Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research

Blair Government Falls to 22% in Britain

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - Few Britons are content with the performance of the administration headed by prime minister Tony Blair, according to a poll by Ipsos-MORI. 22 per cent of respondents are satisfied with the way the government is doing its job, down five points since March. The rating for Blair stands at 29 per cent.

In May 2005, British voters renewed the House of Commons. The governing Labour party secured 356 seats, followed by the Conservatives with 197 and the Liberal Democrats with 62. Labour leader Blair has served as prime minister since 1997. In October 2004, Blair vowed to retire at the end of his third term in office. Chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown has been mentioned as his possible replacement.

On May 4, Britain held local elections. The Labour party lost control of 18 councils, while the Tories gained control of 11—the party's best showing since 1992. The Conservatives received an estimated 40 per cent of all cast ballots, followed by the Liberal Democrats with 27 per cent, and Labour with 26 per cent.

Yesterday, some members of the Conservative party said they would support the education bill proposed by the current government in the House of Commons. Shadow education secretary David Willetts declared, "We backed the bill at a second reading and I think it would be wrong for us to change our position. Provided the government doesn't change the substance of the bill, we will continue to back it."

Up to 100 of the Labour party's current parliamentarians are opposed to the prime minister's plan—which seeks to give schools greater freedom—claiming that it could eventually lead to a two-tier system, where schools pick the best students to help improve their exam rates.

Polling Data

www.angus-reid.com

Five UK companies produce more CO2 than all cars

16 May 06 15:27 - Channel 4 News

The worst polluter is EON UK, an electricity generating company

Just five British companies are producing more carbon dioxide emissions than all the cars on the country's roads, according to a report in The Guardian today, based on figures released by the European Commission.

The worst polluter of greenhouse gases is EON UK, the electricity generator that owns Powergen, which produced 26.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide last year - more than the entire output of the country of Croatia.

The five worst offenders - EON UK, RWE NPower, Drax, Corus and EDF - produced a total of over 100m tonnes of carbon dioxide last year. The 26m cars on Britain's roads produced an estimated 91m tonnes.

The Guardian also claims: 'British sites operated by Tesco, Walkers, Ford, Unilever, Kellogg's, Allied Bakeries, Nestle and Cadbury Trebor Bassett are among those that emitted more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2004.' - a figure greater than that of many small countries.

The paper pessimistically concludes: 'The figures, which have prompted new calls for tighter restrictions on corporate pollution, show that efforts by individuals and households to cut their carbon footprints will make little difference unless accompanied by greater action by industry.'

Cause to feel less guilty about driving to the local shops or running a large SUV?

Scotland Yard to step up inquiry into 'loans for peerages' scandal

· Police seize 1,000 Whitehall files and emails
· MPs suspend their own investigation into affair

David Hencke and Will Woodward Wednesday May 17, 2006 The Guardian

Scotland Yard is stepping up the scope and depth of its investigation into the "loans for peerages" scandal after seizing a paper trail of more than 1,000 documents, files and emails from Whitehall departments and agencies.

The Commons public administration committee yesterday agreed to halt its own investigation into the affair until July after police told MPs that they could prejudice a criminal investigation.

Tony Wright, the Labour chairman, told journalists yesterday: "These are big, important, public issues, but I want to be responsible and above all I don't want it to be said at any point that we compromised police action."

MPs had been planning to interview Lord Levy, Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, next week. They also planned to call the four would-be peers, Chai Patel, Sir David Garrard, Sir Gulam Noon and Barry Townsley, who pulled out of the prime minister's honours list after it became clear that the House of Lords appointments commission had recommended that they should not be ennobled. All four have been interviewed, without cautions, by police investigating the affair. The police have indicated that they could be called as witnesses should charges under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act be brought.

Scotland Yard's deputy assistant commissioner John Yates has told MPs that the inquiry is investigating not only "loans for peerages" but also whether any of the political parties had breached electoral law since 2001 by not declaring all their non-commercial loans to the Electoral Commission.

Yesterday the Yard said: "To clarify speculation regarding the length of the police investigation ... we are aiming to get a preliminary submission to the Crown Prosecution Service by September, but this is not to suggest that the investigation will have concluded by this date."

Mr Wright insisted that he had not offered the police "a blank cheque" and would resume his inquiry in July if the police appeared to have made no progress. But he added: "I was sceptical about the investigation. I am now convinced the police are taking it very seriously."

Earlier the committee had heard evidence from Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, Lord Stevenson, chairman of the Lords appointments commission, and Douglas Hurd, former foreign secretary and Tory member of the committee.

Lord Stevenson admitted that the committee knew nothing about the loans until newspapers leaked the list and the fact that at least one person on the list had made a secret loan to Labour. He told MPs: "When did we become aware of the saliency of loans in the most recent list? When we read that a particularly large loan had been made by one of the nominees. We moved very fast and got round all three political parties."

He was now tightening up on future nominees, saying they must disclose "anything that could conceivably be thought to affect a peerage".

Sir Gus defended Tony Blair recommending people who had funded city academies for peerages, which is another part of the investigation. He said it was "perfectly reasonable" for supporters of the controversial academies to be considered. Mr Blair would not rule out people who had donated to the academies programme, but he would be "absolutely clear" that peerages are awarded for "what they have achieved", he said.

The Scottish Nationalist MP who initiated the police investigation, Angus MacNeil, welcomed the news that MPs will suspend the inquiry."With such a lengthy inquiry under way by the police it is vitally important they undertake their work unhindered by anything that could prejudice it," he said.

Sir Gus also told MPs that it was highly unlikely that any civil servant would be sacked over the mistaken release of 1,000 foreign prisoners. He said: "I'm not clear that there was sufficient direct accountability [to civil servants] for that to be appropriate. This would have been assessed by line managers along the way and people will be looking at what lessons to learn and what staff changes are necessary."

Sir Gus promised that the running of the Home Office would be investigated and the review's findings would be published. "Certainly, from the civil servants' side mistakes were made, and we need to learn from that."

At a separate hearing Sir Hayden Phillips, a former permanent secretary appointed by the prime minister to undertake an inquiry into the funding of political parties, said he had set up a website to canvass the public's views. He told the Commons constitutional affairs committee there appeared to be a consensus among the main parties on increased state funding and a drop in individual donations.

We'll send prisoners back to 'unsafe' countries, says Blair

By Richard Ford - times online.co.uk

Admission that no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country forces Prime Minister on the defensive

FOREIGN prisoners will be sent back to countries that were previously considered to be unsafe for deportation, the Prime Minister pledged yesterday.

Forced on to the defensive by another day of damaging revelations about failures in the immigration system, Tony Blair cast aside previous government commitments not to send people to states where they could face inhumane treatment.

But his promise to try to get round human rights laws was undermined by his own Immigration Minister. Tony McNulty said that there would be situations where it would not be possible to deport people.

Of the 1,023 foreign national prisoners who were not considered for deportation having served prison sentences, 58 were from Iraq, 42 from Algeria, 19 from Iran and 48 from Somalia. All four are countries to which British courts are reluctant to deport, having grave reservations about human rights abuses.

The Conservatives accused Mr Blair of being disingenuous with the promise and questioned whether they would deport prisoners to a country where they could be executed. The confusion over foreign prisoner deportation came as David Cameron, the Conservative leader, described the Prime Minister as being "rattled" over the Government's failure to know how many illegal immigrants were in the country and how many people have been sent letters telling them to leave.

Mr Blair said at Prime Minister's Questions that there should be a "presumption of automatic deportation" in the "vast bulk" of such foreign national prisoner cases.

He added: "Those people, in my view, should be deported irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to which they are going back may not be safe."

But judges are refusing to send people back to states where they may be at risk of torture and death.

Mr McNulty admitted that in some cases it might not be possible to deport foreign national prisoners. He said: "There will be situations where we cannot deport people because of the parlous state of a particular country."

Mr McNulty said that under proposals being considered by the Home Office, such individuals could serve "fuller" jail terms in Britain to allow time for conditions to improve in their own countries.

Mr Blair also softened the Government's approach to when foreign nationals should be considered for deportation.

Under proposals outlined by the Home Office, foreigners convicted of an imprisonable offence, even if they receive a non-custodial sentence, face a "presumption" that they will be deported.

But the Prime Minister told MPs: "The whole point is that it only applies to people who have gone to prison."

He also admitted that some people given short jail terms may not be deported.

Mr Blair added: "It may be that if they were sent to prison, for example, for a very short space of time and they had been in this country for a long period of time - then the presumption of automatic deportation would not apply."

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, described Mr Blair's comments as "disingenuous" and questioned whether ministers would remove former prisoners if they faced execution on their return.

He added: "I don't actually believe that they are going to change the law so that foreign criminals - let's say somebody who is locked up for not paying a fine - are then sent abroad to be executed by a repressive state.

"I think that the Prime Minister ought to be a little less disingenuous in the way he presents his arguments."

British business is making big money out of illegal immigration, the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said.

John Denham said that the authorities were not tough enough on companies that "fiddled" the tax system by employing illegal foreign workers.

Illegal immigration would never be tackled until such companies were brought to book, the former Labour minister said. "It is very clear there are people in this country making money out of illegal immigration."

Mr Denham added: "I suspect unless we get after people making money out of it, including some very respectable household names, we will not make progress."

'WE DON'T HAVE A PRECISE FIGURE ON THIS'

"The truth of the matter is that we don't have a precise figure for this . . . And part of the reason is of course that we inherit a legacy of an unknown number from government to government, as it were, and therefore there are no precise numbers for this" "What we do know is that the number of false asylum-seekers coming here is now being dealt with quicker than ever, that the number who are being removed from the country is greater than ever" John Reid, Home Secretary

"The number of unfounded claims and people coming into this country since 1997 . . . are down. Each of them now is fingerprinted and identity cards given out to them . . ." "It is necessary we control illegal immigration better. There are two things we need to do. Firstly, we need to introduce the electronic borders, which we have introduced now for some 26 routes . . . Secondly, we need identity cards both for foreign nationals and for British nationals" - Tony Blair, speaking in the Commons

"The head of the Civil Service has said that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has been performing particularly well. Yet the head of enforcement and removals at that directorate says he hasn't got the faintest idea how many people are in Britain illegally . . . After nine years in charge this is just unacceptable" David Cameron, Conservative leader

"It beggars belief that, along with our porous borders, problems with foreign criminals and our inability to deport a quarter of a million failed asylum-seekers, we also manage to hand out national insurance numbers without checking up on a person's immigration status" David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary

"Under the previous government, illegal immigrants could expect a knock on the door from the Immigration Service or police and under this Government that has just been abandoned. They have given up on it" Michael Howard on the Today programme

"It illustrates a mockery of the immigration control system." David Winnick, Labour MP

100 freed from Scots jails without deportation decision

scotsman Thu 18 May 2006

MORE than 100 foreign convicts have been released from Scottish prisons without being considered for deportation, it emerged today.

Home Office sources confirmed that they could include dangerous criminals such as murderers, paedophiles and rapists.

The interim figure emerged as Home Office and Scottish Prison Service officials worked to try and discover the precise scale of the problem north of the Border. The figure for the number of overseas convicts arrested in Scotland and allowed to stay in the UK without being considered for being sent home could rise to 300. However, some of those may not have served their sentences in Scotland or been released from jails north of the Border.

The Home Office hopes to release new figures for the number of foreign prisoners mistakenly let out from behind bars without consideration for deportation next week.

Home Secretary John Reid will then say which prisons they were released from, which should give a clearer indication of how many could currently be living in Scotland.

One senior source said: "I think it is likely an update given next week will say that at least a three-figure sum has been released from Scottish prisons. "We are talking about people in addition to the 1023 prisoners previously spoken about." And sources confirmed that the headline figure of 1023 is also likely to rise.

The Government has been criticised after senior officials admitted they did not know how many illegal immigrants there were in the country.

Yesterday, the Immigration Minister, Tony McNulty, admitted that the best academic estimates for the number of such overseas nationals living in the UK without authorisation was somewhere between 310,000 and 570,000.

He said it could take up to ten years to deport them at 25,000 annually.

Government enlists public service 'spies'

Council staff may be given police intelligence to monitor local criminals

Patrick Wintour and Hugh Muir - Friday May 19, 2006 - The Guardian

Neighbourhood wardens, community support officers, park keepers, housing officers and other frontline council staff should be given regular access to local police intelligence in an attempt to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and other low-level crime, under plans being examined by Downing Street.

The plan, seen as part of a strategy to develop more effective neighbourhood policing teams throughout England by 2008, has been supported by Hazel Blears in her role as home office minister responsible for crime before switching to the post of Labour party chairman.

Ministers believe an army of frontline public sector workers could provide information on criminals if they were, in return, given access to police intelligence.

The police will be unnerved by the proposals, which come after disputed Police Federation claims that ministers and chief police officers are willing to cut total police numbers by as many as 25,000 as the number of cheaper police community support officers increases.

The efforts of police and local councils to combat the antisocial behaviour and other crimes at the heart of the new plans was also criticised this week in an Audit Commission report. A survey by the commission showed that over half the police were not using information from neighbourhood wardens.

It also found that methods of recording antisocial behaviour have been developed haphazardly, with only 30% of crime and disorder reduction partnerships using the categories recommended by the Home Office.

A spokesman for the Police Federation said it would be concerned by any plans to make police intelligence more widely available. "There will be issues about data protection and confidentiality," he said. "The biggest issue is that sensitive information is carefully handled. The police service is entirely accountable for all its actions and there are mechanisms in place if information is leaked.

"There are already mechanisms for sharing some information on things like antisocial behaviour and that will involve local authority employees. But if they are given information there will be an expectation that they will do something with it. We would be concerned if this is part of a plan to see policing functions further handed out to people without power."

James Welch, legal director of Liberty, said: "Police intelligence is highly sensitive and can be very dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. It should only be disclosed on an absolute need-to-know basis. Wardens do not receive the same specialist training that police do. Why is such sensitive information, seemingly irrelevant to their work, being given to them?"

Although the police normally enjoy political protection from the Conservatives, the Tory leader, David Cameron, has recently referred to them as one of the great last unreformed public services.

The prime minister, who is struggling to regain his hold of the law and order agenda after successive Home Office fiascos, visited a closed crack house in London yesterday. Powers to shut down crack houses have been seen as one of the most effective measures of the many government crime laws.

Tony Blair is expected to return to the issue of antisocial behaviour in a more coordinated way next month. Broadly, the government believes the need is not for lots of new laws, but for better coordination and enforcement of existing powers.

Legislative and regulatory reform bill

The government faced repeated calls to add further safeguards to new powers which the opposition says would allow ministers to change laws without fully consulting parliament. Tories and Liberal Democrats pressed for MPs and peers to have a veto over the new order-making powers proposed by the Cabinet Office. Under ministers' plans, select committees would be able to block a minister's order - but opponents of the legislative and regulatory reform bill say members in the Commons and Lords should have a veto over any law changes. For the Tories, Jonathon Djanogly accused ministers of failing to fulfil a promise to include a parliamentary veto in the bill. Junior Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden confirmed that the government planned to give parliamentary committees a statutory power to veto orders. It would continue to listen to views on the most appropriate way of ensuring that these safeguards in the bill were effective and workable. - guardian

MP's want veto on new ministerial powers

Publisher: Keith Hall Published: 16/05/2006 - 24dash.com

House of Commons

The Government today faced repeated calls to add further safeguards to new powers which the Opposition says would allow ministers to change laws without fully consulting Parliament.

Tories and Liberal Democrats are pressing for MPs and peers to have a veto over the new order-making powers proposed by the Cabinet Office.

Under the Government's plans, select committees would be able to block a minister's order - but opponents of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill say members in the Commons and Lords should have a veto over any law changes.

The legislation - dubbed the Abolition of Parliament Bill for allowing ministers to side-step parliamentary scrutiny - is designed to speed up the process by which redundant laws are changed and cut the burden of regulations. Under the Government's plans, the Commons and Lords would only be able to act if a select committee made changes to the order.

Shadow Corporate Governance minister Jonathon Djanogly accused ministers of failing to fulfil a promise to include a parliamentary veto in the Bill and called for the Houses of Parliament to be given the power to intervene without relying on a select committee.

"Why will the Government simply not accept that this is a matter of great concern to opposition parties ... and deal with the matter now, here, and within the Bill? "There is an accepted fact in most quarters that the Bill requires adequate safeguards so it is not used in future years as a tool for the executive's abuse of power and the discarding of Parliament. "The amendments fall far short of the robust and firm veto we would have expected to see in such an important and constitutionally significant piece of legislation. "The Government proposals only allow for the veto to be exercised by a select committee whilst our amendments allow for amendments to be made by either of the committees or the Houses of Parliament. "If either House is unhappy with an order introduced under this Bill, there is nothing that it could do about vetoing the order until a committee has acted beforehand. "The veto of the select committee is effectively nothing more than a recommendation."

The Liberal Democrats have called for 10% of MPs to be able to block an order as long as they are from different parties, to ensure the Government does not rely on its majority to push through its plans.

Tory former Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke said he found himself in the "slightly embarrassing position" of supporting the Liberal Democrat stance. "If 65 MPs say it merits full Parliamentary process, it is not a non-controversial deregulatory measure." In such cases, they should be allowed to veto a "short-cutting" of the Parliamentary procedure, which should only be for genuinely non-controversial deregulator measures, he said.

Mr Djanogly said the percentage figure would need to be reviewed carefully and he was not discounting it as an argument. A further concern was the conditions that must be met for a recommendation of a committee to be valid, he said.

"These appear to be onerous and may provide the Government with a simple excuse to reject a committee's recommendation, rather than resort to attempting to defeat the recommendation in the House."

For the Liberal Democrats, David Heath said on his party's proposal: "If 10% of the House feel strongly about something I think their voice should be heard ... I think if that 10% comprises at least two parties represented in this House and it is quite clear it is not a simple mechanism on behalf of one party for political advantage ... then it is right that that should apply to the procedure."

It was not a question of saying that a minority party could put a brake on legislation, it was a case of saying that the legislation should be scrutinised, he said. He told MPs: "Tonight is make your mind up time about whether we accept a very flawed mechanism which the Government is proposing to put forward."

Public Administration Select Committee chairman Labour's Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) joined calls for a "strong rather than a weak veto". He also called on ministers to look again at whether it was constitutionally possible to specify how a select committee exercises its power.

Tory Greg Knight (Yorkshire E), Commons Procedure committee chairman, said Government proposals on vetoes had "only partly" met its previous promises. He said: "They have sought to define the grounds under which the veto can be exercised and this gives me serious concerns." This would raise the possibility of courts examining how committees reached their decisions, in breach of the Bill of Rights, Mr Knight added.

Labour's Alison Seabeck (Plymouth Devonport) said she was "generally pleased" with the moves made by the Government but called for a statutory two-year gap between draft orders being rejected and relaid.

Mr Clarke reaffirmed his view that select committees should not have to make recommendations on vetoes. He told MPs select committees had an "in-built Government majority" and there was "a great deal of patronage" involved in determining who sat on them.

Tory Charles Walker (Broxbourne) intervened to ask if he was concerned that the Government could "lean" on ambitious, young select committee members to ensure that they towed the Government line.

Mr Clarke replied: "I haven't got the slightest doubt that the process you refer to is quite frequently embarked upon by governments of all complexions if a select committee looks like being more difficult".

Junior Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden confirmed that the Government planned to give parliamentary committees in both House of Parliament a statutory power to veto orders. The Government would continue to listen to views on the most appropriate way of ensuring that these safeguards in the Bill were effective and workable. Mr McFadden said it was not a "blanket" veto. "Committees will be able to oppose an order on any basis they choose." He re-iterated the Government's commitment "not to push orders through in the face of committee opposition". Criticising the Liberal Democrat move as "arbitrary", he said it did not build on the strengths of the current system of scrutiny.

MPs voted 256 to 205, a Government majority of 51, rejecting a Tory call for a two year delay before a rejected order could be laid before the House again.

The bid by the Liberal Democrats to enable 10% of MPs to block an order as long as they were from different parties was defeated by 259 to 85, a majority of 174.

Reform Bill could spark the 'abolition of Parliament', says MP

May 17 2006 By Jonathan Walker, Political Editor - icbirmingham

The Government was accused of planning the "abolition of Parliament" with legislation giving Ministers sweeping powers to change the law.

MPs and the media "took their eye off the ball" and failed to spot the threat to democracy, according to Midland MP Mark Fisher (Lab Stoke Central).

He was speaking in a debate on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which has passed through Parliament with little fanfare.

The Government says it will give Ministers new powers to tackle red tape. But opposition parties and critics on the

Labour benches have warned it will give Ministers sweeping powers to amend legislation without proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

LABOUR: Facing the future with confidence

source - Speaking at the annual dinner of the CBI Tony Blair addressed a number of long-term challenges facing Britain including a stark warning on the future of energy policy

Blair turns to Cunningham in drive to curb Lords powers

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent - Saturday May 20, 2006 The Guardian

Tony Blair will on Monday move to curb the powers of the House of Lords to wreck his government's legislation programme after a series of bitter clashes between the Commons and the unelected house over terrorism laws, ID cards and hunting.

He will announce he is bringing back former cabinet minister Jack Cunningham (now Lord Cunningham of Felling) to head an all-party parliamentary committee to review the house's powers.

The committee will be expected to report in time for a government bill to be introduced next year to reform the Lords before the next election. The bill is expected to recommend the end of the Lords' powers to throw out bills.

Critics view Lord Cunningham's proposed appointment as a sign that Tony Blair is determined to end the century old Salisbury convention which allows peers to overturn legislation, after a bruising 12 months which has seen the Lords curb the terms of his ID cards bill and dilute the powers of the home secretary to detain suspected terrorists without charge.

The change of tone dates from last Wednesday after politicians met Jack Straw, the new leader of the House of Commons, only to learn that a carefully agreed deal with Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, to balance changes in the powers of Lords with plans for a newly elected House had been torn up by Mr Blair.

Downing Street has always wanted to give the Commons the final say in legislation but Lord Falconer had promised during informal negotiations with opposition parties that axing the powers of Lords to block bills would not be on the new committee's agenda. Lord Cunningham who left government to work with a lobbying company, Sovereign Strategy, had never been mentioned as chairman.

Mr Blair's renewed interest in Lords reform also follows the furore over the "loans for peerages" scandal, which is now being investigated by Scotland Yard. By abolishing working peers, the prime minister will no longer face accusations that he has put people into the Lords in return for donations or that he is shoring up controversial policies, such as his City Academy programme by awarding funders with peerages.

Liberal Democrats, who oppose curbs on the powers, have raised objections with Mr Straw. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, warned yesterday: "Any move to castrate the Lords of any of its powers to make the government less accountable will not be welcome. It will be also up to the new committee to elect its chairman and I am not sure that a Labour loyalist like Jack Cunningham is the best person. Another person may be nominated by non-Labour people."

Lord Cunningham has supported the government on ID cards and its restrictions on human rights to fight terrorism, but is a rare attender at the House, except to vote for the government.

FEATURE - Britain Still Centre of Animal Rights "Terrorism"

LONDON - by Michael Holden and Matthew Jones Story Date: 12/5/2006 - via planetark.com

Cars fire-bombed, constant death threats and even a grave desecrated -- the tactics of Britain's animal rights militants have earned them a reputation as the world's most extreme.

One security analyst told Reuters the UK was like "the Afghanistan of animal rights extremism" and the government has branded the more extreme elements "thugs and terrorists."

Few on either side of the intense debate about animal laboratory testing believe Thursday's jailing of three men and a woman for a total of 40 years will stop the attacks.

Jon Ablewhite, 36, John Smith, 39, Kerry Whitburn, 36, and Josephine Mayo, 38, had all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail the owners of the Darley Oaks farm in Staffordshire. At Nottingham Crown Court, the three men were each jailed for 12 years while Mayo got four years for conspiracy to blackmail farmers who bred medical research guinea pigs -- the latest stage of the intense battle between protesters and animal testers.

A clear sign the issue will not go away came earlier this week when intimidating letters were sent to small investors in drugs group GlaxoSmithKline, telling them to sell their shares or face having their details posted on the Internet.

That warning and news on Wednesday that police had arrested 11 people in connection with offences relating to animal rights extremism were just the latest developments in a long stand-off which has often shocked public opinion with its savagery and has threatened to drive major drugs company away from Britain.

In January 2004, Cambridge University announced it was giving up plans for a 32 million pound primate research centre over fears it would not be safe from militants and six months later a building contractor working on Oxford University's new animal testing centre pulled out after protests.

As the campaigns became ever radicalised, there were fears Britain's multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry would be threatened.

TOUGH MEASURES

In July 2004, the government announced tough new measures to allow police to arrest activists protesting outside scientists' homes and strengthen harassment laws in a bid to assuage fears within the medical testing profession and the drugs companies.

Thursday's case was connected with the desecration of the grave of 82-year-old Gladys Hammond.

She was the mother-in-law of one of the co-owners of the Darley Oaks guinea pig breeding farm that came under persistent attention from extremists to close. Although the prosecution did not prove the four actually stole her body, the four did admit to using her theft as part of their blackmail campaign.

Richard Ley, of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, said figures compiled by the ABPI for the first three months of 2006 found that incidents were down significantly compared with a year ago. "It remains an issue and if we can get a very serious reduction in these figures that is obviously going to be a major improvement from our point of view," he said. Ley said his association had been impressed by the renewed commitment of the police to enforce the law on the people who are taking extremist action." "We defend the right of those who are taking peaceable action, they have a right to do that. They don't have a right to commit intimidation violence harassment that some seem to think is appropriate."

He said they were hoping the new law, together with the creation of a specialist national police squad would prevent the sort of campaign that forced Darley Oaks farm to close. "We're keeping our fingers crossed that's the case. That was absolutely appalling. I think everyone in the country was horrified at the idea of desecrating a grave and the various other activities that took place.

OUTLAWING THE OUTLAWS

Robin Webb, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front said the new law had not affected activists but was targeting mainstream groups.

"By their very nature, the actions of the ALF activists have always been unlawful, as liberating animals in the way they do is covered by burglary and theft. Economic sabotage has been covered by criminal damage." "You can't legislate to outlaw something that's already outlawed," he added.

He warned that the new law could push activists into pursuing illegal methods to achieve their aims.

Many people felt disillusioned with Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, which, he said, had made about 60 promises before coming to power in 1997 to address the issue of animal welfare.

"Now with the promises broken, and broken so dramatically, people are angry and are more ready to understand those who don't take the parliamentary road and do go outside the law."