An Anti-Nazi League counter-demonstration in Southwark is also scheduled on Saturday.Gurbux Singh, the chairman of the CRE, and Mr Livingstone wrote to Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, last night to call on him to use his powers to ban the NF march. The CRE agrees that allowing the march would contravene the new Race Relations Act, as well as the Human Rights Act and the Public Order Act 1996.Mr Singh said that the safety of the community would be put at risk and that grounds exist to prohibit the march or impose conditions about its route and timing.Mr Livingstone said he strongly urged the Commissioner to exercise his powers to prevent an incident that could have a serious long-term impact on the area.”A National Front march is distasteful under any circumstances, but given the nature of other events planned in that area on that day, the timing and location of the march is particularly provocative,” he said. “Bermondsey has a well documented history as a hotspot for racially motivated crimes.”Debbie Welch, the organiser of the Damilola Taylor Peace March, which will begin at the youngster’s local church and end with a prayer meeting at the spot he died, said she could not believe the NF march would be allowed to proceed. “The last thing we need is the NF wrecking racial relationships here,” she told The Independent last night.Stephanie Elsy, Labour leader of Southwark Council, said: “The scheduling of this march (on the same day as Millwall FC holds an anti-racism in sport event) is provocative and inflammatory.”Scotland Yard said yesterday that there were no legal grounds to oppose the march. The Home Office said that Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, could only intervene if he received a request from the police to order a ban.. The government was attacked last night for rushing through emergency legislation to postpone the 3 May local authority elections because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.

The government was attacked last night for rushing through emergency legislation to postpone the 3 May local authority elections because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats criticised the Government for cutting short debate on the Elections Bill, which delays the county council elections to 7 June ­ the date on which the general election is also expected.Although the Bill was approved by the Commons last night, it could run into problems in the House of Lords, where it will be discussed today and on Monday. Tory peers will seek to amend the measure to leave the date of the local elections open, on the basis that the epidemic may still make it difficult to hold free and fair elections in June in areas affected.A Tory spokesman said it was “up in the air” as to whether the Opposition would co-operate with the Government. “We have four amendments which we have added to the Bill which we want to see acted upon. Until that is done there is no guarantee we won’t vote against this in the Lords.”The Tories will demand that no elections will be held until all animals suspected of having the disease are being slaughtered within 24 hours, the geographical spread of foot-and-mouth is reversed, restrictions on movements at most farms is lifted, and the trend of new infections shows a significant decrease.The Opposition attacked the speed at which the Government was pushing the Bill through Parliament by using a guillotine motion to restrict debate. Ann Widdecombe, the shadow Home Secretary, told the Commons: “There is no justification whatsoever for what can only be described as an outrageous and absurd guill-otine motion, which will hinder the interests of democracy and our constituents.”Miss Widdecombe accused the Government of laziness for setting a deadline of 10pm last night for consideration of the Bill. She said: “[Labour] members opposite want to go home rather than to stay here and ensure that the legislation being considered …

is in good order.”She continued: “It is all the more important for the House to have time to consider the Elections Bill, above all because of the hasty way in which it has been put together. The Elections Bill has been cobbled together in what must have been a couple of hours.”But Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said there was widespread agreement across the parties that the local elections should be deferred, even if they could not agree on the detail of the Bill. He said it was essential to move quickly to provide “certainty” for everyone involved in the elections. The guillotine measure had been introduced only because the Opposition front bench was incapable of controlling its own backbenchers, he added.For the Liberal Democrats, Andrew Stunell said the guillotine motion was “completely out of place” and “unnecessary”. He said: “The Government should first of all agree to lift the guillotine and withdraw the motion and let the debate take its course: they would be pleasantly surprised.”A Tory amendment, which would give the Government the power to select a later date than 7 June if foot-and-mouth was still not under control, was defeated by 336 votes to 120, majority 216. The Elections Bill was then given unopposed second and third readings..

The Law Society of England and Wales was criticised by the Government yesterday for failing to meet performance targets and warned that it could face reform. The Law Society of England and Wales was criticised by the Government yesterday for failing to meet performance targets and warned that it could face reform.
David Lock, the parliamentary secretary to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, told a debate in Westminster Hall that “self-regulation to the legal profession is a privilege and not a right. It is a privilege to be operated in the public interest and not in the interest of the people they are regulating,” he said.The society’s response to performance targets had been disappointing. “We are watching the situation very carefully and we are coming towards some very difficult decisions,” he said.George Stevenson, a Labour backbencher, said the society was more interested in protecting its members’ interests than those of the public and urged ministers to set up an independent body to investigate complaints against solicitors.Mr Stevenson, the MP for Stoke on Trent South, said that, in one case, a firm of solicitors had been found by the legal services ombudsman to be “incompetent and inefficient”. But the Law Society had still not taken action because the firm had not broken the code of conduct. “Do they have to be murderers before the Law Society will take action?” he asked.”Self regulation may have its place.