicshome:

He told the BBC: "They've even been admitting to parliamentary committees in the last year or so that they had made mistakes. They set up a second inquiry. So that is the big question ? why they didn't [admit they had made a mistake].

"And we did call for an inquiry and I'm delighted that the Leveson inquiry is now looking at the relations of the police and indeed the press ? that is an important issue and I have to say I hope they've learnt some lessons. But if the public is to get the trust back in the press and the police, we've got to keep an eye on them."

Here's the Met statement:

The MPS is pleased to have reached an agreement in this case and accepts more should have been done by police in relation to those identified as victims and potential victims of phone hacking several years ago. It is a matter of public record that the unprecedented increase in anti-terrorist investigations resulted in the parameters of the original inquiry being tightly drawn, and officers considered the prosecution and conviction of Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire as a successful outcome of their investigation.

There are now more than 130 officers involved in the current phone-hacking inquiry (Weeting) and the two operations being run in conjunction with it and this in part reflects the lessons that have been learned about how police should deal with the victims of such crimes.

Today's settlement does not entail damages being paid by the MPS and as the court has made clear, sets no precedent for the future. How the MPS treats victims goes to the very heart of what we do. It was important that this case did not result in such a wide duty being placed on police officers that it could direct them away from their core purpose of preventing and detecting crime.

12.19pm: Here's some copy from PA on the high court case and phone hacking:

The Metropolitan police service today accepted at the high court that failure in 2006 and 2007 to warn victims and potential victims of phone hacking was unlawful.

News of the acceptance that it had "breached a legal obligation" came as two judges in London heard that a number of claimants ? including former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott ? had settled judicial review proceedings brought against the Met over "failures to warn victims".

Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin were told that the two sides had reached agreement by Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Lord Prescott, ex-Met police deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, actor Jude Law's personal assistant Ben Jackson, MP Chris Bryant and an anonymous individual known as HJK.

Mr Tomlinson said the claimants and the Met had agreed a "declaration" - in which the Met admits it breached its duties under Article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Lord Prescott was in court for the proceedings."

12.12pm: I should have said earlier I was going off to the morning press briefing. I'm back now.

While I was away, the breaking news has been that the Metropolitan police has accepted at the high court that failure in 2006 and 2007 to warn victims and potential victims of phone hacking was unlawful. More on this to follow.

11.27am: I mentioned earlier talk of the health secretary's fate ? and David Cameron's ? over the NHS reforms and a Downing Street source suggesting Lansley should be "taken out and shot" to Times columnist Rachel Sylvester (see previous post).

Benedict Brogan picks up on this thread, and the suggestion that former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn could be parachuted into government via a peerage to replace Lansley. Milburn can "rest easy", writes Brogan on his blog. He reveals that Cameron met Nick Clegg and Lansley and agreed to press on with the reform, "despite concern about the way he has handled it". So no U-turns, no backing down.

10.57am: The public accounts committee has revealed that the Treasury was "surprised" to learn that £10.9bn of unpaid tax had been written off by HM Revenue & Customs in one year. A report by the panel of MPs into the whole of government accounts (WGA) for 2009-2010 ? compiled and published for the first time last year ? reports that George Osborne's department was apparently not fully aware of the estimate until after it appeared in the accounts.

It also had "no knowledge" of whether plans were in place to cut the taxpayer's huge £15.7bn liability for clinical negligence claims, the committee found (the Telegraph has focused on this in its coverage).

The accounts also reveal that at 31 March 2010 the government's public service pensions liability was more than £1,132bn and the present value of its future commitments under PFI schemes was £131.5bn.

The report says that the WGA has the potential to help the government identify the "risks it needs to manage", but it found the Treasury's understanding of some aspects of the WGA was "poor". "For instance the Treasury showed surprise at the estimated £10.9bn in outstanding tax and it had no knowledge of recent trends in clinical negligence claims or whether plans were in place to reduce the estimated £15.7bn cost to taxpayers of meeting these claims," the report states. "The Treasury should use the WGA specifically to identify key risks to public funds and ensure bodies included in the WGA can demonstrate that they are addressing them effectively."

You can see the conclusions and recommendations on this page.

The PAC chair, Margaret Hodge, said the document "currently falls short of giving a true and fair view of the UK's financial position".

Here's an excerpt from a report by the Press Association:

Hodge said: "The Treasury has departed from accounting standards by leaving out of the accounts such bodies as Network Rail and the publicly-owned banks. This has led to the accounts being qualified by the Comptroller & Auditor General. We want the government to provide the necessary information so that these accounts are comprehensive and credible."

The report highlighted massive swings in liabilities for public sector pensions and nuclear decommissioning, partly due to officials' "inconsistent" use of discount rates when calculating the figures.

It also raised concerns about the quality of data, saying the financial information provided by academies had been "generally poor".

"This issue is likely to become more important with the creation of new academies and other organisations that deliver local services such as free schools, foundation trusts and GP consortia," the MPs added.

The Treasury said the WGA represented "the most ambitious public sector account prepared anywhere in the world" and that it was working hard to remove the qualifications.

"No other country has sought to fully consolidate all public sector bodies, including the local government sector, in one statement of accounts. We will build on this first publication and are working hard to remove any qualifications," a spokesman said.

"HMRC collects almost all tax debt and write-offs are relatively low. What's more, around 90% of those write-offs are due to insolvency where further debt pursuit is actually barred by law."

The spokesman added that the government had for the first time published a clear assessment of PFI liabilities and launched a review which would "mean the end of PFI as we know it".

9.54am: More on performance, this time that of the health secretary, Andrew Lansley. Rachel Sylvester in the Times (paywall), ponders over the fact that all three cabinet resignations since the coalition was formed were over personal matters, not policy or political ones. It is extraordinary, says Sylvester, that Lansley is still in position "having so monumentally mishandled the government's NHS reforms". David Cameron tries to resist reshuffles, but should Lansley be an exception?

As the health and social care bill prepares to undergo its report stage in the House of Lords tomorrow, Sylvester quotes "one exasperated insider" as saying that Lansley "is just a disaster" in light of his failure to win over his critics (and now even turning off some of his key supporters in the health field, as my colleague Denis Campbell reports here).

Another of Sylvester's sources ? a Downing Street source no less ? chooses not to mince their words. "Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot. He's messed up both the communications and the substance of the policy."

Sylvester writes:

Both Mr Cameron and George Osborne are remarkably loyal to Mr Lansley, who was their boss at the Conservative research department. But many senior figures, Lib Dem and Tory, now admit privately that it was a mistake to introduce a flagship bill on health when most of the key changes could have been implemented without primary legislation. Indeed, Nick Clegg considered calling publicly for the whole thing to be abandoned ? then decided, for the sake of coalition unity, to back substantial amendments instead.

'Health reform should have been carried out by stealth,' says one strategist. The contrast is drawn with Michael Gove's education reforms, which have been presented successfully as the fulfilment of Tony Blair's schools policy rather than a complete break with the past.

Perhaps it's too late to change direction. Maybe the government now just has to minimise the damage and move on. But this issue still has the potential to destroy the Conservatives at the next election, and they know it.

My colleague Polly Toynbee says it's not too late for the bill to be withdrawn. The decision to implement as much as he has without waiting for the bill's royal assent is a "flagrant flouting of parliament", writes Toynbee. But while a U-turn would be embarrassing, failing to do so would be worse, she argues.

"Too late," the health secretary says with grim glee, and Lansley's alarmed party believes it's so. Of course it's not and the bill could be withdrawn. A U-turn would be greeted with guffaws by the opposition, but that would be less politically dangerous than the cataclysm likely to engulf the NHS shortly. Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP and member of the health select committee, puts it like this: "It will now cause havoc either way, but going ahead is even more catastrophic".

The government has gone to the extreme remedy of the law to resist the information commissioner's instruction that the risk register on the bill should be published. If leaks to Dr Eoin Clarke's website prove correct, the main risk is of costs becoming unaffordable as private companies siphon off profits and GP commissioners lack the expertise to control costs. The risk for David Cameron is that this will finish him.

9.27am: Still on bonuses, John Cridland, director general of the Confederation for British Industry, appears to concur with a key element of the motion being debated in the Commons this afternoon (see previous post). The Labour motion says that "bank executive remuneration should be related to performance and that banks either directly or indirectly supported by the taxpayer must recognise that the taxpayer expects very large bonuses only to be paid to reflect genuinely exceptional performance".

Cridland is also of the opinion that one shouldn't get paid extra just for doing one's job. He was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme and said it is only the exceptional performance that should be rewarded.

He said: "I think exceptional performance can be in a charity, it can be in a local community, it can be in a school, it can be in a manufacturing company, it can be an exporter, it can be a bank. But you need to look at what is exceptional rather than what somebody's already being paid to do."

Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, was on ITV Daybreak this morning arguing that bonsues should be taxed properly, and the revenue used to fund employment opportunities for the young. Quotes courtesy of Press Association.

"We want bonuses to be taxed properly and, in the last year of the Labour government, we taxed bonuses of more than £25,000 at 50%. We think if we did that again we could bring in £2bn to help pay for a fund of youth jobs." She added: "We would like to see bonuses reined in, and bonuses should only be paid for exceptional performance - especially these huge bonuses of hundreds of thousands, or even millions of pounds."

Reeves said the pay of people at the top of firms had increased at a far greater rate than those lower down in companies. "Over the last year what you've seen is the pay for directors of firms go up by 50% whilst ordinary workers aren't seeing any pay rises at all. They are seeing prices go up for their gas, electricity, train fares, petrol, and yet their wages haven't and it doesn't seem right, especially when banks caused the crisis in the first place. They are getting a tax cut this year whilst everyone else is seeing their taxes rise."

Reeves added that she would not deny ordinary workers their bonuses.
"For the average person working in a bank branch a bonus for meeting their targets - I don't have a problem with that. But there needs to be much more transparency and that is one of things Labour are calling for today. Also, having a worker on the committees that decide the wages at the top of organisations so firms are accountable to those who work there and their shareholders."

Reeves said she applauded David Higgins and Stephen Hester for forgoing their bonuses, adding: "It's the right thing to do in the circumstances we face at the moment."

9.20am: Good morning.

So the head of Network Rail, Sir David Higgins, has waived his bonus, along with five fellow senior managers. But the thorny issue of executive pay is far from over.

As my colleague Patrick Wintour writes today, while RBS chief executive Stephen Hester gave in over his eyewatering bonus last week, "a host of bankers and semi-public sector executives in the regulated industries will face the court of public opinion as their pay packages are publicised, and scrutinised" in the weeks ahead.

Labour will seize on its success on applying pressure first on Hester, then Higgins, by devoting one of its opposition day debates on excessive pay at the top. The motion is on responsibility and reform in British banks. But the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, who will open the debate, is expected to widen the scope to the issue of excessive pay more generally. He will weave in the Network Rail bonus brouhaha to argue that the culture of excessive bonuses is damaging the economy and society, as well as being bad for business.

Here's the motion in full:

Responsibility and Reform in British Banks

That this House notes with concern that the recent Bank of England's publication Trends in Lending shows net lending to businesses has fallen in nine out of the last 12 months and by more than £10bn in the last year; further notes that a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report published on 2 February 2012 states that the stock of lending to small and medium sized enterprises peaked in 2009 and in November 2011 declined by 6.1% compared to November 2010 whilst banks were frequently setting bonuses for their senior executives which were too large; believes that bank executive remuneration should be related to performance and that banks either directly or indirectly supported by the taxpayer must recognise that the taxpayer expects very large bonuses only to be paid to reflect genuinely exceptional performance; notes with concern that the government has not given due consideration to repeating the bankers' bonus tax, in addition to the bank levy, to pay for 100,000 jobs for young people; calls on the government to increase transparency, accountability and responsibility in the setting of pay in the banking sector including through the immediate implementation of the Walker Review of Corporate Governance of UK Banking Industry and the placing of an employee representative on the remuneration committees of company boards; and further calls on the Government to reform the banking sector so that it better supports businesses and provides the credit they need to create jobs and growth.

It looks set to start at about 4pm.

Before that, at 2.30pm, we'll hear Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, take questions from MPs.

Among the select committees hearing evidence today, are the following:

10.30am The culture, media and sport committee take evidence on library closures.

10.30am The health committee is holding an evidence session on PIP implants and the regulation of cosmetic interventions.

5pm Vince Cable, the business secretary, and William Hague, the foreign secretary, give evidence to the committees on arms export controls.

  • Nick Clegg to resurrect talks on party funding

Deputy PM hopes cross-party agreement can be reached by Easter, but says extra state funding is not up for discussion

Nick Clegg is to revive all-party talks on party funding admitting that extra state funding is off the table, but insisting a wider deal is still possible.

The deputy prime minister is to write to Ed Miliband and David Cameron asking them to each nominate two party representatives to what will be initially three-party private talks.

Clegg as deputy prime minister is responsible for constitutional affairs, and was not taking the initiative as Lib Dem leader. The aim would be to set out heads of agreement on a range of issues by Easter.

This high-level agreement would cover individual and company donor limits, the treatment of union affiliates, spending caps at elections and the distribution of existing state funding between parties, currently estimated at £7m a year.

The decision to rule out any state funding in the new round of discussions means any new package could not include much lower donations limits, since to impose such caps without any state funding would bankrupt the already hard-pressed political parties.

Clegg's aides do not expect to reach a detailed agreement by Easter, but do believe the issue has to be resolved since it is still corroding trust in politics.

Clegg is trying to revive the talks after the committee on standards in public life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, proposed £23m a year of state funding to parties over a parliament as the safest route to reducing levels of donations. The committee's proposal proved to be a blind alley as none of the political parties were willing to back the taxpayers' outlay at a time of such austerity.

The committee did, however, map out some of the basics of how an agreement could be constructed on some of the less political issues.

A previous round of cross-party talks on state funding held under the Labour government, chaired by the civil servant Sir Hayden Phillips, also collapsed largely over the best way to treat union funding of the Labour party.

The committee on standards in public life proposed a £10,000 cap on donations for individuals and companies, including trade unions. It also proposed that trade union affiliation fees should be regarded as a collection of individual payments. It suggested that the existing limits on campaign spending in the period before an election should be cut by 15%.

The committee's report challenged the union-Labour link by proposing trade unions' political levy-payers would have to contract in to paying the affiliation fee at the time they joined a union, a move Labour claims would lead to a big fall-off in the size of political funds.

The Conservatives said they would only accept a £50,000 individual cap, saying anything less would erode party income too much.

Miliband has little room for manoeuvre since although he has income from membership he is also heavily dependent on unions for donations. The unions have also refused to back moves to reduce their voting power at conference.