Mass Strike Ballots Will Go Ahead, Say Unions

Unions say they will go ahead with ballots for mass strike action over pensions, after talks with ministers fail to reach a breakthrough.













Several unions are holding votes on a "day of action" on 30 November, in protest at plans to increase pension contributions by public sector workers.

They say changes the are unfair and financially unnecessary.

But ministers insist that pension contributions must be increased to make schemes sustainable.

The meeting, between the TUC-led delegation and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, followed months of inconclusive discussions.

'Not appropriate'

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber told the BBC there had been no "dramatic change", with the two sides still "a long way apart", but promised there would be further talks.

He added: "Unions will continue to step up their efforts with the ballots of their members and planning of industrial action.

"But we remain absolutely committed to this process, to try to see if it's possible to reach a negotiated settlement without the need for that industrial action."

Nine unions - including Unison, Unite, the Fire Brigades' Union, Prospect and the GMB - announced at the TUC's annual conference last week that they were preparing to ballot for industrial action or to register "trade disputes" with the government.

Four others who took industrial action in June - the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union and University and College Union - do not need to hold another ballot if they want to strike.

And the National Union of Head Teachers - which has never organised a strike in its 114-year history - announced on Thursday that it would ballot members, starting on 29 September.

'Constructive proposals'

However, the British Medical Association Council said on Wednesday that it had decided this course was "not appropriate" for its members, but did not rule out "industrial action of some kind in the future".

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "We are totally committed to genuine engagement with the unions. We have a lot to talk about and there are proposals on the table for discussion."

He added that unions had to make "constructive proposals", saying: "It is extremely disappointing that the TUC is calling on union members to lose a day's pay and go on strike while serious talks are still ongoing."

Asked to condemn the strike plans in an interview with New Statesman magazine, Labour leader Ed Miliband - who was jeered at the TUC conference last week when he declined to back calls for action - said: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about strikes that may or may not happen.

"What I'm going to do is say government has a responsibility to properly negotiate and they're not doing it and they've got to do it.

"The unions have to make their own judgement about what they do."

Union Leaders Warn Of 'Long, Hard And Dirty' Battle Over Pensions

Ministers accused the unions of jumping the gun because negotiations on the pension shake-up are continuing.










Delegates at the TUC conference in London voted unanimously for co-ordinated opposition to public-sector pension reform. Leaders of 10 unions subsequently announced their intention to ballot their members on industrial action, and revealed plans for a nationwide 'day of action' on 30 November.

Trade union leaders warned that the dead will be left unburied and rubbish uncollected as they announced plans for the biggest programme of strikes for a generation over the Government's decision to cut public sector pensions.

Officials raised the spectre of the 1978-79 "Winter of Discontent" as another 10 unions announced that they will ballot more than 2m members on industrial action.

The first "day of action" will be held on 30 November, the day after the Chancellor George Osborne unveils his autumn economic statement. Action will include one-day walkouts to lunchtime rallies, and is expected to range from senior civil servants to dustmen.

Workers being balloted include firemen, hospital and ambulance workers, police support staff, teachers and lecturers, care workers, meals-on-wheels staff, prison officers, refuse collectors, street cleaners and cemetery workers.

Four unions representing civil servants and teachers held a one-day strike in June, and yesterday the University and College Union announced that 77 per cent of its members had voted in favour of action over pensions.

Students at 67 universities could face disruption from next month, including a work-to-rule by lecturers, who may set exams but refuse to mark them.

After the TUC conference in London voted unanimously in favour of co-ordinated action, 24 public sector unions agreed their detailed strategy at a "council of war".

They are preparing for a "long haul" running through to next summer, with warnings that the London Olympics and celebrations to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee could be disrupted.

"We are talking about something that is long and hard and dirty," said Brian Strutton, national secretary for public services at the GMB. "We are assuming this will be a huge setpiece conflict running for a long time."

Ministers accused the unions of jumping the gun because negotiations on the pension shake-up are continuing. They said the talks could continue until December so there was no justification for taking action in November.

Downing Street said the proposed action was "very disappointing", while Mr Osborne appealed to the unions to halt what he called "this deeply irresponsible action".

Ministers said they would not back down on their plans to shave £2.8bn a year off the pensions bill by 2014-15 as this would unsettle the financial markets. But they said they were open to "different ways of cutting the cake".

However, on the final day of the TUC conference, union leaders queued up to condemn the Government's stance and declared that the talks were making no progress.

Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, said there was "huge anger" over the pensions proposals and said 30 November would see "the biggest trade union mobilisation in a generation".

He added: "We remain absolutely committed, in good faith, to seeking a fair, negotiated settlement of this dispute so that this action will not be necessary. But the Government needs to understand the strength of unions' resolve."

Labour urged both sides to step back from the brink.

Angela Eagle, the shadow Chief Treasury Secretary, said: "Ministers must show a willingness to conduct proper and meaningful negotiations rather than pursuing a path of deliberate confrontation. But unions should also demonstrate they intend to exhaust every option of reaching a settlement."

Coalition Braced For Boundaries Revolt

MPs may mutiny over changes to constituencies.










George Osborne's Tatton seat is among those that could disappear in the boundary change.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg are braced for a collapse in coalition discipline when dozens of MPs learn this week that their constituencies are to be axed.

The redrawing of parliamentary boundaries, which will cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600, will ignite a political storm tomorrow, with government whips fearing that the prospect of being kicked out of the Commons could lead some MPs into rebellion for the next three years.

"Trying to control Lib Dems is like herding cats at the best of times," said one party source. "If a dozen are de-mob happy, counting down till polling day when they know they'll be out on their ear, it will be a nightmare."

Senior ministers including George Osborne, the Chancellor, Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, are among those whose seats are under threat.

It raises the prospect of more junior MPs being shunted out of safe seats to make way for key government figures. "It will be every man and woman for themselves," a Tory backbencher said. "It will be piranha pool-time," said another. There is even speculation that some disgruntled MPs could quit within weeks, sparking a wave of by-elections.

MPs will be briefed on the plans tomorrow, before they are published officially by the Boundary Commission on Tuesday. They will only cover England, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following later this year. In England there will be 502 new seats. Two will be on the Isle of Wight, but the remaining 500 will have to have between 80,473 and 72,810 voters. There have already been rows about planned constituencies spanning county borders, with Devon and Cornwall MPs refusing to countenance the idea of straddling the Tamar.

In Leeds a tussle is being predicted between Ed Balls, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, and Hilary Benn, the Shadow Leader of the House, while in north-west Scotland, Mr Alexander could be pitched against former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy for a berth.

Analysis by Rob Haywood, a former Tory MP, suggests that Labour stands to lose 25 seats, the Tories 15 and Lib Dems 10, while Lewis Baston, a senior research fellow at the University of Liverpool, predicted that Labour would lose 18 seats, the Tories 15 and Lib Dems 14, with other parties losing three.

Labour has accused the coalition of gerrymandering, while No 10 insists the high number of seats with relatively small electorates favours the Labour Party. At the last election, the average Labour seat had an electorate of 68,487 compared to 72,418 in Tory-won constituencies and 69,440 for Lib Dems. Downing Street argues the policy will save £12m a year.

"By making constituencies more equal in size, the value of people's votes will no longer depend on where you live, and with fewer MPs the cost of politics will be cut," a source said.

A 12-week consultation will be followed by a second phase allowing parties to respond to each other's complaints.

Ministers 'Could Get Powers To Overrule European Court Of Human Rights'

A commission set up by the government to examine ECHR reforms has floated the idea of allowing ministers to strike out court rulings.












Judges of the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 hearing a case relating to the Russian oil firm Yukos.

The European Court of Human Rights could have its powers downgraded by handing ministers across the continent the right to strike down rulings under plans being examined by the British government.

A commission set up by the government to examine reforms to the Strasbourg-based ECHR has floated the idea of handing ministers and parliamentarians on the Council of Europe the right to override rulings of the court.

The suggestion by the commission on a Bill of Rights, in a letter to Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke, was published as ministers made clear that the court needed to undergo wide-ranging reforms. Clarke, who is the most pro-European Tory member of the cabinet, told MPs on Wednesday there were "important decisions" to be made about the workings of the court.

Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, showed the depth of thinking about the future of the court when he said that the 2010 Interlaken Declaration on the future of the ECHR raised the possibility that other institutions of the Council of Europe could qualify the European Convention on Human Rights. The 47-strong Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU, is the continent's human rights watchdog. Its European Court of Human Rights enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.

In his letter, Lewis wrote of the proposed change: "This could allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the parliamentary assembly or committee of ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the committee of ministers to determine that a court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the court to take a collective expression of opinion into account."

But Lewis, who said that one member of his commission had insisted that a proposal on guaranteeing the democratic legitimacy of the court must be included in the interim advice to ministers, warned that his proposal had not been yet fully considered. He also said there were critics.

"Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law inherent in the convention system and with the concept of the convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it.

"They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities."

Hague Unveils Foreign Office 'Renaissance'

The UK is bringing ambassadors out of retirement and improving training as part of a drive to bring about a "renaissance" at the Foreign Office.









William Hague claims his department declined in status under the previous government.

More staff are also being sent to emerging powers like China and India.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the FCO's status had declined under the previous Labour government.

But former foreign secretary Jack Straw said Labour had increased spending on the FCO and accused Mr Hague of setting out "a parody" of the department.

Speaking at the FCO's Whitehall headquarters, in central London, Mr Hague said: "I formed the firm view in opposition that the Foreign Office had been devalued and sidelined in British government, too often ignored by prime ministers and weakened as an institution.

"After years in which the level of ambition of ministers has been that government departments are simply fit for purpose, in the Foreign Office we have set ourselves the goal of excellence in every crucial area of our work."

Staff turnover

When he arrived at the Foreign Office, Mr Hague said he "found evidence that dysfunction and rivalry" in the relationship between ministers had "corroded ties between the FCO and its closest partners" in government.

"In my first weeks in office I received advice warning me about a planned overseas visit by another secretary of state, assuming that I would want to stop that visit going ahead and advising me how to do this.

"It spoke volumes about the relationship between some ministers under the last government that officials believed this would be what I wanted.

"It may also reflect the astonishing turnover in junior ministers in the Foreign Office in recent years."

"Spending on the Foreign Office rose under Labour and is being cut under Hague"
Jack Straw Former Labour foreign secretary

In May, the foreign secretary announced plans for five new embassies: in El Salvador, Kyrgyzstan and South Sudan, and in Madagascar and Somalia when local circumstances permit.

Extra offices are set to open in the world's fastest growing economies including Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia.

Mr Hague also told MPs there would be 50 extra British staff in China and 30 more in India.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall said the plans were "a tall order" at a time of swingeing Whitehall cuts, but they reflected a general shift in focus away from seeing the world solely as a globalised network towards the old-fashioned business of diplomacy between nation states.

Mr Hague told the BBC his plans were achievable despite a 10% budget cut, and insisted it would be "a false economy" to reduce Britain's overseas presence when there were "more and more centres of decision-making in the world".

'Strong on rhetoric'

"We have to be under their skin, we have to really know them, their languages, just going to international meetings in not sufficient," he said.

"We've got to have the strong, deep bilateral relationships as well and I think that point was missed by the previous government."

But Mr Straw, who was Labour foreign secretary between 2001 and 2006, rejected Mr Hague's allegations, calling his speech "strong on rhetoric and very short on facts".

"Spending on the Foreign Office rose under Labour and is being cut under Hague," he told the BBC.

"His description of the Foreign Office when I was there is not one I recognise. What he sets out is a parody."

Mr Hague said his department was spending £1m more a year on language teaching and diplomats were being equipped with "sharper economic skills" through beefed-up training.

He also pledged greater emphasis on "cultivating and retaining knowledge throughout the institution" by ensuring the expertise of senior diplomats was not lost after they retired aged 60.

To do this, an advisory group of former ambassadors and other diplomats will be set up to offer advise to ministers on policy.

Nadine Dorries' Abortion Proposals Heavily Defeated In Commons

Abortion amendment that bids to strip termination providers of their counselling role loses by 250 votes with supporters divided












Nadine Dorries debates plans to bar abortion providers from giving advice to pregnant women.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary.

Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal.

Milton told MPs: "The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve."

Dorries hailed Milton's undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC's Norman Smith: "We lost the battle but we have won the war."

Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent.

Dorries said: "I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister's insistence that I inserted the word 'independent'. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality."

The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: "That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn't need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment."

The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries' amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy."

Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. "I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists," she said. "I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay."

The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. "It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?"

Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: "This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question."

Public Reject Dorries' Abortion Proposal

Tomorrow, MPs will debate whether to prevent abortion providers from counselling women seeking an abortion. The motion – put forward by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries as an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill – is being opposed by the government, and pro-choice groups are backing a rival amendment, which reinforces the status quo. The amendement's author, Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert says:










"The present system which allows women access to evidence-based guidance works, therefore I cannot see why we need to change it. I do not want to see us opening the door to anti choice organisations which could prevent women making their own decision on such a momentus issue."

And a YouGov poll released today shows that, were the public to be voting instead of MPs, they would be much more likely to back Huppert's amendment than Dorries'.














Fewer than one-in-four people support changing the law to prevent charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling, while 40 per cent oppose it. And, strikingly, Conservative voters are no more likely to support Dorries' motion than the public as a whole. In addition, a majority dismiss the notion that "it is too easy for women to obtain abortions in Britain":














These results are hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly pro-choice, as shown by a poll yesterday showing more than three-to-one support for the claim that "if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should not have to continue her pregnancy".

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.



















Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

















Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.












Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way - but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.


















Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Green Groups Urge Planning Reform Rethink

Conservationists and green campaigners urged ministers today to rethink planning reforms which they warned would see "damaging, free-for-all" developments spread.


















The call came as Planning Minister Greg Clark said that he was willing to meet the National Trust and others over fears of a "development free-for-all" under the new National Planning Policy framework.

Chief among the minister's controversial shake-ups is a "presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system.

"Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development and approve all individual proposals wherever possible," it said.

But environmental and heritage groups have criticised the proposals, saying the presumption would undermine the government's own creed of "localism" and make major projects - such as incinerators and factory farms - all but impossible to refuse.

Mr Clark said today he was happy to discuss the "wording" of the policy, but ruled out any U-turn. His critics had "the wrong end of the stick" - sustainability meant the developers had taken into account their effect on the community and environment, he said.

"The consequences would be to continue the position we are in where we are not building enough homes for the people needing them for the first time. We are contributing to homelessness, to overcrowding, to poverty."

But Friends of the Earth campaigns director Craig Bennett was unmoved. The proposals still threatened the countryside while doing little to curb climate change or carbon emissions, he said.

"It's essential that we develop the UK's huge green energy potential and build more fuel efficient and affordable homes.

"Ministers must think again or risk having another fiasco like the outcry over forests on their hands," he said.

Health Ministers Vow A United Front Against Plans To Tighten Up Abortion Laws

Health ministers promised yesterday to vote en masse against Commons moves to tighten up Britain’s abortion laws.

Backbenchers are seeking an amendment that would change the law to stop charities carrying out abortions, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering advice to women considering a termination.

In a letter to Tory MPs last night, public health minister Anne Milton said she and ministerial colleagues would not support the change.




















David Cameron said that the was sympathetic to the proposals on abortion made by Nadine Dorries and other MPs, but he would not in favour of them.

She said she had no evidence that organisations such as the BPAS were causing ‘any harm to women’, despite claims from pro-life groups that the charities are biased because they earn money from terminations.

And she said she did not want to create an extra ‘hurdle’ for women seeking an abortion.

Mrs Milton reiterated that the Government would put forward proposals this year to ensure women had access to independent counselling.

The Health Bill amendment, to be tabled by Tory Nadine Dorries and supported by Labour’s Frank Field, aroused fears that faith groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds would start to offer counselling.












Offering advice: Charity Marie Stopes, based in central London, is against the backbench proposals.

David Cameron has already signalled that he will vote against it.

Mrs Milton said in her letter: ‘We are very sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that all women requesting abortion are offered impartial, informative counselling.

‘However, on the issue of preventing abortion services from offering counselling, we disagree with the amendment.

‘What matters is the quality and independence of view of the advice given. Counsellors should stick to the facts, not promote a particular view, and most importantly help to support women to make their own decision.

‘It is important to be clear that the Government’s position neither represents a criticism of existing counselling services, nor hopes to create an extra hurdle for women to pass before successfully requesting an abortion.

‘We have no evidence that existing abortion counselling services are causing any harm to women.

‘If pressed to a vote, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and I will vote against the amendments. This is because the amendments exclude existing abortion services from offering counselling.’

Tory backbencher Louise Mensch has said she will also put down an amendment, saying women should be offered counselling by independent organisations that are neither abortion providers nor faith groups.

A source at the Department of Health said that although ministers had not yet seen the text of this amendment, they were likely to vote against it because they did not see the need for legislation defining independent counselling.

Ministers 'Must Not Undermine' GCSE Results

Labour shadow minister Andy Burnham has warned the government off "undermining" the achievements of young people receiving GCSE results by focusing only on the English Baccalaureate.












The English Baccalaureate has not been universally welcomed by schools.

Whilst the shadow education secretary said that today's GCSE results "reflect well" on young people, teachers and schools, he also warned that the government risks "restricting" students with the EBac.

The EBac system places emphasis on traditional core subjects such as maths, English, science, a modern language and either history or geography by measuring how many students receive A-C grades in these topics.

Mr Burnham said: "These results show young people are making sensible choices to prepare them for the modern world, with big increases in the sciences, religious studies and economics.

"Ministers should listen to the education select committee and introduce more flexibility and choice into the English Baccalaureate.

"Otherwise, they risk restricting student choice and penalising young people whose strengths and interest lies in the arts, music, ICT, engineering, business and economics."

Trends for subjects selected at GCSE level were released today and showed a slight decline in modern foreign languages, history and geography, despite the fact that these are all specified EBac subjects.

Nick Gibb, schools minister, said: "While it is encouraging to see the rising uptake in maths and single sciences, it is worrying that once again there are falling numbers studying languages.

"Through the English Baccalaureate, we want to make sure all pupils have the chance to study the core academic subjects which universities and employers demand."

Today's results also showed a growing disparity between the results of boys and girls.

The number of boys achieving top grades was 19.8%, compared to 26.5% of girls. Last year the gap was six per cent, but this year it is up to 6.7%.

Jim Sinclair, director of the Joint Council for Qualifications, said that the growing divide in the performances of girls and boys was a "worrying trend".

In an improvement on last year though 69.8% of all GCSE entries were awarded at least a C, which is the 23rd straight increase on the total.

Almost one in four GCSE papers gained an A or A* grade, which is also an increase on last year.

Despite this Chris Keates, general secretary of NASUWT teaching union, criticised the "betrayal" of young people by the government.

She said: "In just over 12 months, this government has stripped away many of the opportunities available.

"Apprenticeships have been slashed, financial support axed through the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, youth unemployment has soared and university places cut.

"The coalition has ripped up the social contract between the state and young people."