United Kingdom - UK News

Rising public resentment blamed on government focus on alleged 'scrounger' fraud and inflammatory media coverage

The government's focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country's biggest disability groups have warned.

Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes.

While the charities speaking out – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded.

At the same time, they say, the focus on "fairness for taxpayers" has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who don't contribute.

Scope's regular polling of people with disabilities shows that in September two-thirds said they had experienced recent hostility or taunts, up from 41% four months before. In the last poll almost half said attitudes towards them had deteriorated in the past year.

Tom Madders, head of campaigns at the National Autistic Society, said: "The Department for Work and Pensions is certainly guilty of helping to drive this media narrative around benefits, portraying those who receive benefits as workshy scroungers or abusing a system that's really easy to cheat."

He added that ministers such as the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, were being "deeply irresponsible" in conflating Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which helps disabled people hold down jobs, and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), a payment for those unable to work. This "scrounger rhetoric" was already having an impact on people's lives, Madders said, citing a woman who rang the charity to say a neighbour who formerly gave lifts to her autistic child had stopped doing so following press articles about disabled people receiving free cars under a government scheme.

Some disabled people say the climate is so hostile they avoid going out, or avoid using facilities such as designated parking bays if they "don't look disabled".

The government has committed to making significant cuts to disability benefits, including a 20% reduction in the DLA bill by 2015/16. Much of its public focus has been on alleged fraudulent claims or cutting benefits to those whose conditions have improved.

Charities point to a series of ministerial statements arguing that the "vast majority" of new ESA claimants are able to work, while the disabilities minister, Maria Miller, said last month that £600m of DLA was overpaid each year, not mentioning that a greater sum is saved by others not receiving what they are due.

This is "playing directly into a media narrative about the need to weed out scroungers," said Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope. "Our polling shows that this narrative has coincided with attitudes towards disabled people getting worse.

"Disabled people tell us that increasingly people don't believe that they are disabled and suddenly feel empowered to question their entitlement to support."

David Congdon, head of policy at Mencap, said the charity feared where this could lead. "We are concerned that this narrative of benefit scroungers or fakers connected to the welfare reform bill does risk stigmatising all people with a disability," he said. "The worry would be that this could lead to an increase in resentment against disabled people, and even an increase in hate crimes."

There was "an incredibly strong focus on benefit fraud within the DWP", said Guy Parckar, policy manager for Leonard Cheshire. "It is mentioned at all possible opportunities. Of course, whenever there is fraud you want that to be tackled, but there should be some serious thought given to the long-term impact that this has. There is the impact of potential hate crime, and issues around that."

Neil Coyle, head of policy for Disability Alliance, said his organisation was being told of increasing levels of verbal abuse, and worried this could lead to attacks.

"There's a lot of concern that the level of abuse and harassment goes unrecorded because it's seen almost as a norm. It seems to be growing as a result of a mis-perception of much more widespread abuse of benefits than actually exists. That's being fed by the DWP in their attempts to justify massive reductions in welfare expenditure."

A DWP spokeswoman said the department was committed to supporting disabled people but needed to "do more to change negative attitudes", and had begun a cross-government consultation on tackling discrimination.

She said: "Our welfare reforms are designed to restore integrity into the benefits system and to ensure that everyone who needs help and support receives it."

David Gillon from Chatham in Kent, said: "I think we've lost all the progress we made in the last 30 years in terms of acceptance." Gillon, whose chronic back condition forced him to give up a job with British Aerospace, recounts walking on crutches past a pub in the middle of the day and receiving shouts of: "We're going to report you to the DWP." He said: "When there's a bad article in the press, the next day you think, 'Do I really need to go out of the house?' We're being forced back into the attic, locked away from society."

Fazilet Hadi, head of inclusion for the RNIB, said she also felt the tone was set by ministers: "I think they should be more careful. At the moment it feels like the government is not on the side of disabled people. Most people don't have that much exposure to disabled people. They don't see us in the lifestyle pages, they don't see us in the fashion pages. The only reference they see is in these stories. And that's why the language is so important."

• This article was amended on 6 February 2012. The original referred to the Royal National Institute for the Blind. The name has been corrected.

Heavy snowfall causes transport chaos with trains delayed, cars abandoned and flights cancelled across Britain

• Have you taken any great snaps of snow or travel chaos? Send them to us at pictures@guardian.co.uk and we'll feature the best
• Add your snow creations to our UK Snow Flickr group here

Heathrow airport cancelled half of its flights as the snow and cold weather continued to cause problems across the UK, stranding motorists and leaving roads icy and treacherous.

The travel chaos ensuedon Sunday as the worst of the wintry showers came to an end across the country and forecasters predicted dry conditions and a partial thaw.

Although the snow flurries are now expected to move eastwards, swaths of the UK were on "amber alert" on Sunday, the Met Office's second highest severe weather warning, with icy conditions across much of England, Scotland and Wales.

Church Fenton in North Yorkshire and Wattisham in Suffolk recorded 16cm of snow, while up to 15cm was forecast for parts of Cumbria, Lincolnshire, East Anglia, North Yorkshire, the Peak District and the Midlands.

The icy spell has seen daytime temperatures plummet four or five degrees lower than average for February, traditionally the coldest month of the year.

Heathrow, which had initially cut only 30% of its flights, said the decision was intended to minimise disruption and was made in anticipation of freezing fog.

Although the runways, taxiways and stands had been cleared of snow, only half of the 1,300 scheduled flights went ahead. The London airport, however, said its snow plan had worked "far better" than in previous years, adding that it would operate a normal flight schedule on Monday.

A spokesman said Heathrow, which operates at 99.2% capacity, was "getting back to normal" as it worked to clear the backlog of flights. "We took the decision with airlines and air traffic control yesterday to reduce the flight schedule in advance," he said.

"By cancelling flights in advance airlines have been able to rebook some people on to flights that are departing, and passengers have had better quality information about whether they can fly or not."

Extra staff were being drafted into terminals to help passengers rebook flights, he added.Inbound flights to the airport were also affected, with six transatlantic flights from the US redirected to Shannon airport in Ireland because of the cold snap disruption.

Some were in UK airspace or on approach to London when they were ordered back over to Ireland.

Shannon Airport Authority confirmed arrangements were being made for 400 stranded passengers to stay overnight. The affected routes included Heathrow-bound services from Dallas, Miami, Houston, Washington, Denver and Atlanta.

The transport secretary, Justine Greening, said the authorities at Heathrow were taking the right approach to the problems created by the weather.

"Actually cancelling flights in advance so passengers don't get to the airport and then find their flight being cancelled was one of the main recommendations of the inquiry that Heathrow held into the debacle last year when we saw huge disruption," she told the BBC Sunday Politics programme.

"They are clearly trying to manage the airport and I think the most important thing is making sure that we put safety first. We've got to get planes up into the air and down on to the ground safely.

"That does take a little bit more time to make sure wings are de-iced and that the runways are clear, but over all they're trying to do their best."

The airport came in for heavy criticism following severe weather in December 2010 when Heathrow almost ground to a halt and thousands of passengers were forced to camp overnight in terminals. At the height of the chaos on 19 December, it was able to handle only around 20 flights.

A BAA-commissioned report later concluded the operator's response to the pre-Christmas snow was "initially ineffective" and that the potential impact of the weather had not been fully anticipated in the days before the worst of the snow.

A spokesman for Gatwick said the airport was not experiencing "any major delays" on Sunday and had had to cancel only nine flights. "We're taking a business as usual approach," he added.

Stansted, Birmingham, Luton and Manchester airports were forced to suspend operations for a period on Saturday night as snow piled up on the runways, but normal service was expected to resume on Sunday.

A total of sSix flights were cancelled yesterday in Birmingham, where some passengers were forced to spend the night in thea terminal. But aA spokesman said the airport would catch up todayon Sunday, providing temperatures did not drop too much furtherlower.

In Luton, flights were "fully operational" with some delays due to snow clearing.

A couple of departures were cancelled at Stansted, but a spokesman for the airport said there was "movement" on and off the runway, adding: "Flights are subject to delays of up to about one hour". Although the worst of the snowflurries will move eastwards, swathesswaths of the UK have been placed on amber alert, with the On the roads, motorists faced what the RAC described as a "dangerous cocktail of driving conditions" and were urged to stay at home. Some minor routes were closed altogether. Drivers on sections of the M25 in Hertfordshire were trapped in gridlock throughout the night.

One motorist, Tom Jones, was stranded in his car for more than seven hours. He told the BBC: "We joined the back of a tailback, never realising we would be spending the night on the motorway."

He added that the Highways Agency had to deal with much bad driving, and that he had seen several cars stuck in ditches and many blocking the hard shoulder.

Thames Valley police said the snow had caused a tailback between junctions nine and four southbound on the M40 from about 9pm until the early hours of Sunday.

Police in Kent warned people not to travel unless absolutely essential, and urged people not to cause an obstruction if forced to abandon their vehicles.

The Highways Agency has issued an amber alert, advising people to take extra care while travelling because of "the increased risk of adverse driving conditions".

The AA said it dealt with about 1,500 callouts an hour on Saturday.Rail services have also been affected, with disruption set to continue throughout Sunday.

Southern Railway said trains were subject to delay and cancellation, with journey times extended by up to 30 minutes.

In London, all bus routes were operating on Sunday morning after a few "curtailments" to night bus services, Transport for London said.

Tube services were said to have started well but delays and suspensions soon set in on most lines.

A Met Office yellow alert, which warns people to be aware, was in place for the Highlands and Northern Ireland.

The Department for Transport has said it was better prepared than ever for severe weather. Salt stocks across Britain stand at more than 2.4m tonnes, a million more than last year.

Citizens inquiry reports that London borough suffers from lack of employment and 'low self-esteem' after interviewing 700 locals

A "citizens inquiry" into the riots in Tottenham will conclude they were partly caused by high youth unemployment and toxic relations with local police, arguing the disorder reveals the need for a major regeneration project in the area.

The north London borough was the first place to suffer riots last summer, when a protest about the police shooting of local man Mark Duggan turned violent. The trouble which started in Tottenham exactly six months ago quickly spread across London and to other English cities.

The report produced by the Citizens Inquiry into the Tottenham Riots, a grassroots coalition of locals, reveals that many in the community believe their area was "left to burn".

The study, which involved interviews with 700 people, will be launched on Tuesday at an event hosted by Reading the Riots, the Guardian and London School of Economics study into the August disturbances.

More than 270 rioters were interviewed in the Reading the Riots study, which found the government had mistaken the role of gangs and social media in the riots. It also found that hostility toward police, particularly over the use of stop and search, was a big factor.

The home secretary, Theresa May, later announced a police review of the use of stop and search and the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, indicated the tactic is to be reformed in the capital.

The Tottenham report was written by a panel of nine commissioners, including four members of the clergy and a headteacher. It paints a picture of a community suffering from a poor reputation and low self-esteem.

It identified poor relations with police and a lack of jobs in the area as important "causes" of the riots. Criminal "opportunism" was also considered significant.

"From the stories we heard, there has been a long-term deterioration of the relationship between people in our community and the police, in particular young people from ethnic minorities," it will say. "Stop and search was frequently described as being excessive and disrespectful."

It adds: "A concerted effort is needed by all parties to rebuild a more positive relationship between community in Tottenham and the police" and says large numbers "feel Tottenham was left to burn".

The report proposes involving the community in the training of new police recruits in the Haringey borough and calls on the Met to "increase diversity" among its officers.

The Tottenham inquiry is one of scores of small-scale research inquiries taking place across England, as communities affected by the riots examine the violence and looting that blighted parts of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

In Southwark, research by Harriet Harman MP found provision of youth services was crucial for preventing a return of the riots. Her inquiry called for more jobs and apprenticeships, sufficient police numbers and a new drive to improve relations with police.

A Hackney council-sponsored inquiry involving a poll of 2,000 residents unearthed complaints of a growing divide between rich and poor in the borough, concern over affordable housing and – as elsewhere – found desire for improved relations with police. Other post-riot initiatives are still underway in Ealing, Enfield, Croydon and Birmingham.

The independent communities and victims panel, which was set up by the three main political parties and has also taken evidence from riot-affected areas, will report back in March.

In Tottenham, much of the physical damage done by the fires is in the process of repair. A post office and job centre have been relocated, while moves are afoot to rebuild fire-hit Aldi and Carpetright stores. Haringey council has given £1.5m in grants and support to local businesses and is promising to invest £41m in a regeneration plan.

The Tottenham commissioners plan to call for money to be targeted at the creation of 1,000 new jobs for those aged 16-24 before 2014. "When we listened to young people who chose not to riot, their most important reason was that they had a stake in the community: family and community ties, education and job opportunities," the report states.

At the time of the riots there were 10,000 unemployed in the borough but just 367 job vacancies.

The commission also wants money to train 100 local "leaders" to oversee a transformation of the area.

The proposals are supported by Tottenham's MP, David Lammy. He said unemployment had risen in the area since August – one ward that suffered rioting now has the highest unemployment rate in the capital.

"We need a passport office or a students loan company here in Tottenham – a major public sector employer that will do something about the acutely worrying levels of unemployment," he said. Lammy also said he believed that there had been an increase since the riots in the police's use of the Section 60 power to stop and search.

Additional research by Yemisi Adegoke

Reading the riots – community conversations

Tottenham Tuesday 7 February. In partnership with North London Citizens. Bruce Grove Youth Centre, 10am-11.30am

Peckham Tuesday 21 February. In partnership with the Damilola Taylor Trust. Damilola Taylor Centre, 6pm-8pm

Croydon Thursday 23 February. In partnership with Croydon Voluntary Action. CVA Resource Centre, 6pm-8pm

Birmingham Tuesday 28 February. In partnership with the Haven Community Project. The Drum, 6pm-8pm

Liverpool Thursday 1 March. In partnership with the Unity Community Project. The Unity, Toxteth, 6pm-8pm

Manchester Tuesday 6 March. In partnership with Manchester's Social Action and Research Foundation. Friends Meeting House, 6pm-8pm

Salford Thursday 8 March. In partnership with the Social Action and Research Foundation. 2 Pendleton Gateway, 6pm-8pm

For information contact symeon.brown.casual@guardian.co.uk Sponsored by the Open Society Foundations

• Met team probing police bribery expanded after Sun arrests
• "Relatively senior" NoW staff arrested by Operation Elveden
• NoW showbiz ed: subjects not pre-notified to protect exclusives
• S Mirror writer 'didn't tell film-maker to obtain medical records'
• IPCC: no evidence that police disclosed Milly Dowler's number

4.25pm: Jay asks Dacre about the Daily Mail's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Dacre is asked if the Daily Mail refused to publish an apology because supportive articles outnumbered the harmful ones. Dacre says he does not know.

Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Associated Newspapers, intervenes to say that the legal settlement was agreed between the McCanns and the publisher.

4.22pm: Dacre is asked about the Daily Mail's coverage of the arrest of Joanne Yeates's landlord Christopher Jefferies.

The attorney general has been "less and less clear" over the years on what constitutes contempt of court, says Dacre. He adds: "Standards did slip in this area, we accept that."

"I apologise to Mr Jefferies," he says, claiming that the Daily Mail was one of the least worst offenders. "We have learned from the experience," he adds.

He welcomes firm guidance from Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, on the matter.

The offending headline was cleared by lawyers, Dacre says. "The backbench rewrote the headline after I left but I stand by it – I'm the editor."

4.16pm: Jay reads out a passage from the article:

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.

Dacre responds: "I've already said I think the piece could have benefited from a little judicious subbing."

He adds that usually he leaves the office at 10pm, but on that night he was at the opera with his wife.

4.14pm: Dacre says perhaps the timing of the piece was "regrettable" and it could have "benefited from a little judicious subediting". He adds that he would "die in a ditch" defending a columnists' right to expression. "There isn't a homophobic bone in Jan Moir's body," he says.

Dacre compares the Jan Moir article on page 37 of the Daily Mail to coverage in other newspapers, holding up front pages of the Sun and other titles.

He notes that most of the 22,000 complaints to the PCC about the column were the result of "tweetering" from a famous celebrity (Stephen Fry). "Most of those people conceded they hadn't read the piece," he adds.

4.10pm: Dacre is asked about Jan Moir's column in the Daily Mail about the death of singer Stephen Gately, which was titled "A strange, lonely and troubling death" in print. Online, it was originally headed "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death", which was later amended to the print edition headline.

Moir was accused of homophobia over the piece and there were 22,000 complaints to the PCC.

4.08pm: Leveson points out the "difference in view" between Baroness Hollins's complaints and the Mail editor's belief that the articles were in the public view.

If the feature distressed Hollins "then I hear that," Dacre says.

"I can't see how it could have been more sensitively handled," he adds.

4.04pm: Dacre is asked about the evidence by Baroness Hollins on a 2005 Daily Mail article that linked an attack on her son to an entirely separate attack on her daughter. It was titled "Abigail, the brother who dotes on her and the riddle of another random, brutal attack".

"This shows why I don't believe the inquiry understands how popular newspapers work," Dacre says, adding that the feature was handled with "massive sensitivity".

Dacre says it was in the public interest to link the two attacks because both attackers were allegedly on drugs. He says in any case Hollins's son was named in open court.

"Most members of the British public would think it an extraordinary coincidence [that both siblings were attacked]," he adds.

4.03pm:
Dacre says editors might have "dropped their guard" on the What Price Privacy Now? report because almost all national newspapers were potentially implicated.

He adds: "I moved decisively and ruthlessly to stamp it out. Other newspapers didn't, and we did."

4.00pm: Jay says it could be the case that illegally-obtained information is still in Associated Newspapers' offices.

Dacre says that the information would likely only be in reporters' notebooks and not on the publisher's computer systems.

3.54pm: Dacre resumes his evidence and reasserts that the What Price Privacy Now? report examined detailed events that happened 10 years ago.

"I would accept there is a prima facie case that Whittamore could have been acting illegally," he says, adding that he does not believe Daily Mail journalists acted wrongly.

3.50pm: Caplan told the inquiry in November that private investigator Steve Whittamore was used to help speed up journalistic investigations and to help verify the accuracy of stories pre-publication, not to break the law. He said:

His assistance was required as far as Associated journalists were concerned to help trace people quickly, usually to verify facts or to comment on stories that were written or in progress prior to publication.

It should also be stressed that Mr Whittamore did not work simply for newspapers, he was hired by organisations such as banks, local authorities and firms of solicitors who were similarly seeking to locate people.

While Mr Whittamore was prosecuted no journalist has ever been charged because there simply is no evidence they ever asked Mr Whittamore to do anything illegal, or they knew he was, or might, be illegally accessing databases.

Another key difference between phone hacking and the data provision provided by Mr Whittamore was that journalists using him were not engaged in fishing expeditions.

3.38pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break while Dacre has a discussion with Jonathan Caplan, counsel for Associated Newspapers.

3.37pm: Dacre says that private investigators were used because it was quicker than journalists conducting the checks themselves.

"Time is everything in journalism," says Dacre.

Jay suggests that suspicions should have been aroused by the expense of Whittamore's undertakings and how quickly they were completed.

"Some of these [Whittamore] inquiries could not be justified by the type of explanation you have given," says Lord Justice Leveson.

He says he is not attempting to label the Daily Mail, but simply to get the overall picture and "move on from what is a long time ago".

3.36pm: Dacre says that his journalists believed they were acting within the law, using Whittamore to obtain telephone numbers and addresses to check news stories.

Jay asks how Dacre knows this. "From my managing editors," says the editor replies.

3.33pm: Operation Motorman "barely registered on the consciousness," Dacre says.

"All newspapers were still using this agency … I'm not sure an investigation at that stage was warranted," he adds, when asked by Jay why Associated Newspapers did not conduct an internal investigation into whether its use of inquiry agents was legal.

Dacre says the Mail wrote to Whittamore's inquiry agency, which gave the paper assurances about his methods.

3.31pm: From 2005, the Daily Mail sent a series of emails and letters to staff warning them about restrictions under the Data Protection Act, Dacre tells the inquiry.

Dacre says he does not know exactly when the Daily Mail stopped using Whittamore.

"In 2007 we brought the shutters down and banned – banned – the use of inquiry agents," he says.

Dacre claims that the BBC spent a similar amount on search agents as the Daily Mail.

3.28pm: Dacre confirms he was aware that the Daily Mail was using search agents before 2006 but not to the extent as revealed by What Price Privacy Now?. "Not the numbers," he says.

He says he was aware that the paper used private investigator Steve Whittamore "sometime about 2004, 2005-ish".

3.26pm: Dacre is asked about Operation Motorman.

This was the information commissioner's 2003 investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office into allegations of offences under the Data Protection Act by newspapers employing private investigators.

What Price Privacy Now? was the key ICO report into the unlawful trading of confidential information published in 2006.

The Daily Mail was identified as the paper with the the most transactions followed by the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror and the News of the World.

The nature of the transactions was not identified in this report and could have included general research and legal searches such as electoral roll checks or searches of births, deaths and marriages records.

3.21pm: Chris Bryant MP has just tweeted:

Dacre's idea of withdrawing press card for gross malfeasance is identical to @IvanLewis_MP plan, which the Daily Mail savagely attacked

3.19pm: Dacre says he is "utterly unaware" of any policy to "bury" complaints on Mail Online, when asked by Jay.

"The beauty of the Mail Online is that it doesn't have to carry many corrections, because things are quickly corrected or removed," says Dacre.

Dacre stresses that apologies relating to stories in the print edition are run in the paper.

He expresses displeasure at Jay's suggestion that apologies for print stories are run online. "Anybody can make such as accusation and smear a paper", he adds.

3.18pm: Dacre warns against the new regulator having the power to insist on where newspapers print apologies or corrections.

He says that this would undermine the editor and would be more easily accommodated by quality newspapers than tabloid titles because they have more stories on the front page.

3.15pm: Dacre is asked about newspaper corrections.

The Daily Mail introduced a page 2 corrections column to coincide with the introduction of the Leveson inquiry.

He says the idea of a consistent place to print corrections "has virtue".

3.14pm: Dacre says that it would be beneficial if the press could move to a "transitional arrangement" sooner rather than later.

Jay: "Or to avoid the sword of Damocles?"

Dacre: "I wouldn't say that, Mr Jay."

3.12pm: Dacre suggests that a new committee should be set up to define the meaning of the public interest. Privacy is impossible to define, but the public interest is more difficult, he adds. He says the definition in the current PCC code is "too loose".

Senior appointments to the new regulator should be made by an independent panel including lay members, he says.

3.11pm: Dacre is asked about paparazzi photographers.

He says he has been "distressed" like others at evidence given to the inquiry on harassment by paparazzi photographers.

There is a "vast vast market" for paparazzi pictures abroad, he says, adding that this is compounded by "everyone becoming a citizen photographer".

He adds that the PCC editors' code of practice could deal with freelance photographers. Picture agencies should sign up to the new regulator and those who do not should not be used by newspapers or other publications, Dacre says. He adds that better use should be made of harassment law.

3.08pm: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has just tweeted:

Dacre proposes new press card system for j'sts working for accredited print orgs.Hasn't thought thru digital j'ism #Leveson

3.06pm: Dacre says this is different from the state licensing journalists "because it's the industry doing it".

It would come into effect in government press briefings and other events in public office.

"It is in the interests of both sides, news providers and news obtainers, why should they not have the right to believe they are dealing with accredited journalists?" he says.

Non-accredited journalists could be deprived access from the press facilities at sporting events and other conferences, Dacre says.

3.04pm: Guardian head of media and technology Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

Breaking: Paul Dacre proposes a licensing system for journalists in effect - blows the debate wide open.

3.03pm: Dacre suggests a new press card system for signed-up members of the new regulator.

He recommends that press events only be open to those with this new card.

"It is my considered view that no publication could survive if its reporters were banned" from such events. The "beauty" of this system is that it would be the newspaper industry policing journalists, not the state.

"I'm suggesting it should come under one umbrella, whether it's the standards arm of the new regulator, whether it's the Newspaper Society."

He adds: "I'm being very honest – the existing press cards don't mean much".

3.01pm: Dacre says that Lord Hunt's idea for contracts to lock newspapers into the new regulatory body is "attractive".

He welcomes the arbitration arm but has concerns about its financial cost.

He adds that he is worried about how the new body could "lock in the Desmonds".

"By and large Mr Desmond does not produce the kind of journalism – mostly celebrity bland journalism – that would end up in this court or arbitration model," he says.

He describes Richard Desmond's titles, naming OK! magazine, as producing "very bland, slightly sycophantic" journalism.

2.59pm: The Financial Times media correspondent, Ben Fenton, has just tweeted:

Jay:What are you prepared to sign up to? D: I don't understand the drift of this conversation.[Paraphrase:It was my idea, of course I agree]

2.55pm: Dacre is asked about proposals for a new PCC.

Jay asks if he is fully signed up to Lord Hunt's proposals, heard last week. "Of course," says Dacre.

He says he didn't suggest the contractual aspect of Hunt's plan, but that it "sounds very interesting".

"I may be missing something but I don't understand where this conversation is running," he says, when asked whether he would sign up to the ideas in principle or in reality.

Dacre points out that he has already put forward his proposals – at a Leveson inquiry seminar session last year.

"I don't want to be immodest … but it was me that set a lot of these hares running," he says.

2.53pm: Dacre accepts that the PCC "couldn't deal with press standards".

He says it would be a good idea to set up a new body alongside the PCC to deal with standards and impose sanctions, run by an ombudsman.

He adds that the PCC should be allowed to continue its complaints-handling role.

"I think a new system can improve things," Dacre says, when asked to answer yes or no whether the state of the PCC is such that it needs a new regulatory system.

2.51pm: Dacre says that Sunday newspapers have lost a "latitude" to investigate and break "sensational" stories.

"I wouldn't have the News of the World in my house, but it did break great stories ... and had a lot of serious political coverage," he says, adding that it's a "pity" it is gone.

2.49pm: Dacre is asked about the makeup of the PCC.

He says that critics of self-regulation "promote" the view that the PCC is not independent, adding that this is disproved because of the majority of lay members on the committee.

The newspaper industry needs to think whether the PCC should be able to impose sanctions in "exceptional areas of malfeasance".

He suggests that tougher sanctions would be imposed for payments to public officials and phone hacking.

2.43pm: Dacre says that press behaviour is "much improved", but that there are still areas of improvement.

2.41pm: Dacre reads a quotes from Mr Justice Tugendhat and professor Tim Luckhurst on privacy and freedom of expression. Luckhurst wrote:

The notion that moral failures such as adultery are entirely private and do not matter to the wider world is an affront to the very idea of community.

A taste for titillation must explain some people's interest in Ryan Giggs's alleged extramarital activities. But for many others, cheap thrills were the last thing on their mind when they rebelled against privacy injunctions and remote, arrogant judges.

This admirable majority resent public figures who think they can turn publicity on and off like a tap.

We reserve the right to scrutinise and censure the conduct of people who have grown rich on our wages or claim authority over our lives. And, in asserting democratic accountability, we are proclaiming our loyalty to a virtuous principle.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, British philosophers developed a concept called the 'sanction of public opinion'.

They concluded that popular morality should not ban infidelity or imprison men for betraying their wives, but it could create an incentive to behave responsibly. People tempted to stray might be persuaded to think again by the certainty that their friends and neighbours would think less of them.

2.40pm: Asked about privacy, Dacre says that some celebrities "intrude into their own lives" by selling details about their private life.

He complains that Jay's questions are too broad and asks him to focus on specifics.

Dacre is asked about his recent Society of Editors speech. "I was clearly trying to express a growing concern … that certain areas of jurisprudence were going in an anti-newspaper, anti-democratic direction," he says.

In the speech, Dacre attacked Mr Justice Eady's judgments in several cases as "amoral and arrogant". He clarifies that he was attacking the judgments, "not the man".

2.37pm: Dacre says "commercial success follows" if editors are left to edit their newspapers.

2.35pm: Dacre says it a "canard" that he imposes his personal will on the Daily Mail.

He says he does not impose a "world view" on the newspaper and its standpoint is "vigorously debated" by the paper's top writers.

Dacre says its top writers would leave if he attempted to tell them what to write.

"Do you think I tell Max Hastings, Janet Street Porter, Craig Brown and others what to write?" he adds,

Dacre says some of the views expressed on the paper's Irish edition "make my hair go white" but he does not attempt to interfere.

He adds that the paper aims to reflect readers' "anxieties" rather than their prejudices.

2.32pm: Dacre is asked what he meant by saying that the inquiry's assessors did not understand how mass-market newspapers operated.

He says the assessors seem to come from a "narrow" background, with little experience of mainstream newspapers.

2.30pm: Dacre is the longest-serving editor on Fleet Street and chairman of the PCC editors' code of conduct committee. He has been editor of the Daily Mail since 1992 and editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers since 1998.

2.27pm: Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, has taken the stand.

2.22pm: The inquiry has now resumed.

Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant have submitted supplementary witness statements were submitted late on Friday and Saturday. Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, says it is "disappointing" that the evidence was submitted so late.

Lord Justice Leveson says he does not want the inquiry diverted into a dispute between witnesses and core participants.

2.20pm: Our colleague Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted that the video link is down and the inquiry can't proceed without it.

2.18pm: Ben Fenton, the FT's media correspondent, wins the 'boom boom' moment of today's inquiry. He has just tweeted:

[This could be Calcutta Cup tactics -Scotland kept England waiting on Saturday night. Of course, this is more Calcutt Cup tactics. #leveson]

— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) February 6, 2012

2.03pm: Our colleague David Leigh's story on the IPCC investigation into News of the World payments in the Milly Dowler case is now live. He writes:

Two suspicious payments by News of the World journalists during the Milly Dowler case are under police investigation, the police anti-corruption watchdog has revealed.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC] said they were supervising the ongoing investigation, which resulted from paperwork handed over by the newspaper, but no evidence had surfaced so far to link the payments to corrupt officers.

The IPCC disclosure came in the course of a report published on Monday, which dismissed claims that a detective constable from Surrey police had sold information to journalists in 2002, including the missing teenager's mobile phone number. The report said the information, which came from a former Surrey police officer calling himself "Andy" , was unsubstantiated "supposition and rumour".

But the report added: "Officers from Operation Elveden, the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into allegations of corrupt payments by journalists to police officers, informed Surrey police they had documentation from the News of the World indicating that two payments had been made by journalists in 2002 in connection with Milly Dowler."

You can read the full story here.

1.54pm: Our correspondent at the Royal Courts of Justice, Lisa O'Carroll, has just tweeted that Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has not yet arrived before his turn in the stand.

#leveson Paul dacre has not yet arrived but air of anticipation in court 73

— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) February 6, 2012

1.51pm: The investigative journalist, Tom Bower, has been on Sky News ahead of Paul Dacre's evidence to the Leveson inquiry.

Bower described Dacre as "one of the great" newspaper editors and "the last hope to save this ridiculous inquiry from going off into the wilderness".

He is no fan of Lord Justice Leveson. "I think Leveson has failed as an operation to find out what has gone on," Bower said. "Leveson personally doesn't understand the press. I don't think a judge is the right person [to conduct this inquiry] in the first place."

He added: "The problems are minor. There was one terrible error but not worthwhile of this massive apparatus. The News of the World went off in a particular way – that is regrettable – but they had a different way of operating to the Daily Mail."

1.07pm: Here is Sue Akers's witness statment:

12.58pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of today's evidence so far:

• The Scotland Yard team investigating payment to police by journalists has been expanded following arrests at the Sun.

• News of the World journalists arrested under Operation Elveden were "relatively senior", DAC Sue Akers told the inquiry.

• The Former News of the World showbiz editor, Dan Wootton, said "need to protect exclusives" was justification for not pre-notifying subject of stories in some instances.

• A Sunday Mirror journalist, Nick Owens, denied he encouraged undercover film-maker Chris Atkins to disclose celebrities' confidential medical records.

• The Independent Police Complaints Commission has found no evidence to suggest that a Surrey police officer disclosed Milly Dowler's phone number to the News of the World.

12.52pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch. It will resume at 2pm for evidence from Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.

12.51pm: Owens has completed his evidence.

12.50pm: Owens is asked about the reaction of the Sunday Mirror editor, Tina Weaver, when told about the conversation.

Weaver thought Owens had acted unwisely and made "some clumsy comments", he says.

12.45pm: Here is Chris Atkins's record of his converation with Owens, as it appears in his witness statement:

I then gave him several fabricated operations of real celebrities:

CA: Well - one of Girls Aloud

NO: One of?

CA: One of - boobjob, consultation

NO: Oh really - OK - that's good

CA: Mr Hugh Grant - had a bit of a face tuck - that's happened a while ago

NO: Face tuck?

CA: Yeah

NO: That's OK

CA: Rhys Ifans - tummy

NO: Oh really - Rhys? Tummy tuck

CA: Yeah, again don't know how long that was

NO: He's not going back for more?

CA: I don't know - I don't know

NO: OK

CA: I don 't even know what this is - but Guy Ritchie apparently - chemical peel

CA: This is the one which is literally quite recent is Gemma Arterton... a gastric

NO: That's surprising isn't it?

NO: Girls Aloud is potential... very very good story. Depends who it is. If it's Cheryl then it is massive - with Cheryl you can expect a big pay, that makes it less dodgy for your source. It's almost worth the wait, till she had it done... Have they had it done or it is just a consultation?

CA: No - consultation.

NO: Are we talking about Cheryl

CA: No

NO: Not a problem -

CA: Nicola

NO: Nicola - that is still a good story. That is the best one ... And Gemma - the other three are like maybes.

NO: I think Rhys is funny - cos, you know Rhys Ifans wanting a tummy tuck is a very funny story - but then again - is it justified in the public interest? That's the problem. We could get away with Gemma - that's massive, good story that ... because as you see she does not need one. You have got to ask yourself why? Why is she bothering? That age as well. So that's all great.

CA: What sort of figure, this would never be ... but so I've got a ball park -

NO: Think you are looking to get over three grand minimum - that is a start. How it works is right, page lead in the paper is a grand - but the further it gets to the front of the paper - the more it is. Get a spread - well you won't get a spread out of this as it's one fact. That is the problem - unless you get some kind of... Fern made a spread cos of the issues surrounding her. This one is "Nicola's got a boob job" it is a one fact story ... there's no getting around it ... As a journalist you write that story up, there's almost a point where you put a full stop and you've finished the story. Then you have to write round it.

CA: Just rehash old stuff?

NO: Yeah you have to.

NO: [About Rhys Ifans] having a tummy tuck to get rid of his beer belly isn't it? It's a fucking good story that - but out of all of them you could do Rhys - if you wanted to do one you could probably do Rhys Sunday.

NO: If it's a boob job then that goes without saying - if you say to me that she [Nicola] has had a boob job in May - and we know about it and then we put pictures on her very early on - and we would be the first paper to fucking run that story - do the before and after pictures. Because what you do with boob job stories is "has she or hasn't she had a boob job?" And we know she has, which means I can write it quite strong. With Gemma Arterton it is slightly more tricky cos it's a consultation for a gastric band and obviously it goes without saying you can't see it. Cos then we do have to go to her - with her we might need some documents, we need to know when it happened.

NO: [about Rhys Ifans] Having a tummy tuck to get rid of his beer belly isn't it? It's a fucking good story that - but out of all of them you could do Rhys - if you wanted to do one you could probably do Rhys Sunday, but we're not gonna do that. But looking at it, Rhys you could probably get away with because it's so funny. The other two you have got to wait - Gemma and Nicola you have got to wait -

CA: Yes but which ones would she need to

NO: I don't think we would need anything more on Nicola because it would be there - in plain view for all to see

CA: But what if ... we don't want to be in a situation where they deny it- and they come back to us and say I need something tomorrow, or it's dead, do you know what I mean?

NO: Yes the thing is - with that she'll need - in my opinion is that with an operation like that - it is quite a big operation - they will normally need a couple of weeks off - so it will come when there's a gap in their thing - we'll be able to work it out- no one has seen them for a few weeks - where has she been? I think we will be fine on that - I mean I think we will be all right - and obviously fit looks like she has got bigger tits we can easily say she has had a boob job and we will be all right. Gemma Arterton we'll need if possible some documentation. The thing to say to your friend is "what can you get?" Because the more the better really. If she can't get anything then fine.

CA: She is an administrative nurse, that's the thing, so she probably can

NO: If she can, yeah get a document on everything.

12.44pm: Owens says that by the end of his conversation he had come to the view that he would not act on the information.

The meeting was not mentioned afterwards to the news desk, he says.

12.43pm: The witness statement of Sue Akers has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website.

12.42pm: Owens says that newspapers do often investigate claims and that was his aim in meeting Atkins.

He suggests that he kept open the possibility of exposing Atkins after the undercover film-maker claimed to be able to get his friend drunk to obtain information about celebrities.

"I went away thinking that there was potential to expose what he was doing," he tells the inquiry.

Barr suggests that Owens was "positively encouraging" Atkins to get his friend drunk.

Owens denies he was doing this and "alarm bells began to ring" that Atkins himself may be worth investigating.

12.33pm: Barr claims that Owens told Atkins that he was "keen to keep talking" about potential stories involving celebrities and cosmetic surgery.

Owens says: "I didn't believe it was dynamite information. I was there to find out what the information was."

12.24pm: Barr continues to press Owens on what he meant by certain exchanges in the transcript of the recording. He asks about Atkins's suggestions that he could obtain information about a member of Girls Aloud, Hugh Grant, Rhys Ifans and Guy Ritchie

Barr suggests that Owens had come to conclusions about the value of certain stories to be obtained from Atkins.

Owens denies he had reached final conclusions and says he was going along with Atkins just to "keep his interest".

12.20pm: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said there is no evidence that a Surrey police officer gave Milly Dowler's telephone number to the News of the World.

In a statement, the IPCC said:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has concluded that there is no evidence to support allegations that a Surrey police officer subject to an IPCC investigation, gave information to journalists during Operation Ruby, the investigation into the disappearance of Amanda (Milly) Dowler in 2002.

The matter was referred to the IPCC by Surrey police in August 2011 after they received information from three newspaper journalists that they were going to publish the allegations.

IPCC commissioner Mike Franklin said:

"The allegations that a Surrey police officer provided information to journalists during Operation Ruby, and may have been paid for doing so, can only have added to the terrible loss endured by Milly Dowler's family. Surrey police, quite rightly, came under a great deal of scrutiny over this issue - the allegations are serious and required independent examination.

"I hope our finding that there was no substantive or factual evidence to support the allegations will provide some reassurance to the Dowler family on this issue at least.

"It appears from this investigation that unsubstantiated information, perhaps not surprisingly, quickly gained currency in a climate where the relationships between the police and the media are under intense public scrutiny.

"A police officer was criminally interviewed and remained under suspicion for some months, as our investigators sought to establish the facts,. We have provided Surrey police with our report and indicated we see no need for further action.

"The terms of this investigation were specific to these allegations and this officer."

The Dowler family has seen the IPCC report into the specific officer. They are conscious of the fact that other investigations not involving the IPCC are ongoing and have no further comment to make.

12.19pm: Owens denies he was coordinating a strategy to publish stories based on the claimed medical records.

He says that "nothing happened" after the meeting, proving that there was no "strategy".

12.16pm: Barr suggests that the transcript suggests Owens had a "wish list" of what cosmetic surgery pocedures he wanted information on, and that gastric bands were the best story.

Owens denies this.

12.13pm: Barr says it is "self-evident" that Owens told Atkins that the Sunday Mirror would be interested in the stories even if it could not obtain confidential medical records to back up the claims.

Owens again contests this, saying he wanted to establish what hard evidence might be available if asked by his newsdesk.

Barr suggests that the phrase in the transcript "just ask her what she can get hold of" were active encouragement to obtain documents from a source.

Owens denies this.

12.06pm: Owens says that the conversation is "not reflective" of the Sunday Mirror because he was having an informal one-to-one conversation.

Pressed on the exchanges about Fern Britton, Owens tells the inquiry he is being candid and was simply attempting to establish what information Atkins was claiming to be able to obtain.

This would have helped Owens explain to his news desk what evidence might be available, he says.

12.03pm: For Chris Atkins's version of events, you can read his witness statement on the Leveson inquiry website.

11.59am: Owens is asked whether it was "ethically appropriate" to meet Atkins in this context.

Owens says it was because he was just listening what Atkins had to say. "The key is what you do," he adds, pointing out again that no story was published by the Sunday Mirror based on this information.

11.56am: Owens says he made it clear to Atkins that there need to be a strong public interest justification if it was to run a story about Fern Britton having a gastric band operation.

He points out that this was "an informal" meeting and the information discussed "did not lead to any information being published".

11.52am: Owens felt that Atkins had some information that would be interesting to hear, and cannot remember what was going through his mind at the time of the 2009 conversation.

According to the transcript as read by Barr, Owens said "great" when Atkins said that he knew someone who could get private information on celebrities.

"I certainly wasn't delighted to hear that," he says. "I couldn't tell you why I said that word three years ago."

11.48am: Owens is asked about Chris Atkins's Starsuckers film.

Barr reads aloud parts of the transcript of the undercover recording. Owens says that he made clear early in the conversation that they were discussing a "very sensitive" issue, namely medical records of celebrities.

Owens says that as a journalist "we have a duty to engage with people and hear them out" and that is what he was doing.

11.43am: Owens says that the Sunday Mirror has a lawyer in the office at all times, unlike at the Lancashire Evening Post.

Lord Justice Leveson asks about his undercover report into a Bernard Matthews turkey factory.

Owens says the newspaper found it justified to go undercover as an employee to investigate the factory.

11.40am: Leveson asks Owens what "protective measures" are taken before any undercover investigation by Owens.

He says news editors would be involved at all stages. Owens talks about an undercover report into traffic wardens while he was at the Lancashire Evening Post.

Readers of the paper had expressed concerns about wardens and so "probably the only way" to investigate the potential story.

He says that being "economical with the truth" was justified because of the level of concern expressed from readers.

11.37am: Owens says that he deals with stories on a case-by-case basis.

Asked about Chris Atkins, the filmmaker behind the Starsuckers undercover sting, Owens confirms he only told his newsdesk he was going to meet someone – not who he was meeting.

11.32am: Owens says that in March 2009 he was very familiar with the PCC code.

This is the time when Owens was filmed apparently suggesting the Sunday Mirror would pay for celebrities' medical information.

11.31am: David Barr, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning of Owens.

Owens joined the Sunday Mirror in 2006 from the Lancashire Evening Post.

11.29am: The inquiry has resumed and Sunday Mirror reporter Nick Owens has taken the stand.

Owens was covertly filmed for the Starsuckers film suggesting he would pay for private information about celebrities. Owens later apologised for his remarks.

The Sunday Mirror editor, Tina Weaver, defended Owens when she gave evidence to the inquiry last month.

"He realised it wasn't in the public interest at some stage and didn't even report his meeting to the news desk," she said. "I would like to say that this story would never have been published ... Apart from this incident, he's a very good and honest reporter."

11.20am: Wootton has completed his evidence and the inquiry is taking a short break.

11.19am: Lord Justice Leveson asks Wootton about newspapers in his native New Zealand.

Wootton says that there is a self-regulatory body that is not made up of serving editors. Newspapers in New Zealand are compelled to publish findings of the regulator in full if they are found against, he says.

11.15am: Wootton is now working for the Daily Mail, a magazine and a TV programme.

He is asked about Hugh Grant and stories last year about the birth of his daughter.

"I was very concerned and disappointed when I heard one aspect of Hugh Grant's evidence," he says.

He suggests that Grant's publicists in the US have a policy of not speaking to British tabloids and describes this as "frustrating" when a journalist is attempting to give right of reply. "I definitely think there needs to be a two-way street."

11.11am: Wootton says he would not write about Hugh Grant, for example, because "he didn't seem to enjoy being a celebrity".

He says it is "naive" to say you can be a Hollywood celebrity and bemoan the press attention that comes with the role.

"All celebrities have a right to privacy," Wootton says, adding that in particular areas – sexuality, health issues, children – this is sacrosanct.

11.08am: Wootton is asked about the public interest.

He gives the example of one celebrity who was employed by a supermarket brand and had spoken publicly about her family life amid allegations of drug abuse. He suggests this was in the public interest because it showed hypocrisy.

He contrasts this with another celebrity who had not spoken about their private life so the NoW could not mount a public interest defence on grounds of hypocrisy.

"It could go both ways," he tells the inquiry.

11.02am: There were no complaints made to the PCC about Wootton's stories in the final three years of his time at the News of the World, he says.

Wootton was named showbiz reporter of the year at the British Press Awards in 2010. One of the pieces that won him the prize was on the death of Boyzone member, Stephen Gately.

11.00am: Wootton says that he was once bylined on a story that he had not worked on at all.

He points out that his showbiz column, headed with his name, ran 52 weeks a year – and he did not work all year.

"There are certain accepted tabloid conventions," he says.

10.58am: Wootton says that he would sometimes inquire about the source of information from freelance contributors.

He believes he would sometimes take a more cautious approach than other journalists at the NoW.

10.56am: Wootton tells the inquiry that "there is a need to protect exclusives" and on a small number of occasions there would be a "commercial decision" not to pre-notify on a showbiz story because of a fear of leaks.

He says that right of reply would only not be given if the editor was 100% confident of the facts of the article; it was more likely to happen on positive stories.

It was Wootton's policy to give right of reply on 99% of his stories, he says.

10.52am: Wootton says there was "probably" times when his opinion was overruled as to whether the NoW would run a story.

He recalls one occasion when a senior executive at the paper had been told that a celebrity was going to take a certain job.

Wootton says his gut feeling was that the story should be checked, but the executive did not and requested that Wootton also did not check the story.

10.50am: Wootton says the job of showbiz editor is "definitely walking a tightrope" by being fair to celebrities and not becoming a stooge.

"Because the News of the World was coming from a position of weakness, it was felt that that was particularly important," he says.

10.47am: Jay asks whether Wootton felt he was "colluding" with celebrities to put stories with a certain angle out.

Wootton denies this. "I was always conscious not to become a stooge to celebrities," he says. His stories were built on trust that the celebrities would be treated fairly.

"One of my jobs was to make sure celebrities felt confident to give interviews and stories to the News of the World," he says, adding that the paper had to work on rebuilding trust in 2007, following the convictions of Goodman and Mulcaire.

10.45am: Wootton says that there was a fear that "secret squirrel" stories could be leaked. He says these were one-fact stories, such as celebrity A had split from celebrity B. They were kept within a small group of about five people.

"The News of the World was particularly conscious that stories could be leaked, because they had in the past," he says.

Wootton says that none of his stories were obtained by subterfuge and about half came from celebrities themselves.

10.45am: Wootton denies there was a bullying culture at the News of the World.

He adds that individual desks in the newsroom "very much ran as separate entities".

Wootton operated on the features desk and would have "very very minimal" contact with the news desk, he says.

Wootton spoke to the head of news about twice in his four years at the paper, he says.

10.44am: Wootton says that he joined on a day when the News of the World was holding its first regular PCC seminar. He was given a pocket-sized PCC guidebook which he carried "at all times".

He says that every story – including "the most trivial" – would be read by at least four people in the newsroom before publication.

Wootton says he felt the News of the World was in competition with its sister title, the Sun.

10.40am: Wootton says that he was assured following the conviction of News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman in early 2007 that that was an "individual incident".

"When I started it was made absolutely clear that that behaviour would not be tolerated in any way by [then editor] Colin Myler," he tells the inquiry.

10.37am: Wootton joined the News of the World in 2007 and was at the paper until its closure in July last year.

There is an interview with Wootton shortly after the paper's closure on the BBC website.

10.34am: Dan Wootton, the former News of the World showbiz editor, has taken the stand.

10.33am: Akers has completed her evidence.

10.33am: Akers is asked about Operation Kalmyk. It is a scoping exercise that arose from Operation Tuleta evidence of at least one person being involved in illegally accessing computers for financial gain.

Operation Kalmyk was the subject of a recent BBC Panorama programme, Akers confirms.

One person has been arrested under Operation Kalmyk and are on bail until March.

Leveson says "my train isn't stopping" in terms of pushing ahead with his inquiry.

10.31am: Akers says that the Met is examining 4 terabytes – a vast amount – of information under Operation Tuleta.

She describes it as a "huge amount, vast" when asked what it would look like if printed out.

10.29am: Jay asks about Operation Tuleta.

Akers says that about 20 police officers are looking into 57 claims of "data intrusion" on behalf of journalists.

Most of these claims relate to computer hacking, medical records and phone hacking.

Some of these claims go back to as long ago as the late 1980s, Akers says. "Some of these are connected to very historic investigations that the Met has undertaken," she adds.

10.27am: Akers is asked about timing of Operation Elveden.

She says she is "less confident in saying we're nearer the end than the beginning" with Elveden, unlike Operation Weeting.

Akers says because News International is giving "voluntary disclosure" to police, the Met is not obtaining evidence via a production order. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the police are not entitled to seek a warrant where there is co-operation.

10.25am: Akers says that information from News Corp's MSC led to the arrest of a journalist at the Sun in November last year.

The further arrests at the Sun last month came from disclosures from the MSC "as well as our own analysis" of material handed over, Akers confirms.

The police want to question one further journalist who is abroad, she adds.

10.23am: Akers says that the Met police has a "co-operative working relationship" with News Corp's internal investigation unit, the management and standards committee (MSC).

Akers says that "reasonably senior" News of the World journalists have been arrested under Operation Elveden between June and December.

No police officers have been identified as suspects in relation to the News of the World, Akers confirms. The material has come from the newspapers and so the sources are not identified.

10.19am: Akers is asked about Operation Elveden, the investigation into payments to police officers by journalists.

Akers says there is a "very legitimate public interest" in investigating this.

She adds that 40 police officers and staff are currently working on Elveden, but that team will be expanded to 61 officers in light of the investigation into the Sun.

Fourteen people have been arrested so far under Elveden.

10.18am: Jay asks if Akers "is nearer the finishing line than the starting gun". She agrees.

Akers adds that a total of 90 police officers are working on Operation Weeting, including 35 who are "dedicated to the victims, which has been quite time consuming".

10.17am: Akers says that "a number of key witnesses" have come forward but the police want to see more. "That process is ongoing. It will take a few more months," Akers tells the inquiry.

Jay says that 300m emails have been retrieved from News International, including material that the police thought had been lost.

Akers says the search of that material is in a relatively advanced stage. The Met police has found hard archives of some material.

10.15am: The police have contacted 581 of those 829 likely phone hacking victims, Akers says. A further 231 are uncontactable, but are identified in Mulcaire's notes. Seventeen people have not been contacted for "operational reasons".

Two of the 17 people arrested under Operation Weeting have had no further action taken against them and 15 are on bail.

10.13am: The number of people contacted by police or writing in to police asking if they were hacked is 2,900, Akers confirms. Of those, 1,578 actually appeared in Mulcaire's notes.

Akers says there are 829 "likely" victims – those who have detail around their names that make it likely they were hacked or had potential to be hacked.

10.08am: Jay confirms that there are 6,349 potential victims – identifiable names of people in information held under Operation Weeting – of phone hacking. There are 11,000 pages in the seized notes of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. The number of names with phone numbers alongside is 4,375.

10.05am: Akers is the police chief in charge of the Operation Weeting investigation into phone hacking; the Operation Tuleta investigation into computer hacking to procure information on behalf of newspapers; and Operating Elveden, the police investigation into inappropriate payments to police officers by journalists.

10.02am: Sue Akers, the detective assistant commissioner of the Met police, has taken the stand.

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.

9.59am: Our correspondent at the Royal Courts of Justice, Lisa O'Carroll, has just tweeted that Sue Akers, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Met police, will be the first witness of the day. Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is expected to appear this afternoon.

#leveson order for today Akers, Owens, wooton, then dacre in the afternoon

— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) February 6, 2012

9.41am: Former News of the World showbiz correspondent Dan Wootton has revealed his pre-Leveson preparation: an uplifting dose of the Canadian singer Alanis Morissette.

Big morning ahead so I'm listening to Alanis. Obv.

— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) February 6, 2012

9.40am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.

Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, and Sue Akers, the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner in charge of three major investigations into alleged press illegality, will give evidence to the inquiry today.

Fleet Street's longest-serving newspaper editor is likely to be asked about the Daily Mail's use of the private investigator Steve Whittamore, as uncovered in the information commissioner's report What Price Privacy Now? in 2006. Dacre is also expected to be asked about Associated Newspapers' accusation of "mendacious smears" against Hugh Grant after the actor gave evidence to the inquiry last year.

Akers will become the first serving police officer to be quizzed by the Leveson inquiry.

Two journalists, the Sunday Mirror reporter Nick Owens and the former News of the World showbiz correspondent Dan Wootton, will also appear.

Follow the inquiry live from 10am.

Poll: The chief executive and five directors of Network Rail have refused bonuses – is this a sign huge payouts have become unacceptable?

The government plans to give divorced and separated fathers stronger rights to see their children despite David Norgrove's recommendations that a legal right would lead to confusion. Do you think the current access rights are sufficient?

Justice secretary says overhaul of family justice system will put emphasis on children's need for relationship with both parents

Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, has published proposals to give divorced and separated fathers stronger rights to see their children, as part of an overhaul of the family justice system.

Grandparents are also expected to get greater influence, amid plans to look into how "parenting agreements" could emphasise the need for parents to consider children's continuing relationship with other close family members.

Other reforms include a six-month time limit for care and adoption cases in the courts, although Clarke insisted that flexibility would remain to ensure a time extension for complex cases where this was in the children's interest.

The key change in the process is the introduction of rules making clearer that it is vital youngsters enjoy "an ongoing relationship with both parents". Ministers have signalled that they will not offer the guarantee of equal access demanded by some fathers' rights groups but want to ensure no loving parent is "pushed out".

In an attempt to prevent custody cases reaching the courts in the first place, the government will promise an extra £10m for mediation services.

Where parents do end up resorting to the law, it will examine ways to amend legislation to ensure no parents are excluded unless they pose a safety or welfare risk.

Clarke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We want to put back confidence that the courts will have proper regard to the position of fathers and the right of the child to have contact with the father, but of course in the end the interests of the child must be uppermost and it isn't always possible."

The change forms part of the government's response to a review led by the former Whitehall mandarin David Norgrove, but is directly at odds with one of his main findings.

Norgrove voiced his "regret" last week that a legal right would be included despite his report warning it could cause "confusion, misinterpretation and false expectations". Similar changes in Australia led to delays in resolving custody disputes, he cautioned.

Clarke said Norgrove had initially recommended the move in his interim report but withdrew it following a visit to Australia. The justice secretary said the working group would have the "difficult task" of drafting a statement in the law of the "undoubted joint responsibilities of children, and the joint entitlements of children, without getting into the Australian problem, which was a disaster, because it led to a great increase in litigation with everybody arguing about shared time, and they didn't draft it very well. We have to draft it with care."

Clarke said: "We are stating what I think is the view of most people, that both parents have responsibilities and rights towards their children and the children are entitled to try to maintain contact with both parents if it's at all possible. But what we are doing is going to state that principle in the law, because there are far too many people who still think it's not being applied – though I do think the courts do apply it and try to apply it in most cases. But we are also going to have to draft what we do to avoid all the undoubted dangers in Australia which caused David Norgrove and his colleagues to be hesitant."

Clarke said one thing that needed to be addressed was what could be done where one parent, usually the mother, refused to comply with the order of the court allowing the father contact.

Asked whether, in the case of a non-complying parent, he would rather the child were removed so that the father had more rights, Clarke said such cases represented a small minority. "The hardcore ones require the judge to exercise the judgment of Solomon. What we are suggesting is that at an early stage the judge makes it clear he or she does have powers to transfer custody."

He added: "Of course it's right that the interests of the child will finally determine it, but I think at an earlier stage in the case it should be made perfectly clear that the court like any other court will expect to enforce its judgments. These are all very difficult areas. They are not capable of simple solutions."

Clarke denied there was an inconsistency between plans to increase the rights of parents in private law while, where care proceedings were concerned, the government was taking less account of parents' rights by imposing a six-month limit on care proceedings that could mean a child being taken into care sooner.

Clarke cited the "intolerable" delays in care proceedings that can lead to a child being taken into care and eventually sometimes to adoption. He said the six-month limit was recommended by Norgrove and was designed to speed up the process, but he said there would be cases where the judge would be under a duty to explain why it would have to take longer.

"If they can't sort it out within six months then the judge has to give reasons for the delay and the continued delay has to be tackled. Of course there will be some cases where it can't be done but at the moment there is far too much delay in the court … in the interest of the child you cannot leave the child either exposed to risk or in an uncertain situation, delay adoption as much as we do."

Ministers will also signal a desire to address complaints from grandparents' groups that their needs are often ignored when children's futures are being discussed.

Guidance will make clear that they should be formally considered when voluntary parenting agreements are being negotiated in an effort to avoid court action.

A working group involving five ministers will review the 1989 Children's Act. They are the education ministers Tim Loughton and Sarah Teather, the justice minister Jonathan Djanogly, the equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, and Maria Miller, the work and pensions minister.

Catherine McKinnell, Labour's shadow children's minister, welcomed measures to ensure a child has an "ongoing and meaningful" relationship with both parents after separation or divorce, such as mediation and parenting agreements and mediation. But she warned that legislating for the right of both parents to an ongoing relationship "may carry significant risks".

She said: "Despite a very long and thorough review, and against a background of confusing reports in the media, it's not clear at all how the government intends to do this.

"I urge the government to consider very carefully how such legislation would be framed to avoid protracted arguments in the courts over interpretation which will inevitably lead to delays, and harm to the child involved. The Children's Act 1989 firmly places the child's welfare paramount, allowing judges to examine what's best for the child in each individual case – which in the majority of cases will be for them to have an ongoing relationship with both parents. Nonetheless, we must guard against anything that would take the focus away from the child, a concern that has also been voiced by many children's charities."

Chief executive Sir David Higgins says six senior managers will forgo payouts this year and money will be used to improve safety

The head of Network Rail has become the latest taxpayer-funded executive to be forced to waive a bonus after his company announced that he and five fellow senior managers would not be seeking a payout this year.

Sir David Higgins, the chief executive of the state-backed company, was one of six Network Rail bosses who were due to discuss a possible "incentive scheme" at an annual general meeting on Friday. Higgins was expected to collect a £340,000 bonus in addition to his £560,000 basic salary.

The announcement on Monday follows immense pressure from Labour and ministers for executives in publicly-owned companies to waive bonuses, following a public backlash over large payments made at a time of stringent government cuts.

Justine Greening, the transport secretary, had taken the unprecedented step of saying she would attend the meeting to oppose the plans. She also planned to tackle the company's "corporate governance" by appointing a special director from the department. Labour had accused Greening of failing to use her powers to halt the bonuses altogether.

In a statement released by Network Rail, Higgins said the decision to waive this year's bonuses was made last week and that the meeting had been suspended. Instead, future bonus schemes will be discussed at a meeting yet to be scheduled.

The company could not say, however, if Higgins and fellow executives will continue to share in a long-term bonus scheme that could be worth up to £15.6m over the next three years for the rail group's six executive directors. The six will also earn £2.3m a year in salaries plus a maximum of £4.2m in bonuses.

This year's money will instead be diverted to a safety improvement fund for level crossings, Higgins said.

"I and my directors decided last week that we would forgo any entitlement and instead allocate the money to the safety improvement fund for level crossings. I can confirm that remains our intention," he said.

The statement said that the board of Network Rail had decided to recommend to its members that Friday's meeting be adjourned. "The board will take the opportunity to reflect further on how to incentivise performance in the company against the backdrop of the current context. It will continue to consult the Secretary of State on wider issues of governance in advance of the government's command paper," it reads.

Network Rail's chairman, Rick Haythornthwaite, said in the statement that Friday's meeting was not to approve a specific annual bonus payment for executive directors, but was supposed to amend a previously approved long-term incentive scheme to ensure additional external scrutiny of performance.

"The issue of annual performance payments would only arise if Network Rail surpassed stretching performance thresholds and would only be decided in May after the end of the financial year."

The development comes a week after Stephen Hester, the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 83% state-owned, waived a bonus package of almost £1m after a public backlash.

The shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle MP said the government should now sit down with Network Rail to agree whether a bonus scheme of this scale was appropriate in a company funded by the taxpayer.

"At a time when so many families and rail commuters are being squeezed financially, when fares are rising by up to 13% and the rail network is performing inadequately, it was completely wrong for bonuses of this scale to have been even considered, let alone agreed," she said.

She added that the government has been out of touch with the public's desire to see greater fairness in executive pay and an end to the automatic bonus culture.

"It took Labour's intervention to force ministers to take this issue seriously. Justine Greening was still refusing to stand up for the British public and veto this proposed bonus plan when Network Rail managers took the decision for her," she said.

More than 20 MPs have signed a Commons motion saying Network Rail had been "found by the Office of Rail Regulation to be in breach of its licence" and had been responsible for "major asset failures, congested routes and poor management of track condition".

Last week, the company admitted health and safety breaches over the deaths of two teenagers killed at a level crossing in Essex in 2005.

Downing Street said ministers were not permitted to interfere in the "day-to-day running" of the firm, which receives £4bn of taxpayer funding a year and is guaranteed by the government.

But it said it would be looking at its corporate governance in light of "problems" that had arisen.

Industry sources have accused politicians of using the issue of bonuses as a political football. "It is ridiculous. We are at risk of losing some our best brains because of a political witchhunt," the source said.

Now that anyone can be a publisher, the attorney general has a duty to educate the public about contempt - before an ill-informed tweeter goes to jail

If Joey Barton is not prosecuted for contempt of court over his tweets about John Terry's trial, it will be more by luck than by design.

Barton, never at a loss for words, made his views on the Terry case very plain in a series of robust tweets on Friday evening. It was clear he thought Terry's would be a jury trial. The fact that it will be held at a magistrates court, whose justices and district judges are regarded as harder to sway than a jury, might save Barton an appearance in the dock himself. Whether he is prosecuted would appear to hang on whether the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, takes the view that his tweets may have caused a serious impediment to John Terry's case by influencing a witness.

This latest example of the use of social media leading to potential contempt of court should sound alarm bells at the Ministry of Justice, because the attorney general faces a potentially serious challenge to the ability of the courts to give people a fair trial. It is only a matter of time before someone with as many followers as Barton - almost 1.2m, at the last count - and as loose a grasp of the law causes the collapse of a crown court trial.

The law on contempt, as enacted in 1981, places the burden on the publisher not to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings – 'active' being as soon as someone is arrested, or a warrant is issued for their arrest. Back then publishers were invariably established media – newspapers and broadcasters. They know how to avoid contempt, and they pay the often very heavy price when they stray across the line. The Sun, Mirror, and Daily Mail have all faced actions over the past year after having published prejudicial material, in print or online. But as Barton's tweets (now deleted) showed, he had no knowledge of contempt law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the fact contempt is a strict liability offence also removes Barton's intent from the equation in any potential prosecution too.

Being pragmatic, though, does Dominic Grieve really want to allow a situation to continue where the tweets of a celebrity or sports star with a million-plus followers bring a high-profile trial to a halt, at great cost to the taxpayer? Prejudicial conversations about ongoing trials which were once confined to the dinner table, pub or dressing room are now conducted with an online audience of millions.

In portraying himself as a martyr for free speech, Barton unfortunately fails to recognise the competing right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence that is central to that right. The Law Commission is looking at how to deal with contempt by publication on the internet, but work does not start on that until 2014, with a report due in winter 2016. By that time Twitter may be dead and buried and new forms of social media throwing down newer challenges to the judicial system.

What is needed now is a more proactive approach than simply bringing prosecutions, as Grieve has shown himself willing to do. That concentrates the minds of newspaper editors, but it will not prevent the sort of contempt that Barton flirted with on Friday evening. The Ministry of Justice cannot police Twitter and other social media, but what it can do is make the public more aware of the right to a fair trial and how that can be put in jeopardy. A campaign of public information, waged on the very social media that can prejudice a trial, might go some way to preventing public figures with large followings damaging a defendant's right to a fair trial.

A 41-gun royal salute in London's Hyde Park and a 62-gun salute at the Tower of London mark the 60th anniversary of the Queen's ascension to the throne

Kiran Creevy and Steven Parker fell from tower block after she told police they did not want neighbours to find their bodies

A couple who fell to their deaths from a 16-storey block of flats rang police to say they planned to take their lives together, an inquest has heard.

Kiran Creevy, 20, and her partner, Steven Parker, 23, were on two window ledges of their flat in Leeds when officers arrived and tried to persuade them back inside.

Creevy, known to her friends as Kizzy, fell to the ground almost immediately, after telling the two constables to keep away. Parker then said: "What is the point if she is dead?" and jumped after her.

Leeds coroner's court was told that Creevy made a 999 call in the early hours of 30 August last year, telling police about their intentions so that their bodies would be removed and neighbours would not be upset.

A response team was at the tower block, Clyde Court in New Wortley, within 11 minutes but the couple, who had written a note, ignored the officers' pleas.

The court heard that Parker had started a relationship with another woman as he struggled to deal with mounting personal problems. As well as alcoholism, he suffered from depression and anxiety. On the night he died hehad taken enough tablets to cause death, and was nearly two-and-a-half times over the drink-driving limit.

The coroner, David Hinchcliff, recorded a verdict of suicide and said: "Steven was a troubled young man beset by problems. He had clearly formed this plan with Kiran. What persuades me that this was a deliberate, intentional act is I believe he could have gone back to safety and unfortunately he chose not to do that."

Clyde Court is the centre of an estate off Wellington Road in New Wortley in outer west Leeds, which was built by the city council in the 1960s and 1970s. The area has suffered repeated social problems and Clyde Court featured in an Observer report on grim conditions in marginalised council estates eight years ago.

The inquest on Creevy continues.

Special immigation appeals commission to consider bail conditions for cleric detained for six and a half years

The radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada is to be released on bail within days despite continuing to pose a risk to national security, the special immigation appeals commission (Siac) in London has ruled.

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

Siac is to consider Qatada's bail conditions before finally ordering his release. The Home Office is expected to press for the most stringent terms possible, including a 16-hour daily curfew. Qatada's lawyers have argued to the commission that a curfew of more than 12 hours would amount to "deprivation of liberty" under human rights legislation.

Qatada, described by a Spanish judge as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe and a leading spiritual adviser with links to al-Qaida, has spent longer in custody than any other detainee in modern immigration history, his barrister said in a written submission to Siac.

Ed Fitzgerald QC said: "The period falls into a category of time that is so grave – and indeed unprecedented in the modern era – as to bear no acceptable continuing justification."

Qatada was first detained in Britain as an international terrorism suspect in October 2002 and then held for two-and-a-half years under the Belmarsh powers of indefinite detention without trial, until they were quashed by the House of Lords.

His period of immigration detention pending deportation started in March 2005 and has continued except for six months on bail conditions that included a 22-hour curfew in 2008.

Fitzgerald said the six-and-a-half years Qatada had spent in immigration detention was the equivalent of a 13-year prison sentence. "It is excessive and inconsistent with fundamental principles," he told the judge.

"We are dealing with indefinite detention for the purposes of national security. There is no realistic prospect of his deportation taking place in the immediate future."

The home secretary, Theresa May, has been fighting to keep Qatada locked up at Long Lartin maximum-security prison, in Worcestershire, pending a decision on whether to appeal against the ECHR ruling and while fresh diplomatic assurances are negotiated with Jordan that evidence gained through torture would not be used against him in any retrial on his return.

Tim Eicke QC, for the home secretary, said there was "no indication here from the appellant that he has changed his views or his attitude to the UK and the threat he poses to it". He said Qatada had shown a "willingness to ignore the rules", even while behind bars as a category-A prisoner.

"The risk he posed in May 2007 and 2008 is the risk he poses today," Eicke said, adding that the risk Qatada may try to abscond "might well have increased" now that he knows British diplomats are seeking assurances from Jordan to overcome the one obstacle that stops him from being deported.

Eicke said he did not accept that Qatada's detention was unlawful. The length of detention had to be weighed against the risks he posed, and "he poses a particulary serious risk to the UK", he said.

Riazat Butt with all the developments and debates from the Church of England's General Synod

4.04pm: In spite of someone's here saying that "not everyone at Synod" has access to the internet, the Church of England has a pretty active twitterati.

I'm posting a selection of tweets below, on everything from assisted suicide to navel gazing.

Debate on assisted dying seems to have killed off #synod. Was more life in debate on business committee.

— Ruth Gledhill(@RuthieGledhill) February 6, 2012

#synod-another call to synod to discuss really important stuff, the economy, the Middle East -understanding that synod is too introverted.

— rosie harper (@rosieswiss) February 6, 2012

Breaking: #Synod in 'vote for youth' shock *goes for lie-down in darkened room*

— Rachel Mann (@metalvicar) February 6, 2012

@clroters @metalvicar priests wear shoes, bishops flip-flop... #synod

— Mark Broadway (@6Eight) February 6, 2012

#synod excellent speech by ++Rowan. Changing the law on assisted dying protects no one and redefines our view of what it is to be a person.

— Robert Hammond (@rhwinetasting) February 6, 2012

Oh and the link to my "No Plan B for women bishops" story - which came out of the Watch meeting this morning - is now up on the Guardian's website.

3.26pm: Just had the first hour or so of General Synod here in Church House, Westminster. While there have been a few nods and winks to the main business for this week's meeting, much of today's action has been taking place off site.

Women and the Church, which has been campaigning for greater sexual equality, held an event earlier today. It is doing a rather good line in ecclesiastical purple tea towels, umbrellas and other paraphernalia proclaiming: "A woman's place is in the House...of Bishops." Nice.

One of the speakers at said rally was Peter Price, the bishop of Bath and Wells. He was asked what would happen if the legislation failed to get the votes it needed in July. He said:

I wish I could say there is a plan B, I don't think there is. The implications of this going down are so far-reaching that we almost dare not face it.

There is a possibility that the legislation won't get the votes needed in July. If it is changed - to offer access to alternative, male leadership for traditionalists - then progressives could kick it into the long grass. If it isn't changed then the traditionalists could kick it into the long grass. It's all very political and very tactical.

I've written a story about the WATCH meeting, it should be on the Guardian website later today and I'll also post a link to it here when it becomes available.

Hello and welcome to the Guardian's live blog from the Church of England General Synod. Why are we liveblogging this? Because we're the Guardian and we'll live blog the opening of an envelope. Seriously, there is a lot up for grabs this week and the key debates focus on the legislation allowing women to become bishops. Think of it as a cheaper, more exciting version of Davos. With cassocks.

The lovely Martin Beckford from the Daily Telegraph has done this handy story outlining who wants what and why:

Women bishops could be ordained by 2014 at the earliest and each of the Church's 44 dioceses would have to develop schemes for how to deal with the conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who believe scripture and tradition teaches that church leaders must be men.

The Archbishops say the "majority" of bishops are "strongly and positively committed" to the introduction of women bishops, but they are also keen to ensure the Church of England remains a broad church "in which conscientious difference of theological judgement is fully respected."

So the archbishops want women to lead but they want to help those who don't want to be led by women. Christian? Or just annoying?

The committee report on the roots of violent radicalisation draws attention to the danger of ignoring far-right activity

Have we got the balance right in our current approach to countering extremism? For much of the past decade, western states have focused the bulk of attention on tackling al-Qaida-inspired terrorism, and the underlying processes of radicalisation that lead some citizens toward this specific form of violent extremism. The result is a large body of evidence on both the terrorist groups, and the factors that "push and pull" some individuals into engaging in violence on their behalf.

Given the new priorities of national security that emerged in the shadow of 9/11, this focus was both justified and understandable. But more than 10 years on, the challenge from extremism looks rather different. This point is reflected in a home affairs committee report on the roots of violent radicalisation, that is published today, and to which I gave evidence. As the report points out, while al-Qaida-inspired terrorism remains the dominant threat, the challenge from extremism is becoming more varied, and hence requires a more holistic approach.

In particular, the report notes that one form of extremism that has remained neglected for too long is the far right. Though often derided as a lunatic fringe or a movement of "ignoramuses and bigots", the far right continues to escape our serious attention. As the report points out, one view held by many is that government strategy on counter-extremism "only pays lip service to the threat from extreme far-right terrorism". In contrast, and after collecting evidence from a range of different experts and opinions, the committee concluded there was "persuasive evidence about the potential threat from the growth of far-right organisations", and that "[t]he Prevent Strategy should outline more clearly the actions to be taken to tackle far-right radicalisation".

For those of us who have long argued about the need to take the far right more seriously, this point is particularly welcome. The vast majority of far-right parties in Europe are not openly violent, and nor do they advocate violence as a political strategy. Nor, with some notable exceptions, are most supporters of these parties pro-violence. While there are borderline cases in Europe, such as the National Democratic Party (NPD), which is currently under the microscope because of its links to a violent neo-Nazi cell, most parties on the far-right wing reject violence because of their electoral ambitions.

But while not openly violent, I would argue that many of these movements do foster a culture of violence among followers, and a particular set of narratives that would deem violence acceptable under certain conditions. Like most political movements, the far right offers supporters its own vision of society, and reasons for them to get actively involved. But unlike mainstream parties, the narratives that the far right cultivate among its supporters – or what are known in social science as their "vocabularies of motive" – are in many respects different.

They emphasise impending threats to a wider (and typically ethnic) conception of society, whether immigration or the "threat" from a specific group, such as Muslims. They are wrapped in a survivalist discourse, explaining to supporters that unless they take urgent and radical action then their group will become extinct. They employ apocalyptic scenarios, often manipulating the "clash of civilisations" thesis or claiming Europe will soon become "Eurabia". They emphasise the need for supporters to take urgent and radical action to stem these threats, as reflected in the repeated claim that city X or city Y will soon become majority Muslim. They dismiss liberal and representative democracy as being incapable of responding to these threats. And, lastly, they emphasise a sense of moral obligation, that supporters must take action in order to save their loved ones and wider group.

These vocabularies of motive were evident in the "Breivik manifesto", and in the accounts of others who have been imprisoned after stockpiling chemical explosives in anticipation of a race war. Having spent six years interviewing the most committed supporters of the far right in Britain, I am also aware that many others would subscribe to this view. Furthermore, like previous decades, these narratives are further embedded through "narrowcasting", whereby supporters obtain their news and information from only one source. In this way, and like other extremist groups, the far right often manipulates statistics and events in a way that amplifies notions of threat, survivalism, urgency and action. For Breivik, this process appears to have taken place within prominent far-right blogs, such as Gates of Vienna. In Britain, it is found within websites such as StormFront.

Like today's report, my view is that we need to take this movement and its potential for violence far more seriously. If Norway taught us anything, it is that dismissing the far right as a collection of cranks is an outdated and inaccurate view. More research is needed on what might "trip" someone like Breivik from joining a radical far-right party into violence or, alternatively, what might pull these individuals back from the brink. But overall, we need to modify our view of this movement, and its adherents.

• Lunchtime summary
• Network Rail bosses forgo their bonuses

4.00pm: According to Paul Waugh on Twitter, here is what Number 10 are saying about the Network Rail decision.

They are responding to and recognising the strength of public opinion on this issue.

3.23pm: And here is Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, on the Network Rail decision.

This is a good day for owner activism: Justine Greening did not believe that senior executives at Network Rail merited their bonuses and said she would vote accordingly at the annual general meeting. We would expect this of shareholders in listed companies, and expected it of the government in this case. Only through this kind of activism will executive pay be brought into line with performance.

Whether Network Rail is technically part of the public or private sector, it is effectively and regrettably a nationalised enterprise. The taxpayer through the Treasury underwrites it. Shareholder activism has never been more necessary than it is today. The government is in the same position as the pension funds and investment institutions which own public companies. They should all take a vigorous role on remuneration matters.

The government should use this opportunity to review the governance arrangements at Network Rail, and consider if they are fit for purpose in delivering a sufficient level of management accountability to the organisation's key stakeholders.

3.16pm: And here is some more reaction to the Nework Rail decision.

From Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA rail union

We said last week that it beggared belief that NR could be talking about a multimillion, long-term bonus scheme within days of admitting criminal behaviour over the deaths of two schoolgirls at Elsenham six years ago.

That tragedy only happened because it refused to spend £2 million on a new bridge at the level crossing despite an internal safety report demanding such action.

This decision is sadly too little, too late for the parents of the girls who tragically died. But we welcome it as the first step in the direction of the directors starting to put safety and the passengers ahead of their own handsome rewards.

From Anthony Smith, chief executive of rail customer watchdog Passenger Focus

Passengers will rightly expect that any decisions taken by the Department for Transport and others to have the needs of passengers placed at the heart of those decisions.

Passengers are less concerned about Network Rail bonuses than they are about value-for-money rail fares on punctual, reliable and frequent train services. However, these potential bonuses might set passengers wondering when their performance bonus - more trains on time - will arrive.

3.15pm: Here's some more from the Press Association about the Network Rail decision.

Six NR executives are affected by today's announcement, although sources stressed that no decision had even been taken on this year's award.
The remuneration committee usually meets after the end of the financial year at the end of March to agree a figure.
The executives did not receive a bonus last year either. Sir David Higgins, who is paid a salary of £560,000 a year, will not be adding to his statement, said a spokesman.

3.08pm: Here's a statement from Justine Greening (left), the transport secretary, about the Network Rail decision.

NR's decision to postpone the meeting planned for this Friday and look again at their proposed executive bonus structure is sensible and welcome.

I have made it clear to NR at every stage that this proposed package did not go far enough in reflecting the need for restraint. It was also the wrong time to look at this issue, given I will be shortly unveiling a rail review that will strengthen the corporate governance of Network Rail and see a special director appointed to the board to represent the views of taxpayers.

The fact that its executive directors have also chosen to forfeit their annual bonuses to improve level crossings is a sign that they have recognised the strength of public opinion.

2.58pm: And here's some more Twitter comment on the Network Rail bonus decision.

From the BBC's Norman Smith

Justine Greening says decision by Network Rail bosses to waive bonuses is " sensible and welcome."

From the transport expert Christian Wolmar

Network Rail bonus fiasco shows dysfunctional nature of present arrangements,and how railways have been infected by disease of high exec pay

Network Rail reaction shows that David Higgins et al have better political antennae than former regime under Iain Coucher.

2.48pm: Here is some reaction to the Network Rail decision.

From Tom Harris, the Labour former transport minister

Delighted that Network Rail have cancelled Friday's special meeting and will donate any annual bonuses to rail safety campaign.

From the FT's Jim Pickard

Although Network Rail make clear that they are not scrapping their "long-term incentive scheme" which is potentially more lucrative

From the Evening Standard's Joe Murphy

Revolting cheek of Network Rail's Higgins to claim he is donating a bonus he had not been awarded to "safety fund for level crossings"

2.43pm: Sir David Higgins, the Network Rail chief executive, has said that he and his board will donate their bonus money to a safety improvement fund for rail crossings. Their decision was probably influenced by this case, which involved Network Rail pleading guilty to three breaches of health and safety laws at a crossing where two teenage girls were killed more than six years ago.

2.40pm: Here is what Network Rail have said in a statement.

The board of Network Rail has decided to recommend to its members that this Friday's meeting be adjourned. The board will take the opportunity to reflect further on how to incentivise performance in the company against the backdrop of the current context.

It will continue to consult the secretary of state on wider issues of governance in advance of the government's command paper.

2.36pm: The Network Rail bosses have "done a Stephen Hester". They've announced they have given up their bonuses. Here's what the Press Association have filed.

The chief executive and other directors of Network Rail have decided not to take any bonuses and to allocate the money to safety improvements instead.
The executives were facing increasing political pressure not to receive any extra money this year in the wake of the huge row over bonuses for banking and other bosses.
The issue was due to be discussed on Friday at a Network Rail (NR) meeting, which the board is now recommending should be adjourned.
NR chairman Rick Haythornthwaite said: "Friday's meeting was not to approve a specific annual bonus payment for executive directors, but rather to amend a previously-approved long-term incentive scheme to ensure additional external scrutiny of performance.
"The issue of annual performance payments would only arise if Network Rail surpassed stretching performance thresholds and would only be decided in May after the end of the financial year.
Chief executive Sir David Higgins said: "Even if this situation does arise this year, I and my directors decided last week that we would forgo any entitlement and instead allocate the money to the safety improvement fund for level crossings. I can confirm that remains our intention."

2.08pm: You may already have seen a plug for the Guardian's Open Weekend in March but, if you haven't, do take a look. There is a full programme, plus information about how to buy tickets, on the Open Weekend page. I'm speaking at a session on digitial newsgathering on the Saturday, and it would be lovely to meet readers of this blog, but there are plenty of other good sessions going on at that time which you may find more interesting. Do take a look.

1.15pm: Here's a lunchtime summary.

• Labour have insisted that Justine Greening, the transport secretary, does have the power to block bonus payments at Network Rail. Although Downing Street said this morning that Greening could not stop specific bonus payments at the company, Maria Eagle, the shadow transport secretary, said this was wrong. "Justine Greening is wrong to say that she cannot block these bonuses," Eagle said. "Not only does the secretary of state have a place on Network Rail's remuneration committee, but we now know that she must also give prior written agreement to any change to the incentive scheme for senior managers." Matthew Hancock, a Conservative MP, said Labour were guilty of hypocrisy because, when Labour were in power, ministers said pay and bonuses at Network Rail were not a matter for government. (See 11.50am.)

• Number 10 has strongly condemned China and Russia for vetoing a UN security council resolution urging the Syrian president to step down. "Russia and China are protecting a regime that is killing thousands of people," the prime minister's spokesman said. "We find their position both incomprehensible and inexcusable. By supporting that regime, they are strengthening it and allowing it to continue with that violence." William Hague, the foreign secretary, will make a statement on Syria in the Commons at 3.30pm. (See 11.50am.)

• Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, has announced that family law will be changed to ensure that children have "an ongoing relationship with both parents" when couples separate.

• Sue Akers, the Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner, has told the Leveson inquiry that the team investigating payments by journalists to the police has been expanded following the arrests at the Sun. There are full details on our Leveson live blog.

• Maria Miller, the disability minister, has said there is "no shortage of jobs", blaming unemployment on people's unwillingness to apply for the work available. A row about her comment broke out as David Miliband, the Labour former foreign secratary, published a report saying Britain faced a "youth unemployment emergency". It said that over the next decade the problem would cost the Treasury £28bn and it proposed a series of remedies including Job Ready, a programme that would offer support to teenagers not going to university, and Youth Employment Zones, localised job-creation partnerships. James Ball is looking at Miller's claim on the Reality Check blog. (See 8.57am.)

• David Miliband has said that he will said he will not take a job in the shadow cabinet because he wants to avoid creating a "soap opera". In an interview this morning he said: "I am trying to make sure we are taking our message all over the country and not being in the shadow cabinet allows me to do that. I can minimise the amount of soap opera by not being in the shadow cabinet."

• Ed Davey, the new energy secretary, has described himself as "a lifelong supporter of the green agenda". On his first ministerial visit since he replaced Chris Huhne at the department on Friday, Davey said: "I've been a lifelong supporter of the green agenda, I campaigned at university and afterwards on things like energy efficiency ... I've also been a lifelong supporter of renewables and so I'm delighted to see that the UK again is leading in that technology."

• The Commons environmental audit committee has criticised the government for not defining what counts as a green tax.

• London Underground has been accused of making a "massive blunder" by recruiting 300 new tube station staff within a year of cutting hundreds of similar jobs in a move that sparked industrial action.

• Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, has urged the government to create a £1m research fund for "legacy issues" affecting veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq, with a particular focus on mental health. The money for it could come from savings achieved through reorganisation, he said.

• Vince Cable, the business secretary, has launched the fifth annual apprenticeship week.

12.37pm: Last night Downing Street put out words from David Cameron paying tribute to the Queen for the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Labour have now sent out Ed Miliband's tribute.

For our country and our Commonwealth this is a day to pay tribute to the wise, tireless and trusted presence of our Queen.

She has been a source of stability and security in a changing world during her 60 years on the throne providing guidance and comfort to all she meets.

The Diamond jubilee in June will be a chance to celebrate her reign. Today we should thank her for six decades of service.

11.50am: Here are the main points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.

• Number 10 claimed that Justine Greening, the transport secretary, does not have the power to block individual bonuses at Network Rail. Greening will vote against the proposed bonus payments at Network Rail's annual general meeting on Friday, the prime minister's spokesman confirmed. He also confirmed that she had the power to appoint a special director to Network Rail's boad. But that director "would not have the authority to veto a particular pay award", the spokesman said. Asked why the government, which is encouraging "shareholder activism" as a means of curbing bonus payments, had not not displayed some activism of its own and appointed a special director, the spokesman said we needed to take that up with the Department for Transport. He gave the same answer when asked if the government was doing "all in its power" to stop the bonuses, and he was unable to clarify whether Greening had set the "framework" that is being used by Network Rail to determine its bonus payments. But he did say she would be announcing some proposals "to improve the governance" at Network Rail.

• Number 10 said the decision by China and Russia to veto a UN security council resolution urging the Syrian president to step down was "incomprehensible and inexcusable". This was how the spokesman put it.

Russia and China are protecting a regime that is killing thousands of people. We find their position both incomprehensible and inexcusable. By supporting that regime, they are strengthening it and allowing it to continue with that violence.

Britain wants to return to the UN with this issue, the spokesman said. "We hope that Russia and China will reconsider their position." Britain still wants to make progress on this, and William Hague will be saying more about it in his statement to the Commons this afternoon.

• Downing Street defended Britain's decision to give aid to India. Asked about yesterday's story in the Sunday Telegraph about India saying it did not need the money, the spokesman said it was based on remarks that were a year old. Britain's aid programme was focused on the three poorest states in India. "We are doing that because a huge number of the poorest people in the world live in those states," he said

• Number 10 rejected Ed Miliband's claim that scrapping the health bill could save 6,000 nursing jobs. Those figures were wrong, the spokesman said.

• Number 10 refused to comment on reports that Barclays chief Bob Diamond is in line for a bonus of at least £8m. "I don't think it's right for me to get involved in commenting on lots of different individuals pay awards," the spokesman said.

• Downing Street defended Heathrow's decision to cancel flights yesterday. The inquiry into the travel problems caused by the snow last year said that airports should decide earlier whether or not they were going to cancel flights so as to avoid large queues building up at terminals. Heathrow was following this recommendation at the weekend, the spokesman said. As a result, "we did not see these very large queues snaking out of airports".

• Downing Street would not say how the government would vote in tomorrow's opposition day debate on bankers' bonuses. The spokesman said had not seen the text of the Labour motion.

11.47am: I'm just back from the lobby briefing. Number 10 are a bit wobbly on the issue of what the government can and cannot do to stop Network Rail executives sharing a £20m bonus pool. I'll post a summary in a moment.

10.47am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here are some stories and articles that are particularly interesting.

• Christopher Hope in the Daily Telegraph says 102 Tory MPs have signed a letter to the paper saying David Cameron should demand the return of more than 100 crime and policing laws from the EU.

In a letter to The Telegraph, 102 Tory MPs urge the prime minister to "opt out" of 130 EU laws over the next two years. They warn that if he fails to do so, the transfer of powers to Europe will become irreversible.

The powers include the European arrest warrant, under which 200 British nationals have been surrendered to continental prosecutors, and a requirement for DNA and fingerprints to be shared with European police forces. The letter has been signed by two former cabinet ministers, more than half the influential backbench 1922 Committee and several committee chairmen.

The MPs organising the letter insist that it is intended to be a positive contribution to the debate on Europe, but it threatens a new confrontation between Mr Cameron and backbenchers, who are demanding further repatriation of powers after successfully lobbying him to veto a new EU treaty at a summit in Brussels in December.

• Andrew Grice in the Independent says Nick Clegg and Ed Davey will today reject calls from Tory MPs for subsidies to windfarms to be cut.

Ed Davey, the energy and climate secretary, will also make clear he is a firm supporter of "green energy" and will not bow to Tory pressure. The demand, in a letter to David Cameron, is seen as a test of Mr Davey's environmental credentials after he succeeded Chris Huhne, who quit on Friday. In a joint appearance today, Mr Clegg and Mr Davey will seek to reassure green groups that Mr Huhne's departure will not dilute the coalition's commitment to their cause. Visiting a test site for green homes in Watford, the deputy prime minister will say: "The choice for the UK is simple: wake up, or end up playing catch up. In today's world the savviest states understand that going for growth means going green. Low-carbon markets are the next frontier in the battle for global pre-eminence.

Mr Davey will say: "There may have been a change at the helm, but there'll be no change in direction or ambition."

• Oliver Wright in the Independent says an unprecedented number of senior civil servants are now leaving their posts.

The government is dealing with an unprecedented churn of senior civil servants with a majority of ministers now in posts for longer periods than their permanent secretaries. Staff turnover rates in some departments are now as high as 30%, according to an analysis by the respected think-tank the Institute for Government.

The situation is particularly acute at the very top of the civil service and within Downing Street, with an extraordinary turnover of officials over the last 16 months. The institute warns that, at a time when the government is attempting to make significant public-sector savings, the loss of institutional knowledge could adversely affect the running of departments.

• Anushka Asthana in the Times (paywall) says Emma Harrison, the government's "family champion", has criticised the welfare cap as a "populist" policy that could harm some vulnerable individuals.

Emma Harrison said that she was particularly fearful for couples she knew who were full-time carers for two or three disabled children.

"I'm just a little worried by the extremely vulnerable families who could be caught by a populist movement," she said. "We live in this amazing country. It's a civilised country and let's not harm the most vulnerable people." Ms Harrison was appointed as the prime minister's "family champion" after the riots last summer. She is charged with turning around the lives of 120,000 troubled British families. She has a track record in welfare-to-work programmes, having founded A4e, which helps people to get jobs.

• Caroline McGuire and Stuart Pink in the Sun say Daniel Radcliffe, the Harry Potter star, has switched allegiance from the Lib Dems to Labour.

The actor, 22, was a vocal supporter of the Lib Dem leader in the run-up to the last general election.

But he thinks backing him has become "unviable" since Mr Clegg became deputy prime minister in the coalition.

Daniel said: "Nick Clegg has become a whipping boy.

"He has been totally used by the Tories. Anything they don't want badly reflected on them, they reflect on to him.

• Boris Johnson in his Daily Telegraph column imagines what would have happened if Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, had been British.

Let us imagine a British Zuckerberg. He and his fellow billionaires would be the object not just of envy, but of resentment. There would be debates in Parliament, instigated by Ed Miliband, about the scale of his prospective wealth, and whether it was tolerable in a fair society. Wherever he lived, the British Zuckerberg would be tracked down by anti-capitalist protesters, and even now, in all likelihood, the pop-up tents would be appearing on his lawn. His new-found wealth, in short, would not be the subject of simple amazement. It would provoke amazement and a fair degree of rage; and that – to put it mildly – is not a climate that is conducive to wealth creation.

I'm off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I'll post again after 11.30am.

10.36am: William Hague is going to answer an urgent question on the violence in Syria at 3.30pm, according to Sky.

10.20am: Today's Leveson inquiry hearings should be good. Sue Akers, the Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the phone hacking inquiry, has just started giving evidene, and Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, will be giving evidence this afternoon. There is full coverage on our live blog.

9.58am: Thurrock is going to get a referendum on whether or not there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Last month the People's Pledge, the group campaigning for an in/out poll, announced that they would be having postal ballots in individual constituencies and today they've revealed that they are going to start in Thurrock, on Thursday 5 April. Every adult in the constituency will get a ballot paper through the post. It's just a vote on whether or not there should be a referendum and, since people tend to answer yes to questions like that and since no one is likely to campaign against, the result it easy to predict. But the organisers think that if they get more than 75% voting yes, on a turnout of 20% or more, that will count as a success and that pressure for a nationwide referendum will increase.

9.19am: Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, is today publishing plans to give divorced and separated fathers stronger rights to see their children. Here's what the Press Association have filed about the changes.

Proposals to give stronger rights for divorced and separated fathers to see their children will be published by justice secretary Ken Clarke today.
Grandparents are also expected to see their influence boosted in the wake of a split as part of reforms of the family justice system.
The key change in the process is the introduction of rules making clearer that it is vital youngsters enjoyed "an ongoing relationship with both parents".
Ministers have signalled that they will not offer the guarantee of equal access demanded by some fathers' rights groups but want to ensure no loving parent is "pushed out".
The change forms part of the government's response to a review led by former Whitehall mandarin David Norgrove - but is directly at odds with one of his main findings.
Norgrove voiced his "regret" last week that a legal right would be included despite his report warning it could cause "confusion, misinterpretation and false expectations".
Similar changes in Australia led to delays in resolving custody disputes, he cautioned.
In a bid to prevent custody cases reaching the courts in the first place, the overnment will promise an extra £10m for mediation services.
But where parents do end up going to law, it will examine ways to amend legislation to ensure no parent is excluded unless they pose a safety or welfare risk.
A working group is expected to be formed to examine potential changes to the Children's Act 1989 to embed the new rights.

And here's how Clarke explained on the Today programme his decision to ignore the Norgrove recommendation about not enshrining the new rights in law.

We are stating what I think is the view of most people which is that both parents have responsibilities and rights towards their children and the children are entitled to try and maintain contact with both parents if it's at all possible. But what we are doing is going to state that principle in the law, because there are far too many people who think it's not being applied - although I do think the courts do apply it and try to apply it in most cases.

But we are also going to have to draft what we do to avoid all the undoubted dangers in Australia which caused David Norgrove and his colleagues to be hesitant.

8.57am: David Miliband's Commission on Youth Unemployment claims that youth unemployment will cost the Treasury £28bn over the next decade. Here's an extract from the report (pdf).

The human misery of youth unemployment is also a time-bomb under the nation's finances. We have done new research on the cash costs of youth unemployment. Even we were surprised. At its current rates, in 2012 youth unemployment will cost the exchequer £4.8bn (more than the budget for further education for 16- to- 19-year-olds in England) and cost the economy £10.7bn in lost output. But the costs are not just temporary. The scarring effects of youth unemployment at its current levels will ratchet up further future costs of £2.9bn per year for the exchequer (equivalent to the entire annual budget for Jobcentre Plus) and £6.3 billion p.a. for the economy in lost output. The net present value of the cost to the Treasury, even looking only a decade ahead, is approximately £28bn.

The report also contains a powerful section saying that claims that immigration, the benefits system or the minimum wage are driving up youth unemployment are "largely red herrings".

In the main, the benefit system does not disincentivise young people from working. We did hear of cases where inflexibility in the way benefits and other support are provided, or fear surrounding how they might change, made it harder for young people to take on jobs or volunteering opportunities that would make them more employable. For instance, we heard of one case of young people in care receiving poor advice on the impact employment would have on their benefits, making them scared to apply for a job; and of another case of young people worried about the impact employment would have on their levels of housing benefit.

But in the main it is clear that the benefit system does not disincentivise young people from working. Analysis undertaken for the Commission found that 81% of 16- to 17-year-olds not in employment, education or training claim no benefits at all, and the equivalent figure for 18- to 24-year-olds is 35%. Those young people who do claim benefits would be significantly better off in work, on average earning an extra £2,300 - £3,700 per year in employment.

Equally, immigration does not appear to lead to youth unemployment. Academic research finds either no evidence that immigration results in rises in youth unemployment, or evidence that it causes a rise which could only explain a fraction of the rise in NEET [not in education, employment or training] levels in the UK between 2004 and 2008, whilst our examination of the rise in NEET levels after 2004 could find no positive link to immigration (indeed the rise in NEET levels was highest in some of the regions
least affected by immigration). A further recent report by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found no impact from migration on claimant unemployment.

Similarly, research undertaken for the commission found that the minimum wage appears not to have been a significant contributor to the rise in youth unemployment before 2008, with a big majority of employers paying young people above the minimum wage, and that majority staying relatively constant over the period in question.

The research (available in full in the appendix) found that the minimum wage could now start to have an influence on young people's employment prospects (which the Low Pay Commission will need to monitor, as they have done successfully so far), but that it cannot be blamed for the rise in youth unemployment to date.

8.45am: David Miliband doesn't want to return to the shadow cabinet. He chaired a Commission on Youth Unemployment for ACEVO (the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) and, in an interview about it with BBC Breakfast earlier, he said that suggestions that he might return to the Labour front bench were "flattering" but that he lost the leadership election.

Ed needs the space to lead the Labour Party as he sees fit. I can help Labour at the grassroots. I am trying to make sure we are taking our message all over the country and not being in the shadow cabinet allows me to do that. I can minimise the amount of soap opera by not being in the shadow cabinet.

He also gave his brother a firm endorsement.

I think that the really important thing is that the country sees that the Labour party is renewing itself, which it is under Ed's leadership; that it's able to have real discussion about the future of the country; and that it addresses these big issues because an issue like youth unemployment is a sort of thing that brings all the of us into politics in the first place ... Ed has been elected to fight the next election. I think he's going to fight the next election with real courage and conviction and I think it's up to all of us to make sure he wins the next election and serves as prime minister.

You can read a press notice about the Commission on Youth Unemployment report here (pdf) and the 128-page report itself here (pdf). I'll be taking a look at it later.

Otherwise, it's a patchy day. Here's the agenda

8.45am: Ed Davey, the new energy secretary, is visiting an environmental consultancy with Nick Clegg.

10am: The Leveson inquiry resumes. Sue Akers, the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner who is leading the phone hacking investigation, and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre are giving evidence.

10am: Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, is announcing an anti-fraud strategy at the fraud, error and debt conference.

10.45am: Ed Miliband visits a hospital to highlight his claim that dropping the health bill could save 6,000 nursing jobs.

2.15pm: Alex Hall, Jeremy Clarkson's ex-wife, gives evidence to the joint committee on privacy and injunctions.

2.30pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, answers questions in the Commons.

3.15pm: Sir Bob Kerslake, the new head of the civil service, and Sir Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary at the Treasury, give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about accountability.

As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another at around 4pm.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.

And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.

London's V&A compiles collection of royal portraits from 1939-1968 to help mark year of Queen's diamond jubilee

In 1963, the Queen Mother wrote to Cecil Beaton to thank him for a book he had sent of photographs of the royal family.

"I find it nostalgic looking through the pages," she wrote. "The years telescope, and I suddenly remembered what it felt like when I wore those pre-war garden party clothes – all those years ago."

The V&A in London has assembled a collection of portraits by Beaton dating from 1939 to 1968 as its contribution to the Queen's diamond jubilee.

Though the fairytale atmosphere of his early portraits of the Queen Mother give way to a more sombre style in the late 60s, Beaton still focuses on gowns, crowns and grandeur. A theatre set designer as well as a photographer, in 1945 Beaton shot the young Princess Elizabeth against a painted backdrop of a frozen lake to emphasise her springlike qualities.

Some informality creeps into shots of the Queen with her young children, including a shot of Prince Charles as a toddler kissing the infant Princess Anne, while two other pictures show bomb damage to Buckingham Palace – it was hit nine times during the second world war.

Curator Susanna Brown, who picked the 100 images out of almost 18,000 in the V&A collection, said the "primary purpose" of Beaton's pictures was to promote the royal family around the world: "They were PR, not family portraits." Underlining this, the exhibition includes notes to the press including details of clothing and embargoes.

One of Beaton's 145 diaries is also on display, describing his anxieties about taking the official photographs for the Queen's coronation, though the lavish images show that he rose to the challenge.

Before his final shoot with the Queen in 1968, Beaton fretted in his diary: "The difficulties are great. Our point of view, our tastes are so different. The result is a compromise between two people and the fates play a large part."

Though he continued to photograph members of the royal family until the late 70s, he lost his place as pre-eminent royal photographer to Anthony Armstrong-Jones (later Lord Snowdon), who married Princess Margaret in 1960 – "so he was the obvious choice".

"Though [Beaton] greatly respected and admired the Queen, the Queen Mother was his champion and his friend," said Brown, adding that Beaton nontheless threw himself into the popular culture of the day. "He had a whole new lease of life in his 60s," said Brown. "He was such a pal of Mick Jagger he was nicknamed Rip Van With It."

Bishop of Bath and Wells says church will have 'substantial period of shock' if it rejects moves to let women become bishops

A senior cleric has warned there is "no Plan B" if the Church of England rejects legislation allowing women to become bishops, claiming such a move would lead to a "substantial period of shock".

The Right Rev Peter Price was addressing supporters of female clergy before a General Synod meeting this week that will decide what provision, if any, there should be for people unwilling to accept women's leadership. Price, who is bishop of Bath and Wells, was asked what would happen if the General Synod voted against the legislation in July.

He replied: "I haven't got a clue. I think we will be in such a critical place that it is extremely difficult to see how we will proceed without going through a substantial period of shock.

"I wish I could say there is a plan B. I don't think there is. The implications of this going down are so far-reaching that we almost dare not face it."

Two amendments to the legislation, which is in draft form, will be debated on Wednesday. One proposes access to an alternative male bishop for traditionalist parishes, the other that the legislation remain unamended.

The conservative evangelical group Reform is lobbying for a concession. Its chair, Rod Thomas, said on Sunday: "If the draft legislation comes back to General Synod for final approval next July unchanged, then we will have the unsavoury dilemma of either having to vote for a measure [law] which will lead to disunity and division, or of voting against it and thus prolonging the debate for another five years."

Women and the Church, which is campaigning for greater sexual equality, has threatened to vote against amended legislation in July.

Ministers dismiss advice of independent report on access to children that warned of fallout from similar law in Australia

Both fathers and mothers should be entitled to a legally binding "presumption of shared parenting" after separation, the government has announced, in defiance of advice by an independent review on family justice.

While the interests of the child are to remain paramount, a ministerial group will report back in two months on what form of words will be inserted into legislation ensuring that children maintain a "meaningful relationship" with both parents.

The proposal was dismissed by David Norgrove, whose report last year warned of the situation in Australia after it introduced shared parenting rights. A landslide of legal claims and counter-claims led to severe delays in child custody cases.

In advance of the government's formal response to his family justice report, Norgrove, who chairs the Low Pay Commission, last week re-emphasised his opposition, explaining that his review "thoroughly considered the issue of shared parenting and concluded the law should not be changed. If the government has decided to legislate, I regret that and it will be vital to find words that avoid the difficulties encountered in Australia."

Stressing that the government "agreed with 99.9%" of Norgrove's conclusions, the justice minister Jonathan Djanogly told the Guardian there should be a legal presumption of shared parenting.

"Mr Norgrove [agreed with] that position in his interim report," Djanogly said. "He did not disagree with it conceptually in his final report but he saw there were possible problems in Australia.

"We agree with that too; we see there are real problems and that's why we have set up a ministerial review (reporting in April) to look at ways of dealing with those issues. The particular problem [in Australia] was equal parenting time. The courts started getting a lot of equal time applications."

The UK government is not in favour of giving separated parents rights to equal time nor will it consider setting legally enforceable "minimum amounts of time" for fathers or mothers, Djanogly added. "We are not violently moving away from what the current law is."

The government response declares: "Any changes will be complementary to, not in conflict with, the principle in the Children Act 1989 that the welfare needs of the child are the paramount consideration.

"The court should consider an ongoing relationship with both parents as something that in most cases will contribute to the child's welfare – and should look at the question through this lens, of what is best for the child – rather than as a 'right' for the parents."

Asked whether the plans reflected the impact of groups like Fathers4Justice, Djanogly insisted it was not a question of "favouring" either fathers or mothers in custody cases. Although "we have heard harrowing experiences from fathers with which we have sympathised, we need a system that is fair," he added.

Other government proposals focus on speeding up child custody disputes where the number awaiting decision has almost doubled in the past four years to 20,000 cases. Care and supervision cases currently take an average of 55 weeks.

A six-month time limit will be set on child custody disputes to ensure cases are processed more quickly. It will also become mandatory for separating couples to attend a mediation hearing initially in the hope of persuading them to reach agreement without going to court.

In order to ensure that it works, an extra £10m in legal aid is being made available for mediation. Ministers will also examine whether "more robust enforcement tools" are needed to encourage errant parents to comply with settlements. Parents who defy court orders can already be imprisoned; any change is likely to look at less draconian but more practical punishments that will curb misbehaviour.

There will be a better deal for grandparents, the government maintains, but it will not be enshrined in law. Djanogly said: "When going through the check list for a parental agreement, the role of grandparents should appear and the same thing in mediation. So we do think the role of grandparents should be extended in the system."

The Ministry of Justice will eventually absorb Cafcass, the government agency that looks after children involved in family proceedings, into a new Family Justice Board to ensure the agencies work closer together.

Most family lawyers and children's rights charities gave the proposals a cautious welcome. Nicholas Cusworth QC, chairman of the Bar Council and Family Law Bar Association, said: "There are parts of the government's response, which we welcome, such as strengthening the court's enforcement rules, for which we have called for some time. Current rules are piecemeal and ineffective, and a cohesive approach to revising them would be a positive step.

"However … on shared parenthood, we agree with the Family Justice Review's finding that, learning lessons from the Australian experience, legislating on this issue risks creating the perception that there is a right to substantially shared or equal time, for both parents.

"It is already widely understood and applied by the courts that children benefit from having a relationship with both parents and legislation would be unnecessary and may do more harm than good. The government must consider this with the greatest of care."

Maggie Atkinson, children's commissioner for England, said: "Many children are caught up, through no fault of their own, for months at a time in a system that is hindered by delays and still fails to give them an adequate voice. A statutory six-month time limit on care and supervision proceedings will mean speedier decision making and resolution for the children involved. "We welcome the government's confirmation that legislating in this area will focus on parents' shared responsibility for their child and it is not about guaranteeing each parent an equal amount of time with children.

Nadine O'Connr, campaign director of Fathers4Justice, said: "This is more a limp, than a step, in the right direction. It's a bit of a damp squib. We would have liked them to stick to their pre-election promises and guaranteed fathers rights of access. This will not make out campaign go away."

Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread, the single parents' charity, commented: "Any move to change the legislation would only result in confusion and risks more, rather than less, litigation. Instead we would like to see more practical support to help parents share caring responsibilities more equally, both within couples and after separation. Legislation is not the way to get more fathers engaged with their children."

Anne Hurst, spokesperson for Maypole Women, a organisation that supports women through divorce, said: "The idea that the law can give a child a right to a meaningful relationship is an empty promise, no law can do that.

"The proposed change will increase children's exposure to conflict and abuse, increase economic inequality, and create no incentive for fathers' increased involvement from their child's birth.

"Children who actively reject a parent – either the abusive or non-abusive parent – usually do so in a context of high parental conflict and domestic abuse. Cutting off contact can be a response to alienation tactics, or a coping mechanism."

The lord chief justice Lord Judge said: "The judiciary will continue to play its part in modernising the system of family justice."

Steve Matthews, chairman of the Magistrates' Association's family courts committee, said he was "pleased that [the government] recognised the need for a unified family court and that it has maintained the key principle of the Children Act 1989 that children's needs are paramount.

"We support in principle the aim of limiting the length of the majority of care cases to six months, but courts must retain sufficient flexibility where the interests of children require an extension."

Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said: "Reducing delays in care proceedings is crucial, and we welcome the government's commitment to provide the necessary legislative impetus for change.

"[But] to effectively halve the time which cases take now will require additional resources – but court facilities are being closed and the number of solicitors available to help families is likely to reduce in the wake of legal aid cuts."

Former Northern Ireland first minister, 85, is being treated in Ulster hospital, his wife confirms

The former first minister of Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, has been admitted to hospital.

It is understood the veteran Ulster politician, 85, now known as Lord Bannside, was taken ill on Sunday. Unconfirmed reports claimed he had suffered a heart attack.

Paisley's wife, Lady Paisley, confirmed that her husband was being treated in the Ulster hospital. A statement said: "She requests that the family's privacy be respected at this difficult time."

Paisley stood down last week from his role as a preacher in the Free Presbyterian Church, the hardline Protestant sect he founded in the 1960s. He made his final sermon at the Martyrs Memorial church in east Belfast last weekend.

The founder of the Democratic Unionist party stunned the political world in 2006 when he agreed to share power with nationalists including Sinn Féin after decades resisting such experiments to end the Northern Ireland Troubles.

He struck up an unlikely rapport as first minister with his deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Féin chief negotiator and former chief of staff of the Provisional IRA.

Metropolitan police detective assistant commissioner tells the Leveson inquiry that the number of officers engaged in the Operation Elveden investigation into alleged corruption will increase as the inquiry broadens its scope

Industry figures reveal more than 9.6GW of capacity added last year, taking overall EU total to about 94GW

The EU added 9,616MW of wind energy capacity during 2011, making up more than a fifth of total new power installations, industry figures have today revealed.

Offshore growth in the UK and onshore projects in Sweden and Germany helped push member states to a combined total of 93,957MW – an 11 per cent rise on 2010 and enough to supply 6.3 per cent of the EU's electricity – the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) said.

Overall, Germany remains the EU country with the largest installed capacity, followed by Spain, France, Italy and the UK.

The level of capacity added is slightly down on the 9,648MW that came online in 2010, due in part to falling numbers of installations in mature markets such as France and Spain.

However, the EWEA points out that the industry has delivered an average annual growth of almost 16 per cent over the past 17 years.

"Despite the economic crisis gripping Europe, the wind industry is still installing solid levels of new capacity," said Justin Wilkes, the EWEA's policy director. "But to achieve the EU's long-term targets we need strong growth again in future years.

"It is critical to send positive signals to investors by European governments maintaining stable policies to support renewables and for the European Union to commit to putting in place a binding renewable energy target for 2030."

Last year saw growth across the continent's renewable energy sector, with more renewable power capacity installed during 2011 than any other year. Renewable power installations accounted for 71 per cent of the 44,939MW of new power capacity added – an increase of around 38 per cent compared with 2010.

The EU's total installed power capacity increased by 35,468MW to 895,878MW, with wind power increasing its share of installed capacity to 10.5 per cent, and renewable capacity accounting for just over 31 per cent.

In an interview with the BBC's Samira Ahmed broadcast on Sunday, Liberal Democrat London mayoral candidate Brian Paddick expressed concern that public confidence and trust in the police is breaking down. He gave the Met's use of stop and search as one example. Visiting Tottenham on Monday, six months after the 2011 London riots began there, the former senior Met officer called for local communities to be given a "real say in setting neighbourhood policing priorities."

All good localist Lib Dem stuff. There was, though, one part of his BBC interview that puzzled me. Advancing his case that the police too often fail to respond when the public calls for help he said:

I think police leaders and politicians have been going down the wrong track. They've been taking police officers away from routine operational response policing and putting officers into specialist squads or into neighbourhood policing.

Neighbourhood policing? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing Lib Dems want more of? Was Brian arguing that there's too much of it?

We've had a chat. Brian explained that he'd meant that specialist policing in general had reduced the numbers available for "response policing" but that didn't mean he thought neighbourhood police numbers should be reduced. He said he wanted the safer neighbourhood team (SNT) sergeants withdrawn under Boris Johnson to be restored and provided some further thoughts on how SNTs could be improved.

At present these comprise a mix of warranted officers - proper cops, if you like - and police community support officers (PCSOs) who don't have full police training and lack the power of arrest. This mix has been identical across every electoral ward in the capital ever since they were introduced under Ken Livingstone. Any future Mayor Paddick would want the Met commissioner to change that.

"PCSOs do a good job in the suburbs," he explained, "but in the inner city areas you need more warranted officers in SNTs. People in Richmond love PCSOs, but in the old Stratford shopping centre they were getting pushed around. We need to alter the mix of the teams depending on the challenges they face"

On stop and search Brian has called for an end to the "targeting of black and Asian youth" and told me that when stop and search operations take place, they should as far as possible be conducted by officers who know the area concerned. He says that in Tottenham he was told by local people that they liked and trusted their local police but hated it when territorial support group (TSG) officers were ferried in from outside under Section 60 to "blitz" the area. "They called them the 'Thick and Stupid Group'," he said.

Brian says he wants a change in the culture of the TSG and for all officers brought in to a locality to deal with a specific problem to see it as part of their job to build good relationships with the public, just as SNT officers do. He'd also like to see local surveys by the police of all the households and neighbourhoods they serve to get a clearer picture of their concerns.

Policing minister Nick Herbert, responding to the Paddick critique of policing culture on the BBC, pointed out that Met commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe says he intends to change the service's approach to stop and search and that the government's making the Met directly accountable to the London mayor was all about increasing police accountability to the public. That aspiration is set out by the new Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.

The Paddick prescription for London, though, is for changes that are far more localised and for a big shift in police attitudes too. His fear is that policing by consent is being replaced by policing by force. One problem with this might be that the public sometimes wants more of the stuff that just makes matters worse: more force, more numbers, more gung-ho and never mind the consequences.

That, though is partly a reflection of the stupidness of so much of what passes for public debate about crime and policing - especially when politicians are involved. Brian Paddick has big job on his hands in seeking to raise the level of that debate. Wish him luck.

Local agencies should co-ordinate more in youth unemployment hotspots, says David Miliband-chaired commission

A commission chaired by David Miliband has called for co-ordinated action to address the lack of leadership in addressing 600 hotspots of youth unemployment, covering 152 local authority areas.

The report, commissioned by Acevo, the voluntary and charity groups organisation, suggests the government needs to revamp the Department for Work and Pensions work programme so that it addresses more urgently the tens of thousands of young unemployed.

The report makes no judgment on whether a broader stimulus is needed in the economy, and concedes that youth unemployment in the UK is a structural labour market problem that pre-dates the recession of 2008.

Ministers have tried to address the problem through a new youth contract, a more private-sector-oriented wage subsidy than the Labour government's abolished youth jobs guarantee.

The report points out that one in five young people are not in employment, education or training, and a quarter of a million have been unemployed for more than a year. It claims the current levels of youth unemployment will cost the public purse at least £4.8bn in 2012.

The worst accumulations are in south Wales, Greater Manchester, Tyneside, Glasgow and on the Yorkshire coast, and it points out that pockets of youth unemployment can be found in relatively prosperous areas.

In these youth unemployment hotspots, local agencies should be required to co-ordinate more, and in return be given greater flexibility by the DWP. The hotspots are defined as those areas where the proportion of young people claiming unemployment benefit is twice the national average.

The report will be seen as another attempt by Miliband to make a foray into domestic politics without being seen to undermine his brother Ed, the Labour leader. David Miliband said he was not interested in fuelling a soap opera about the party leadership.

The report suggests the government should frontload its youth contract initiative by doubling the number of job subsidies available in 2012, and suggests young people should be given a guarantee of a part-time job if they have been on the government's work programme for a year without finding employment.

It describes the 50% who are not going to university as a forgotten generation who need better careers advice.

Miliband said: "Britain faces a youth unemployment emergency. This is a crisis we cannot afford. The government has set the right goal – abolishing long-term youth unemployment – but we will need big change if we are to achieve it.

"Young people, government, communities and employers will all need to up their game if young people are to succeed in a radically changing jobs market."

The report admits there is a long-term structural problem, pointing out that even before the recession roughly 7% to 9% of 16-year-olds were becoming long-term neither in education, employment or training (Neet). The report argues that immigration, benefits and the minimum wage are largely red herrings in the debate about the causes of this unemployment.

"In the current economic context, the clear danger is that the proportion of young people becoming long-term Neets will be substantially higher than the 7% to9% we saw in more prosperous times," it warns.

The report suggests that the youth contract is not adequate. The subsidy will be worth up to £2,275 each for private and voluntary sector employers who take on an 18- to 24-year-olds from the work programme, and the government anticipates making 160,000 such subsidies available over the next three years.

The Acevo report says more than 250,000 young people have already been unemployed for more than a year, and a further 200,000 young people have been unemployed for six to 12 months. It suggests bringing forward the third year of spending into 2012, with a view to doubling the number of subsidised jobs available in 2012.

In addition to this temporary stimulus, the report proposes permanent change to the welfare state so that young people who have still not found a job after a year on the work programme are guaranteed a "first step" part-time job, combined with intensive support to find unsupported employment, with providers paid by results.

It suggests a social impact bond might be possible to encourage private providers to intervene in this market.

Thusha Kamaleswaran, five, had been 'playing happily' in shop moments before armed gang shot her in the chest

A five-year-old girl was left paralysed after being shot in the chest during a gang attack at a shop in south London, the Old Bailey heard on Monday.

Thusha Kamaleswaran had been "playing happily" in her uncle's convenience store, in Stockwell, when the three masked young men chased what they thought was a member of a rival gang into the shop and fired two shots through the open door.

Thusha, who had been in the shop with her older brother and younger sister, was hit by a single bullet, which went through her chest.

She went into cardiac arrest as she lay bleeding on the shop floor. Medics performed emergency surgery at the scene before taking her to King's College hospital, where she suffered a second cardiac arrest.

Prosecuting, Edward Brown QC said: "She remains paralysed throughout much of her body. This is a permanent condition. She will never walk again."

The gun attack, in March last year, also left Roshan Selvakumar, a 35-year-old who had been buying groceries in the shop, with serious injuries. He was hit in the face by a bullet, which remains lodged in his head.

Brown said: "Both victims were remarkably lucky. The intention of the gunman and his accomplices – to kill – was plain … They very nearly succeeded. Equally plain is that they were acting as a team of three, together."

Kazeem Kolawole, 19, Anthony McCalla, 19, and Nathaniel Grant, 21, all of south London, deny causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Thusha and to Selvakumar.

All three also deny the attempted murder of one of the two men who ran into the shop, Roshaun Bryan, and having a firearm with intent to endanger life.

Prosecutors told the jury at the Old Bailey they would be shown CCTV footage of Thusha dancing and playing in the aisle of the shop moments before the intended victims ran into the store.

The jury heard that the three defendants then circled on pushbikes outside the store before one of them fired two shots into the shop, the second of which hit Thusha in the chest.

Brown said the gun was fired at least twice, and that the alleged gunman – Grant – would have been able to see Thusha when he fired the second shot.

"At the moment of the second gunshot, she was in an aisle, and in fact must have been in the sight of the gunman and in the sight of perhaps the others," he told the court.

Brown said that the attack was the result of an escalating and violent feud between two rival south London gangs.

"The events of the evening are not isolated," he told the jury. "There had been violence between gangs. The GAS gang was involved in an ongoing and violent rivalry with an opposing gang known as ABM, a tit-for-tat escalating in degrees of violence. The three defendants are closely associated with the GAS or OC gang that often congregates in a square in Brixton, SW8."

He said the defendants had met earlier in the evening and tested the gun by firing it at a tree before donning masks and setting off on their "mission" into the rival gang's territory.

"The events of that evening bear all the hallmarks of what on occasion is the result of rivalry between young gangs in south London," said Brown.

"The tragic reality is that the origin of the events of the 29 March 2011 lay not in anything that might have happened, for example earlier that day … but in what had happened in the weeks and months before between rival and young gangs in south London – gang rivalry that often involves needless posturing but on occasion leads to needless but very serious violence."

The court heard that Selvakumar, who lived in a flat above the store, had been chatting to shop workers at the time.

"The reality of this shooting may be that, whilst there was an intention to kill the suspected rival gang member, the gunman and his accomplices couldn't have cared less if someone else was shot, too," Brown said.

He used to be a mere entertainer – now at his bicentenary he is 'the greatest'. Why should we elevate him above all others?

Dickens here, Dickens there, Dickens everybloodywhere. And here am I (and, after me, a chorus of you) adding to the pile. Set your spam filters now. There's more to come.

Tomorrow at 11.15, a wreath commemorating the 200th year of Charles Dickens's birth will be laid at Westminster Abbey – where his bones lie – and, one half expects, the nation will observe two minutes' silence for "the Great Inimitable". Every day, for the last few months, there has been a tsunami of Dickens stories. Today's Guardian, for example, informs us that Ebenezeer Scrooge is our favourite Dickensian character. While in the Telegraph, Simon Callow declares that Dickens is "our first and favourite literary superstar". (Chew on that, Shakespeare.)

The Times reports Claire Tomalin's anxieties that all the recycled Dickens we're being bombarded with on small and large screens is eroding children's ability to read Dickens intelligently. The article is accompanied by a picture of Gillian Anderson, from the recent Great Expectations BBC adaptation, looking as much like Miss Havisham as Katie Price resembles Sairey Gamp (the homicidal nurse in Martin Chuzzlewit, if that's one of the books you haven't got round to yet).

Never one to trail the bandwagon, the Daily Mail did its "Dickens was a Love Rat" story a few weeks ago, penned by "Simon Heffer PhD", under the eyecatching title: "The dark heart of Dickens: How writer was an abusive husband who seduced a woman 26 years his junior".

Is Dickens really that good (as a writer, not a husband I hasten to say)? What about the other Vict-lit greats. It was William Makepeace Thackeray's bicentennial last year. Who noticed? Even though, for my money, Vanity Fair is a greater novel than anything Dickens penned. In December this year the BBC is doing a three-part adaptation of Wilkie Collins's The Moonstone. TS Eliot (no less) acclaimed it the "first and best of detective novels". He was right. It beats that other contender for the title, Bleak House, into a cocked hat.

But Dickens is now, incontrovertibly, the "greatest". It was not always so. The Times observed, in a snide obituary notice on his death, that Dickens "was often vulgar in manners and dress … ill at ease with gentlemen". Real gents, that is. The smart money was on classy novelists like Bulwer Lytton and George Meredith. (If you're interested, and no one is, their bicentennials are 2003 and 2028).

All through the first half of the 20th century Dickens was regarded as a great entertainer and nothing more. There was no place for him on the university syllabus. Leave him to the film-makers and Classic Comics. Oh, and the Americans who for some reason thought highly of him. The first, heroic, generation of British Dickensians (Philip Collins, KJ Fielding, Kathleen Tillotson) were shut out from posts at Oxbridge, and laboured in provincial universities. Gradually the tide turned and crested in the centennial of his death, 1970. Suddenly Boz was "canonical". The Dickens industry cranked up, spewing monographs, PhDs and owlishly over-annotated editions. Dickens even appeared on a £10 note, the only novelist ever to have done so.

I write as someone who has devoted my professional life mainly to other 19th novelists than Dickens. I wouldn't deny him a place at the top table but there is, I believe, something wrong about elevating him above all the others as "the champ".

We are currently infected by an ethos of competition. What's the best novel of 2011? We had a gladiatorial competition to decide which was the "one": Julian Barnes's The Sense of an Ending. In fact, there were many superb novels published last year – all now certified losers by virtue of Barnes's superb novel winning. It reflects a lack of balance in how we approach our literature.

So, yes, give Dickens a round of applause on his 200th birthday. But let's not forget the others. They're just as good – or better.

My 10 Victorian novels that are as good as, or better than, anything Dickens wrote:

Middlemarch, George Eliot
Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray
The Way We Live Now, Anthony Trollope
The Mayor of Casterbridge, Thomas Hardy
Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte
Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte
The Moonstone, Wilkie Collins
Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson
Portrait of a Lady, Henry James
North and South, Elizabeth Gaskell

• John Sutherland's The Dickens Dictionary (Icon, £9.99) is published tomorrow at 11.15am