Your take on the news this week on Facebook stock shares, the cost of cancer care and the recipe for happiness at work

Facebook and the stock markets

Big online news this week was aboutthe cost of Facebook shares. Our readers gave their views on the decision:

surreydudesaid:

The watershed moment must fast be approaching when some of the 700m users realise that they are the commodity from which Facebook profits. It will be interesting to see if they comply with the forthcoming European directive to allow personal information to be forgotten forever.
I haven't used Facebook in months and LinkedIn seems to be almost as pervasive with the "others you may know" attic. What annoys me most is the unsolicited eMails to my personal address (not linked to Facebook in anyway) because those of my friends and colleagues who type it in looking for me are [unknowingly] giving them more information than I disclose personally.

joshthedogleft this note on timeline:

A whole cohort of Facebook users are likely to wind down their use when Timeline is rolled out to all... I don't think I know anyone who is my age or older that I am friends with on facebook who think that timeline represents an enhancement of the features we typically use. Less emphasis on communication... more on extreme self-aggrandisement and ego trip. My happy 4 or 5 year-long relationship with Facebook is about to end. I think that shows the fragility of the valuation... as someone said: it is just a few clicks away from being over-valued.

David91:

I don't see where a growing revenue stream comes from to support long-term development. As a platform, it's now fairly mature. It can be tweaked but I suspect it will have to generate revenue from more or less its current levels of performance. Monetising the user data can only go so far. I don't believe advertising revenue will rise. The notion of the float then simply looks like greed on the part of the promoters who think they can cash in before the profit expectation bubble bursts.

KopiteEddieadded this point:

Very interesting comments here and they seem to meet with what I think. I'm on Facebook for one simple reason, eldest daughter is at University and it's convenient to keep in touch. Because people use Facebook does not make them bad people. But buying shares in Facebook? No thanks! These things have a life span and I think the end of this particular social media site is already in view.

newenergyspaceleft on this truth which was a common trend:

As someone who was about 16 when facebook came out, I'm probably in the main target demographic and I can tell you that most of my peers (including myself) are slowly turning our accounts off. The thing just ends up dominating people's lives and they don't like it.

The cost of cancer care

Finally there was a passionate discussion following the news a break-through drug forprostate cancer is 'too expensive for the NHS'.

FromKoolio:

The NHS has always rationed healthcare, for example see how cancer screening in the UK is limited, for example cervical smears, mammograms or prostate checks are first set by upper and lower age limits; different countries apply different limits.

Luckily NICE is there to provide an independent analysis. Many will be ranting on CiF but have you read the analysis and statistical evidence or is that a kneejerk response you've posted?

Fromtreetopsquash:

Yet another news story about a NICE decision with absolutely no reference towhythe drug is so expensive. And no quote justifying the cost from the drug company. So what we're left with is a cookie-cutter piece, painitng NICE - an organisation charged with making sure the NHS gets best value from the drugs it uses - as the villain

FromTinRobot:

I hate to say it, but given that the NHS can't afford the treatments it currently offers (with rationing of one flavour or another becoming increasingly common), this is probably the right decision, albeit an emotive one. Is it really better to pump money into extending the life of those with terminal cancer by a few months, rather than investing it into trying to ensure early diagnosis so that they never reach that stage in the first place?

It's also interesting that all of the ire is being directed at NICE, rather than at the drug company that has set the price in the first place (particularly given that Cancer research are at pains to point out that its development cam courtesy of public donations)...

Fromjamesoverseas:

This article and the comments below perfectly illustrate why Health budgets are so difficult to control.

1. Developing new drugs is very, very expensive. (irrespective of whether it's done privately or by the state)
2. Desire for the new drug is practically unlimited.
3. Every time you say no, a vociferous group will call you a b*stard who is killing people for the sake of a few quid.

Incidentally, if the budget stays the same, and a newer more expensive drug is used, then that directly leads to job losses amongst nurses and other staff - which is how you can have both an expanding health budget, and people complaining about Health cuts.

And some more personal stories fromespressodoppio:

My father is currently starting treatment for prostate cancer. I still trust NICE a lot more than a company that proposes to charge a huge price for a drug that didn't even cost them anything to develop originally.

FromfisseL86:

My father passed away some years ago when I was 11. He was a great dad and I could not have asked for better. At the time if there was a chance of extending his life at any cost I would have urged him to jump at it.

However I now understand that the NHS is about more than an individual emotive story it's about offering the best quality of life to the most people. I agree with NICE, this drug would only strip other services to extend what has already been a painful road by a short but ultimately still difficult amount for some very unfortunate individuals.

FromSambabrasileira:

As a prostate cancer sufferer I want to ask how they decide that its not value for money. Is it good value to pay thousands out in benefit to support people who earn more than enough to support their children or to people who live in expensive areas but are unemployed. Is it good value to pour billions down the drain into just about any incompetent government service you care to name. If this was a womens cancer they would be screeching from the rooftops so come on guys write to your MP at least. I know (from experience) an intelligent answer is unlikely but its worth a try.
Ate Logo

FromCarenshare:

With a wife that works in cancer care, I understand and appreciate the emotional arguments re this drug and its usefulness in extending (for a few months) a man's life. However, it's not just the costs which, I believe, COULD be put to better use. A month or two of extended life is neither here nor there in my opinion. If the prognosis is terminal then use the money to bring together the family of the patient, and change the laws to bring assisted suicide and/or euthanasia as a realistic OPTION.

When my father passed away from cancer back in 2005, I would have given anything to have been able to be at his bedside, holding him, with my mother, my brothers, and other close family members. Instead (because we are scattered around the UK or around the globe....with me in Canada) only two family members were with him in his last days. If a plan could had been devised to end his life it would have been so rewarding for us all to gather with him for his final breath. I hope that the laws are changed by the time it's my turn.

Use the money that might have been spent on medications to allow for living an extra month or two, and offer some alternative logical and rational choices. REAL HELP and REAL COMPASSION isn't always more drugs to get a few more weeks or months out of a very sick body. It seems to me that prolonging a terminal illness is actually a punishment.

Should Fred Goodwin be stripped of knighthood?

Readers also took time to access their moral compass with the news Fred Goodwin was no longer to be 'Sir'. Regular commenters on ourpolitics live blogand new offeringNewsdesk Liveleft these musings:

FromGerryP:

Goodwin is no worse than countless others - Mark Thatcher?

The whole rotten honours system should be dismantled, that, plus the geriatric House of Lords. They are just symptoms of a country which holds back individual hard work and ability in favour of inherited priviledge.

And please don't categorise this argument as another left-wing diatribe. Capitalism only thrives in those countries that give the young a level playing field.

Fromsynthesizer:

The question is rightly raised, should the forfeiture process now be directed at others who were involved in the various financial collapses, or even at ministers forced to step down over expenses-

The answer is yes. Yes of course it should. How much more significant would a state conferred honour be if it were concommitant on the probity and moral upstanding of the recipient?

Frommarkgamon:

I'm a bit disquieted by this. It looks like we cast about for a scapegoat, then punished them in the least damaging way possible.

He's not really going to miss that knighthood. Sure, his feelings are hurt, but he's still got a pension out of all proportion to his failed responsibilities.

The same goes for all the rest of them. If we punish one, we should punish them all. And the only punishment they will understand is being made to give back the money they lost so willfully and incompetently.

Senior executives (bankers and others) love to justify their pay packets because of the 'risks' they take. Yet none of them ever takes a risk of any sort. Instead they play games with other people's jobs and money, and feel entitled to walk away wealthy irrespective of the damage they've caused.

Taking away the knighthood was silly. It just deflects the debate, so now we're all arguing about the grounds rules for the honours system.

It's our economic system we should be analysing. That's where we're in trouble.

Fromtonibryan:

It is the perfect time for a complete overhaul of the honours system. If they are to be retained, then they should go to those most deserving, who have truly contributed to the nation and its people by dint of selfless service to the community. This would exclude most politicians, sports 'stars', bankers and others who are part of the establishment.

If you truly want a more democratic and representative House of Lords, there are thousands of 'ordinary' Britons who should be elevated to the Lords, because they deserve the recognition for the work they do.

FromEpsteinsmate:

The system is a left-over from the days when services to the king were rewarded with knighthoods and peerages. But in those days, if you displeased the king you were at best exiled and at worst beheaded,
Government has changed and the system has become as confused as political 'masters'.
There are too many now who have a vested interest in keeping the corrupt honours system alive. That's why it's so difficult to change - they still want their seat in the lords.

This was a failed attempt at window dressing.

Fromyahyah:

People like Goodwin should never get titles in the first place, the whole system stinks, have to agree with Alastair Darling for what he said on Radio 4 this morning.

Just concentrating on one or two scapegoats is meaningless.

Is it not possible to frame laws so that people like Goodwin, who can exert awful influence on our economies when the house of cards collapse, can be prosecuted for causing a financial crisis and unemployment ?

Politicians, whether we like their policies or not, at least are elected.
If we feel they've endangered the economy we can boot them out at the next election.

These powerful, unelected, sociopaths in banking need to be made fully accountable, and surely the fear of a lengthy prison term would deter them from reckless behaviour ?

MPs and cybercrime

A great debate took place in comments this week on cybercrime sparked bya government publicity campaign launch.

buddednipunpicked the news:

I hope our "experts" acknowledge that computer protection is a multi-billion dollar industry and the supplied "security" is ineffectual against most attacks since they generally happen because people invite the thieves in. It doesn't stop these businesses from flourishing through specious promises of "total protection" though.
And as for the anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware market perhaps if the companies selling these products had to compensate their victims for inappropriate software behaviour then "bad" products wouldn't exist much longer. As it is you are probably just as safe with nothing at all but your head screwed together with common sense.

JonathonFieldsadded:

Most of the e-mail scams are pretty obvious, and I have even amused myself in some more amateurish cases by appearing to go along with them, and then letting them down with a bump at the end. A good firewall to stop attacks in the first instance is good, and anti-virus will protect against the established threats that still lurk in cyberspace. I used to have a little programme called "Scottie", a little black scottish terrier that would bark and "wag his tail" if any attempt was made to remotely add, or alter files on my PC; a great little programme, but it would not run on 64bit Windows 7, unfortunately, so poor little "Scottie" had to be put down.
I wood agree that knowledge is needed, and can imagine that some technophobes, who are embarrassingly clueless, could easily get caught out, though that is the same with any crime by conmen, and it is difficult to protect people against themselves.

IReadTheArticle:

also spent a career designing software and I also am running no AV, anti-malware or anti-spyware software on the machine I am typing this on beyond AdBlock.
Today's con artists are the same species who run three-card monte tricks on the pavement. If you hand over your money to a stranger, you are going to get fleeced and no software can help you.
Evidently the Commons science and technology committee, Malware and Cyber Crime, is a decade out of date. Like its banking committees.

BobJanovalooked at two angles to the story:

- 'Consumer' software, particularly browsers but also other stuff that has a clearly advertised purpose (word processors, etc) should not be so broken that viruses can get in through normal use. British law should allow people who lose time, money or data because of a security flaw in Outlook/Firefox/etc to sue the software provider for negligence – it's really no different to a car manufacturer selling you a car with a loose wheel, you are being damaged because the manufacturer didn't provide the quality of product they were advertising.
For too long there has been an assumption that software can let bad guys in. This should not be the case and you shouldn't be able to catch things just from viewing websites (or opening documents or other non-executable file types). The government could make moves in this direction, though it would upset a few big corporations who currently produce crap software where this is a problem.
- People need a basic level of education on how not to run untrusted stuff, what to trust your personal details to, etc. You should never enter bank details except on the actual site of your bank, for example. How do you know what that site is? On one of your visits to the physical bank, ask the staff! Misuse of data and putting up fraud sites are already illegal, but they're impossible to police and people need to know how not to put themselves in the firing line.
And running non-packaged executable files should be something that you do with full foreknowledge of what you're doing, the risks involved and so on, potentially voiding your right to claim damages under the first paragraph (not sure about that one though). That's something that generally only techies do already, though (downloading and installing stuff off the net).

crazyjane added:

One of the things I'm curious about is how so many people become targets for email scams. I have several email addresses. The professional one has to be public for various reasons (i.e. appears clickable on a webpage) and gets bombarded with spam. The same for another publicly advertised address that I manage. The other addresses are not made public and get none.
This implies that one of the tactics is address harvesting from webpages. That can't apply to many people though. Most people don't have their addresses sat on webpages. So some organisations, maybe even "reputable" ones are probably trading lists, or at least people who work for them are.

War on water bills

On Guardian Money readers aired their views on the newswater bills would be increasing in 2012-13.

Usermatthewmacleodmade the distinction with Scotland:

Well, clearly I'm not the first to point that out. I appreciate that the situation in Scotland is also very different to that down south in many ways, not least because we rarely want for water here!

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for privatisation of essential infrastructure like water supply. I suppose I could get behind things like electricity, gas and telecoms privatisation, subject to the actual infrastructure being state-owned and operated.

FromLiesandstats:

I will just add to the Scottish comments. Water and sewerage costs have not risen in Scotland for five years now and believe it or not before anyone comments thats without a subsidy from the nice Westminster people.
Possibly something to do with it being a public utility with no profit motive. Something neither the Tories/Lib Dems or Labour believe in thats for sure.
By the way (as a token of our friendship in these islands) when you run out in the South East we will happily sell you enough to make up the shortfall.

FromAmadeus37:

My daughter has had water pouring down her street for three weeks. She lives in a basement flat and is frightened to go out and leave the place. They say they can't find the leak!
Water should never have been privatised. It is not just the rising bills but also the total lack of care for the infrastructure.

Fromhenlaw:

Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) is a not-for-profit company. The UK government will not rtelease the water industry to the devolved Welsh government (someting to do with extracting undeclared benefits for England perhaps?), so not-for-profit is the closest we can get to the public model that Wales would prefer.

Price rise this year is 3.8%, the lowest in 'England and Wales'.

Dwr Cymru is the only regulated water company to reduce its costs over the last 10 years.

Frommirotto:

Try living in Cornwall - constant rain and water bill well over £800 pa for a two up two down - not that we could afford anything bigger due to the number of second homes, luxury holiday lets etc for the well heeled Home Counties. Its all to keep the beaches nice for them and deal with their sewage apparently. Shame our wages are rock bottom too - makes it quite hard to feel we're all in it together. Not that any of our political parties give a * , we're just a picturesque destination, not quite the real world somehow. Haha. Pros&Cons of moving to Scotland? It sounds increasingly attractive especially with a teenager , but not home, and our rain is warmer.

Fromjakemoose:

Whatever happened to the pre-election promises to help those on lower incomes in the South West with their water bills? We live in Cornwall and I really can't understand why our water bill is so high, on average it's over £50 pounds a month (we're on a water metre) and there's only 2 adults and 1 baby. We have no garden and have showers not baths, and I always put the washing machine on the shortest cycle possible. It's not as if we're short on rainfall here. I wouldn't mind so much if the cost is to treat all the waste water before it gets pumped back into the sea (although Sufers Against Sewage have had to fight for that to be done) but even now with heavy rainfall the sewers overflow as the system can't cope and it all washes into the sea anyway. This has meant than St. Ives bay has lost it's blue flag status. Why do we pay so much?!

How are we working less but are also less happy?

Finally, readers added to the debate on long working hours - after it was reported in the50s despite longer hours we were more happy and less stressed.

Fromoommph:

Some of the biggest negatives from that earlier era are always conveniently overlooked. Notably nasty industrial illnesses that manifested over several decades that mainly killed working class men in industrial jobs. Also plenty of limitations such as limited choice for women and even the requirement for women to resign from certain jobs on marriage.

I'm one who has made the transition from full-time employed worker to downshifted flexible worker. What makes me happy is having enough money,having autonomy and control and being sociable. And some specific personal stuff eg. working in other countries and (that word Churchill mentioned) "fun".

On "stress", I've learned not to take work and roles that do not suit me (skills set, competence, personality, lifestyle). I see this as important when there are more demands on us and more complexity in the workplace. There's plenty of things I'm not actually that good at or comfortable in or don't enjoy - so I avoid them. And there are some things I did in the past that fitted then but don't now.

When I see my mates that are "stressed", it quite often seems to me that they re simply not in the right place for them at this point, for a wide variety of reasons.

FromAengil:

I'm skeptical about those statistics. How many people were even employed in the 50s, e.g. how many dual-income households were there compared to now?

And then, there's other factors. How much time did they spend commuting? And what did they get for it? How long did they have to work to afford their homes compared to now?

And hours are not the only measure of work. The intensity and pressure of the work matters greatly. I do think the nature of the work might be a factor in rising levels of stress. How many people spent their days chained to a phone, desperately trying to meet quotas, calling people up to try and sell them something they don't want back in the 50s?

But mostly, just as a general perception, I'd say this stress is really down to a combination of a consumerist culture that pushes each individual to want more and more, which leads to people at the top squeezing more and more out of their workers in order to cut costs to make greater profits and the people at the bottom letting them, while they desperately try to keep up. And all this for... what? What do we need all that stuff for? Survival is virtually assured, it's not what we're working for. We're not fighting a war. We're not trying to rebuild our country. We're not going anywhere. We're not motivated by religion - how many people believe it's their duty to lead a quiet working life and they'll get their reward in the afterlife? Why are we doing this?

It's no wonder that if you push people harder and harder, and they see themselves not getting any further, and they don't know why they're doing it, then they start to break.

Frombcnboy:

Maybe it's down to the need to work as much as possible for the first 10 - 15 years of your career to get enough money together to buy a house (and usually with the help of a partner), and then spending the next 30 years trying to pay it off.

Do that to a back drop of an instable economy, high competition for jobs, companies who promise the world to their clients and then dont give their staff the tools to do it, then you will feel the stress and misery of most jobs. Thats not even taking in to account kids, relationships, pension (hah!).

And you all know, if you dont wanna do your job anymore, there are 10 people out there who do, and they will do longer hours and take less money as well.

FromMrsPofS:

At the risk of sounding incredibly pappy, I find that having decent colleagues makes all the difference to my happiness at work. I've had all kinds of jobs and whether I've enjoyed them has mostly come down to the people there and not the pay or the hours. Sure, I'd love to be in some cosy job that earnt me a fortune and required very little of my time, but if my colleagues were total arses I would find it difficult to be happy.

Currently, I'm part of a great team of people who I regard as good friends, rather than just colleagues. The job itself is stressful and the pay could be better, but coming to work doesn't feel like as much of a chore as it might if I had to work with little Miss Malicious or Mr Mean.

Fromlola465:

I used to love my job, but not now.
What would make me happier at work?
1) Stop making changes for the sake of making a change; the benefits are negligible in the face of the downsides in terms of attendence, morale, quality of work being done.

2) Stop talking about downgrading as many members of staff as possible. If our current manager has her way, most of us will be bumped down to the same grade you get when on probation/mentoring straight after leaving university, whilst continuing to do complex caseloads.

3) Give us travelling time, rather than petrol money. If you're going to suddenly insist I don't just work at the hospital I've worked at for a decade, but go up to 60 miles away at the drop of a hat, give me time to get there and back within available child care hours. Without making bitchy comments about "commitment" if I express dismay at the expectation of leaving a primary school kid to get themselves to school after I've left for work&come home to an empty house and a parent who won't be in for another 90 minutes. I'm committed to my family welfare more than work: that's how it SHOULD be.

FromLMavis:

I agree that the hours quoted here are horribly misleading. Many people may work 37 hours in theory, but how many hours of working overtime, working from home, replying to emails in the evening does that conceal? In the 50s (and I was a child in the 50s) it seemed that you did a day's work for a day's pay then went home. You didn't take work with you, you didn't answer calls (mostly we didn't have telephones). I suspect the average journey to work was much shorter.

You were respected for doing a good job, not sneered at for not making as much money as the next person. Oh, and you weren't forever bombarded with advertising trying to get you to upgrade to the next level. You bought something and used it until it wore out and was beyond repair, usually a couple of decades later

I rather miss the 50s

Thanks for all your contributions this week.

• Energy secretary says CPS decision 'deeply regrettable
• Huhne and ex-wife due in court on 16 February
• Nick Clegg praises Lib Dem minister's 'trailblazing' work
• Ed Davey to take over cabinet post
•Read a summary of events so far

4.45pm:Ed Davey has made an upbeat statement on the steps of his department.

It's a sad day for many people in the department and the Liberal Democrats, because Chris Huhne had a vision for a green economy, and he's done fabulous work as the secretary of state.

I've now got to take up the challenges of climate change ... of energy security... and I'm particularly conscious of the impact on consumers' households across the country of high energy bills.

But I'm determined to work to follow on Chris's priorities, the Liberal Democrats' priorities, the coalition government's priorities, and make them my priorities.

I want us to have a green economy, where there are lots of green jobs, to help grow our economy.

3.29pm:Ed Davey will now face the spotlight as the man tasked with the government's climate change policies.Here's a profile piece on him from 2007in which he talks extensively about his experience of being an orphan.

Edward Davey was four when his father died of Hodgkin's disease. Eleven years later, his mother too died of cancer, leaving behind 15-year-old Edward and his two brothers. Davey is now the Libera Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton and campaigns for improved services for bereaved children.

"The death of my parents was tragic, but in a way I was lucky: after my mother was diagnosed with bone cancer, my brothers and I looked after her and we got to talk for a long time. I didn't need counselling because my mother had been able to prepare me for a life without her.

Child bereavement services in this country are very good where they exist, but there are not that many of them. It's part of a very British problem: we don't always put children first. There is, for example, no obligatory training for teachers on how to deal with children who are bereaved.

3.15pm:Hélène Mulhollandweighs up what Huhne's resignation means for the make-up of the cabinet.

David Cameron's mini reshuffle following the resignation of Chris Huhne as energy secretary represents a missed opportunity to improve the gender profile at cabinet level.

Though the shakeup sees an additional woman entering government in the shape of Jenny Willott as assistant government whip, the decision to promote Ed Davey to the vacancy left by Huhne, and in turn hand over Davey's previous job in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to Norman Lamb, means the gender gap remains a sore point at senior ministerial level, with just five women – all Conservative – in the 23-strong cabinet.

When the Conservative defence secretary Liam Fox resigned last October, and amid polling suggesting the Tories had a problem with women voters, Cameron used the mini-reshuffle to promote Justine Greening to the role of transport secretary to raise the tally of women cabinet ministers to five.

This time, the fact that the third cabinet minister to resign since the coalition government was formed was a Liberal Democrat meant Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had the say in who would fill the seat – albeit a decision that Cameron would sign off.

2.03pm:Huhne's mother was the voice of the speaking clock. His real surname is Paul-Huhne. He worked at the ratings agency Fitch. He may have in fact won the Lib Dem leadership election over Nick Clegg, but his votes were delayed in the post. He claimed a Corby trouser press in his MPs' expenses.

These and other gems inthis illuminating profileof Huhne by Michael White.

1.33pm:Political editorPatrick Wintourhas more details of how Huhne's departure was handled by the coalition:

David Cameron was informed of the DPP decision at 9.10 on the way to the airport at Northolt before a regional tour in the south-west.

He spoke to Huhne at around 10.40 for about five minutes where it was agreed that Huhne would resign from the cabinet to fight his case. It was stressed that the coalition agreement gives powers for the cabinet and ministerial posts to be distributed approximate to the size of the the two parliamentary parties.

Number 10 did not elaborate on why the prime minister had not in his letter suggested that Huhne could be brought back into cabinet if he was found innocent.

It was stressed that the deputy prime minister has responsibility for nominating his appointments, so Nick Clegg might have the prerogative to decide whether Huhne should return.

The prime minister's spokesman said: "It was Chris Huhne's decision to resign and and he accepted his judgment. They had a good working relationship and he was a valued colleague".

The spokesman stressed that Cameron had not considered undertaking a wider reshuffle, and added that he did not expect Ed Davey, the new energy secretary, to impose a significant change of direction in policy after he has read himself in.

12.48pm:Confirmed: Ed Davey will become energy and climate change secretary, with Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg's parliamentary aide, taking over from him as business minister.

Jenny Willott, MP for Cardiff Central, will become an assistant government whip. All three, it should be stressed, are Lib Dem MPs.

The net loss for the party in cabinet is nil, although clearly Huhne's experience will be missed.

In a brief statement, Nick Clegg has said if Huhne cleared his name he would like to see him back in government in a key position.

12.29pm:Some reaction coming through from green groups to the Huhne resignation, mostly regretful.

John Sauven, Greenpeace's director, said the former minister would be "a tough act to follow".

His achievements in getting the "green bank" and stricter legally binding carbon targets are a physical legacy of what he was able to accomplish.

He has been a vocal advocate for the green agenda in a government whose green credentials are looking more than a little tarnished."

Friends of the Earth's executive director, Andy Atkins, struck a similar tone:

Chris Huhne has championed the environment in an administration that's shown little enthusiasm for keeping David Cameron's pledge to be the greenest government ever.

He should be commended for insisting on tougher climate targets and fighting for a green investment bank – but his department's incompetent handling of solar cuts has put 29,000 jobs at risk.

The new energy secretary must stand firm against George Osborne's anti-green agenda and make the case that protecting our environment ns a way to boost not hinder our economic recovery.

12.15pm:Huhne has written arather more expansive letter to Nick Clegg, his party leader, in which he says: "It has been a privilege to serve with you in the first group of Liberal ministers in a British government since 1945".

"The Liberal Democrats under your leadership are playing an essential role in ensuring the coalition government reflects liberal values at home and abroad."

Clegg's reply is here. He writes: "I fully understand your decision to stand down from government in order to clear your name but I hope you will be able to do so rapidly so that you can return to play a key role in government as soon as possible."

12.09pm:Cameron's letter of replyto Huhne says he has "made the right decision under the circumstances".

He adds: "Like the deputy prime minister, I am sorry to see you leave the government under these circumstances and wish you well for the future."
The full text is here.

11.58am:A quick summary of events so far:

• Chris Huhne has resigned as energy and climate change secretary, after the director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer announced he would be charged with perverting the course of justice.

• Vicky Pryce, Huhne's estranged wife, has also been charged with the same offence. The charges relate to an incident in 2003 when, it is alleged, Huhne persuaded his wife to accept a speeding penalty on his behalf.

• In a statement, Huhne continued vigorously to deny the charge, but said that "to avoid any distraction to my official duties or my trial defence" he was standing down from his post.

• Lib Dem sources say Ed Davey, the business minister, will be promoted to the department of energy and climate change as secretary of state, with Norman Lamb, the parliamentary aide to Nick Clegg, taking Davey's post.

11.50am:The full text ofHuhne's resignation letter to David Cameron (pdf):

This letter is to submit with much regret my resignation as energy and climate change secretary.

I intend to mount a robust defence against the charges brought against me, and I have concluded that it would be distracting both to that effort and to my official duties if I were to continue in office.

It has been an honour to negotiate and then serve in the first coalition government of modern times which has substantial achievements both in reducing the economic dangers faced by our country, and in making progress with policies to tackle climate change and provide energy security.

Internationally, we have helped to build a coalition of ambitious countries in Europe and beyond to put the United Nations process back on track.

It has been a privilege to be a minister in the coalition government, and I wish the administration every success with the environmental and economic challenges that lie ahead.

11.40am:Huhne will be entitled to a severance payment of more than £17,000 after resigning, PA is reporting.

"Under the 1991 Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act, the Liberal Democrat is allowed three months worth of his £68,827 annual ministerial pay, the Cabinet Office said.

That entitles Mr Huhne to £17,207, if he chooses to accept it."

11.29am:My colleagueRajeev Syalin Westminster has more on the historical context of the resignation.

According to the reference book British Political Facts by David Butler and Gareth Butler, not a single cabinet minister has resigned as a result of being charged with a serious criminal offence since
modern records began in 1903.

A junior minister resigned in November 1958 after being charged with gross indecency. Lt Colonel Ian Harvey, who was the parliamentary under-Secretary of state at the Foreign Office, was charged with gross indecency after being found with a member of the Coldstream Guards in the bushes in St James's Park.

When apprehended, Harvey tried but failed to escape, and attempted to give a false name on arrest. Both men were charged with gross indecency and breach of the park regulations. When tried on 10 December, the indecency charge was dropped and both were fined £5.

Bloomberg has interviewed Philip Cowley, professor of politics at Nottingham University, who said: "I can't think of a comparable case in British politics where a cabinet minister is charged by the police for an offence for which they potentially face jail if convicted.

11.26am:Here is Huhne's resignation letter (pdf).

10.57am:While some have remarked on the DPP's decision to give a press conference about the charges,Sandra Lavillewrites,

Statements live to camera are not as unusual as [some] think. Ken McDonald [Starmer's predecessor] made a statement live to camera on the death of Alexander Litvinkenko.

Sue Hemmings, the CPS lead on terror cases, made a live statement with the then head of counter-terrorism, Peter Clark, over the airline bomb plot, and on a regional level, prosecutors also make live statements.

10.53am:HUHNE HAS RESIGNED.

Here is his statement, which he has just made in person outside his London flat.

The CPS's decision today is deeply regrettable.

I am innocent of these charges and I intend to fight them in the courts and I am confident a jury will agree. To avoid any distraction to my official duties or my trial defence I am standing down as secretary of state for energy and climate change.

I will of course continue to serve my constituents in Eastleigh.

10.51am:A little fromSandra Lavilleon what happens next in the case.

Huhne and Pryce have been summonsed to attend magistrates court on 16 February when the charges will be put to them.

It is likely the case will then be adjourned and the pair will probably be bailed to return at a later date. It is likely that pleas will be taken at a later date – and then there will be a further adjournment to prepare for a trial in a crown court.

The maximum penalty for perverting the course of justice is life, but those found guilty can also be given a fine.

10.48am:Some Lib Dem reaction coming in. Benjamin Ramm, editor of the Liberal, has issued a statement in which he says:

This is a major loss for the Lib Dems in coalition. Perhaps the greatest success for the party in government has been securing the UK pledge to cut carbon emissions in half by 2025 – a move strongly opposed by many in the Conservative parliamentary party. Environmental issues remain a priority for Lib Dem members and activists.

Chris Huhne will fight for his reputation and to restore his role as a frontline politician. He is savvy and highly intelligent, capable of corralling support among the party's grassroots, and potentially destabilising the leadership (see: 'Calamity Clegg').

With Simon Hughes co-opted by the cabinet – despite not being a minister – and left-leaning Tim Farron bound to loyalty by his role as party president, Huhne may yet become a figurehead for the dissenting grassroots.

10.39am:Vicky Pryce has issued the following brief statement via her lawyers:

As the CPS have decided to prosecute it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Obviously I hope for a quick resolution of the case. In the meantime I will be taking a little time off over the next few days to be with my family.

10.30am:
According toPatrick Wintourat Westminster, Lib Dem sources say Ed Davey, the business minister, will be promoted to the department of energy and climate change as secretary of state, with Norman Lamb, the parliamentary aide to Nick Clegg, taking Davey's post.

Huhne, meanwhile, is expected shortly to announce he is resigning from the government, making an statement outside his flat in central London. He had considered whether it was possible to remain in cabinet to fight his innocence in court, but he recognises this is not tenable.

Huhne's departure weakens the climate change lobby, Patrick writes

Since he has been willing to fight the Treasury hard over a range of issues.
If he is found innocent in the court case, something that could take many months, he will have to decide the kind of role he plays inside his party.

An economist and political pugilist, he could take the helm of the Social Liberal Forum, the group that is pushing a more leftist agenda inside the party, but both Huhne and the SLF will think carefully about a figure facing a criminal charge leading a political faction at this stage.

Pryce is a leading economist and has acted as an occasional informal adviser to the business secretary, Vince Cable. She was at one point the chief economist at the Business Department, but now faces the charge of perverting the course of justice.

She will be considering whether it was in her long term family interest to co-operate with the Sunday Times to make the allegation that she had taken points on behalf of her husband.

10.22am:The statement in full from Starmer.

This statement is made by the Crown Prosecution Service in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in the cases of Mr Christopher Huhne and Ms Vasiliki Pryce and to explain the time taken in arriving at these decisions.

A criminal complaint was made to Essex police in May 2011, alleging that Ms Pryce had accepted responsibility for a speeding offence committed by Mr Huhne in 2003. That complaint was investigated by Essex Police and a file was passed to the CPS in late July 2011.

The CPS advised that further investigations should be made, including obtaining certain material from a national newspaper. Those further investigations were made and, in October 2011, an order was made for the newspaper to produce material to the police. The newspaper appealed that order, as it was entitled to do, but subsequently consented to producing the material in question just before the appeal was due to be heard, on 20 January this year.

All the available evidence, including the new material, has now been carefully considered by the CPS and we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce for perverting the course of justice.

The essence of the charges is that between March and May 2003, Mr Huhne, having allegedly committed a speeding offence, falsely informed the investigating authorities that Ms Pryce had been the driver of the vehicle in question, and she falsely accepted that she was the driver.

Accordingly, summonses against both Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce have been obtained from Westminster magistrates' court and those summonses will now be served on them. They are due to appear in court on 16 February this year.

The decision in this case was taken by Mr Rene Barclay, a senior and very experienced prosecutor, in consultation with Sue Hemming, the Head of special crime division and in consultation with me as DPP.

Can I remind all concerned that Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce now stand charged with criminal offences and that they each have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice their trial.

10.18am:Political journalists are gathering outside a venue in Eastbourne, where the Lib Dems have been holding a retreat, hosted by Nick Clegg.

Huhne left the away day yesterday when he learned an announcement on the potential charges was imminent.

No formal statements yet from Huhne, Clegg or Cameron.

10.05am:Huhne will be charged, Starmer confirms.

Starmer: "We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against both Mr Huhne and Miss Pryce for perverting the course of justice."

Both Pryce and Huhne are to appear in court on 16 February. Huhne is now expected to leave the cabinet.

Starmer said:

All the available evidence, including the new material, has now been carefully considered by the CPS and we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce for perverting the course of justice.

"The essence of the charges is that between March and May 2003, Mr Huhne, having allegedly committed a speeding offence, falsely informed the investigating authorities that Ms Pryce had been the driver of the vehicle in question, and she falsely accepted that she was the driver.

Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce now stand charged with criminal offences and that they each have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said or reported that could prejudice their right to a fair trial.

10.03am:Keir Starmer is speaking now.

He says the statement is being made "in the interests of transparency and accountability".

Starmer has become the DPP who gives his decision live on camera. It is part of the Crown Prosecution Service's move to be more open about the decision-making processes lawyers go through to reach their judgment to charge or not to charge.

CPS lawyers had a full file of evidence by the end of August last year. What held up a decision was the legal battle with the Sunday Times over emails held by their political editor Isabel Oakeshott.

The police were granted a production order but appealed the decision through the courts and it was not until two weeks ago that lawyers for the Sunday Times said they were dropping the appeal, and detectives were able to get possession of the emails.

It is understood the police made it clear when they passed their file of evidence to the CPS last August that they recommended charges were brought.

10.00am:Chris Huhne will be charged, sources are briefing political journalists.

9.57am:From Ptrick Wintour's article:

The alleged incident dates back nearly a decade, but only emerged after Huhne admitted an affair with PR adviser Carina Trimingham in 2010, that ended his marriage.

The Sunday Times reported that he had allegedly been caught by a speed camera on 12 March 2003.

He has consistently denied claims that he was the one behind the wheel and that Pryce admitted the offence because he would have faced a ban if he collected any more penalty points.

Huhne is alleged to have been returning from Stansted airport to his home in Clapham, south London, on the day in question, having flown in from Strasbourg, where the European parliament sits.

Images have since emerged of Pryce's driving licence, indicating that she received three points for a speeding offence in the Essex area on 12 March 2003.

However, she is believed to have later said she was actually at an event in London that day.

Essex police started an investigation when it was claimed in a Sunday Times interview with Pryce last May that her ex-husband asked "someone" to take speeding points on his behalf.

9.41am:BREAKING: The BBC is reporting that Vicky Pryce, Huhne's former wife, has said "I understand there will be charges".

9.38am:David Cameronsaid in May, shortly after the allegations first surfaced, that the energy secretary had his "full confidence".

But Nick Clegg said last week that it would be a "very serious issue" if Huhne were charged, stressing: "We as a government want the highest standards of probity to be in place in everything that is done by cabinet members."

If Huhne does resign,Patrick Wintourwrites

"It will mean the loss of one of the party's heavy hitters, prepared to stand his ground in public against the Conservatives.

He has fought a rearguard action in Whitehall to keep green politics at the centre of government thinking at a time when the recession has made climate change a more difficult cause to sell.

Huhne has crossed swords with a succession of Tory cabinet ministers, including the chancellor, George Osborne, the Conservative co-chairman, Lady Warsi, and the home secretary, Theresa May.

Few tears will be shed in parts of Downing Street if he is prosecuted, even though Cameron is temperamentally opposed to reshuffles.

There has been repeated Tory-led speculation that the business minister responsible for employment relations and the Post office, Ed Davey, would be given Huhne's job. Vince Cable, the business secretary and a former Shell economist, has been interested in the energy post in the past."

Here's a greatvideo profile of Huhneabove.

9.20am:Good morning. The energy secretary,Chris Huhne, will learn this morning whether he will face charges over allegations he avoided a speeding penalty.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, will make a televised announcement at 10am on whether Huhne and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, are to be prosecuted.

Huhne has insisted he is innocent of allegations he had persuaded Pryce to accept penalty points for speeding, in an incident in March 2003.

He has indicated, however, that he would resign his cabinet post if charged, while battling to clear his name.

Patrick Wintourwrites todaythat the Prime Minister has been drawing up plans for a cabinet reshuffle should Huhne step down. Before Starmer's announcement is made, the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, will be told, to give the civil service time to finalise contingency plans for a reshuffle, Patrick writes. Last night Cameron was rearranging a regional tour to be able to take swift decisions.

Sandra Laville has more on the background to the police investigationhere.

We'll be following developments and reaction here.

.

Final day of WikiLeaks founder's appeal against extradition to Sweden to face sex crime allegations
•Click here for a summary of today's key events
• Read moreSweden 'followed normal procedure over Assange'
•Click here for coverage of day one

9.26am:Today is the final day of Julian Assange's appeal to the supreme court against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The WikiLeaks founder denies the allegations.

Yesterday Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, put her case to the seven justices that because in Sweden a prosecutor requests an arrest warrant rather than a judge, that made the warrant Sweden issued against Assange invalid. She made a dense legal argument based on close textual analysis of the European arrest warrant agreements, the Extradition Act 2003 which incorporates that into British law, and the 1957 European convention on extradition which preceded it.

Here is a clip of Rose putting her case.

Clare Montgomery, speaking for Sweden, began to put her side yesterday afternoon, taking issue with Rose's claims that the Swedish prosecutor could not be impartial and claiming that the authors of the European arrest warrant agreement had always intended that prosecutors as well as judges would seek warrants in many countries.

Montgomery gave a much less confident performance than Rose, and came under harsher questioning from the justices. But it is unclear at this stage if Rose's arguments can get past the fact that the UK, through the European arrest warrant framework, does have an extradition agreement with Sweden, and has therefore already implicitly agreed to respect the way Sweden issues warrants for extradition.

Here are someclips from Rose and Montgomery's submissions yesterday.

Montgomery will complete her submission today, followed by a reply from Rose. The justices are then likely to take a few weeks to hand down their decision.

The justices hearing the appeal areLord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson.

You canwatch the proceedings live here. The hearing is due to start at 10.30am and go on till 4pm.

Here isa great piece by my colleague Esther Addley giving the background to the case.

And this ismy colleague Robert Booth's report on yesterday's hearing. He will betweeting from the court again today.

Comments have not been switched on on this blog for legal reasons.

10.24am:Julian Assange, his legal team, Sweden's lawyers, and others, are all taking their places in the supreme court chamber now.

10.31am:All rise as the supreme court justices file in to take their seats.

10.40am:Dinah Rose, Julian Assange's QC, starts by reporting on some "homework" that the court had set her yesterday. She says Hansard shows that in the Commons and in the Lords it was made clear that the extradition bill - which became the Extradition Act 2003 - was amended to reflect the concerns of the Commons home affairs select committee that the bill should read "judicial authorities" rather than just "authorities".

As mentioned, Montgomery was given a tougher time yesterday than Rose. Robert Booth notes that Montgomery also got a tougher time from the judges when she acted for Sweden in the high court - but she won that case.

10.48am:Clare Montgomery resumes putting Sweden's case against Assange.

She wants to discuss the legislation and agreements that were replaced by the European arrest warrant (EAW) agreement in 2002.

In the 1957 European convention on extradition public prosecutors were explicitly made part of the "judicial authorities" who could ask for extradition, she says.

The EAW framework used the same French language phrase as the 1957 convention, Montgomery says.

11.06am:Referring to the replacement of the 1985 Schengen treaty's provisions on extradition by the EAW, Montgomery says it is hardly likely that countries that already used public prosecutors in this way should abandon that in a framework decision designed to speed up extradition and make it easier.

The Schengen agreement used the phrase "competent judicial authorities".

She lists countries that include public prosecutors in this definition. But Lord Phillips, the president of the supreme court, points out that some countries specifically separate judicial authorities "and other competent authorities", suggesting that for them prosecutors might not be part of judicial authorities. "There is no consistency," Phillips says.

To remind you, Assange's legal team is saying that a public prosecutor such as Sweden's is not a "judicial authority" in the way the EAW agreement intended, and so cannot issue a valid extradition warrant.

Montgomery is trying to show that public prosecutors have always been seen as part of the relevant "judicial authorities" in some European countries.

11.12am:Phillips asks for a chronology of all the various incarnations of the European extradition agreements, which he says would be "enormously helpful". (I think it would probably be helpful for us too.)

11.23am:Robert Booth tweets:

Montgomery not claiming#Assangewarrant system was "a judge free zone", rather there are underlying court decisions in every such case.

— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth)February 2, 2012

11.24am:Robert Booth adds:

Lord Phillips questioning whether in#Assangecase there was any underlying court decision, as Montgomery says there must be

— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth)February 2, 2012

11.30am:Robert Booth adds:

Montgomery seems confident there was, but this seems to have got#Assangeteam animated

— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth)February 2, 2012

Montgomery's level of textual analysis of legislation rivals Rose's. One reference to "getting" a warrant leads Lord Phillips to ask: "What does 'get' mean?" He thinks Montgomery is reading too much in to it to say it means "go to a court and get".

11.47am:There was never any concern about prosecutors being included in the phrase "judicial authorities" when the EAW agreement was drafted, Montgomery says.

She says it referred to "judicial authorities" and permitted each member state to nominate exactly whom this term covered (ie including prosecutors in some countries). Elsewhere the authors used the word "court" where they wanted to use the word "court", Montgomery says.

How many countries can we identify that have the French tradition, where prosecutors have a judicial role, asks Lord Mance. "Certainly all the Benelux countries … It's a relatively common feature of continental practice," Montgomery says.

Lord Brown suggests that she doesn't need to prove that Sweden needs to have made an underlying court judgment before a prosecutor asks for a warrant. "Even if [there] wasn't, so what? Your case is: 'So what?', isn't it?" he asks.

Montgomery agrees: "My case is: 'So what?'" But she goes on to say that the EAW framework decision does require an underlying court decision on the face of it - after that the prosecutor makes the next move in some countries such as Sweden.

12.05pm:Montgomery discusses parliament's consideration of the EAW agreement in November 2001. "There is nothing in there that suggests any anxiety" about the term judicial authorities including a prosecutor - "not a word", Montgomery says.

The original French draft of the EAW agreement uses the term "judicial decisions", she says.

She attempts to pronounce the Dutch version too, which means the same thing, she says. "Doesn't sound Dutch," Lord Dyson says. Montgomery spells it out.

"Do you know what the German is?" one of the justices asks. "Or Spanish...?"

12.14pm:Robert Booth tweets:

Lord Mance is not sure she's reading the drafting right. Montgomery replies that either way "judicial authority" doesn't have to mean court

— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth)February 2, 2012

"Depends how you read it," says Lord Mance and thereby seems to sum up the whole case#Assange

— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth)February 2, 2012

12.24pm:Rose interrupts to say that Montgomery is quoting from documents her side has not seen.

12.41pm:The assumption that there needs to be an impartial decision to make an arrest warrant "is just wrong", Montgomery says. A partial decision is much more common, she says. She uses the example of a policeman seeking a suspected criminal's arrest.

"So we're wasting our time getting it done by a judge," one of the justices says.

"It's certainly not necessary," says Montgomery.

12.47pm:Has no other national court ever thought about this problem, Mance asks.

Ireland, Cyprus and Italy have all "grappled with this and said it's acceptable under the framework decision", Montgomery says.

1.00pm:Rose and Montgomery disagree over whether "proportionality" needs to be considered in this case, Montgomery says. She thinks it doesn't; Rose thinks it does.

1.02pm:The court adjourns for lunch.

1.34pm:Here is a summary of today's events so far.

• Clare Montgomery, QC for Sweden, has been attempting to prove that the phrase "judicial authorities" in the European arrest warrant (EAW) framework agreement signed up to by the UK, Sweden, and the rest of the EU, was always meant to include prosecutors as well as judges in some countries.

• This matters because yesterday Dinah Rose, Julian Assange's QC, argued that it only encompassed judges, and therefore Sweden's system, where a prosecutor asks for a warrant for extradition, was invalid.

• Montgomery said that in Sweden's case there were underlying court decisions before a prosecutor asked for someone's extradition.She argued that it was relatively common in the EU for a prosecutor to play the role that person does in Sweden. And she said that the assumption that the person asking for an extradition warrant had to be impartial - as Rose maintained yesterday - was "just wrong".

• The hearing continues this afternoon.Once Montgomery has finished, Rose gets the chance to reply. The justices are not expected to hand down their verdict for weeks.

2.01pm:Robert Booth has summed up some of this morning's discussion:

Montgomery set out her case that public prosecutors were allowed to request extradition through European arrest warrants as a "judicial authority".

She mounted a detailed examination of the drafting of the European extradition law and its requirement of a "authorite judiciaire" authority to issue arrest warrants.

Montgomery attacked "all this rhetoric" by Assange's legal team "that suggests our construction makes the issuing of an arrest warrant a judge-free zone because in each case there will be an underlying court decision".

She said 11 European states have decreed that prosecutors would issue arrest warrants and that nine said they would only use them, adding that prosecutors are more likely to take into account whether a European arrest warrant is proportional than a court would do.

Montgomery said it was clear that different countries defined authorities capable of requesting arrest warrants differently. In Finland it includes the Ministry of Justice, in Denmark "public prosecution authorities", in Germany "competent judicial authorities" and in Sweden the "prosecutor general or any other prosecutor".

"There is no absolute consistency," said Lord Philips.

2.03pm:The court hearing has resumed with Clare Montgomery continuing to outline Sweden's arguments that Julian Assange should be extradited.

2.09pm:When the extradition bill was going through parliament, opposition MPs and peers said they believed the EAW framework decision allowed a public prosecutor who was not independent to make an extradition request - and despite that the government refused to redraft the bill, Montgomery says. She is implying that the government was happy with that, that that was what the government wanted the bill - now the Extradition Act 2003 - to say.

2.22pm:Montgomery says a minister (she does not name him) told MPs at the time: we expect the European arrest warrant to be issued in future by exactly the same authorities that issued extradition requests before.

2.33pm:Lord Kerr points out that the same minister who said he saw no reason for the government to specify an independent judge, rather than a non-independent public prosecutor, should issue warrants, made that exact case a year before to a different Commons committee. "My lord, I hold no brief for the minister," says Montgomery.

In the Lords, the bill faced opposition on the same point. Lord Bassam, the minister in the Lords, said the government was going to "resist" this. "We expect incoming EU extradition requests to come from exactly the same sources and personnel as is the current position," Bassam said, according to Montgomery.

Lord Brown is getting quite impatient as the justices are directed from document to document by Montgomery.

Bassam's comments to the Lords refer to "judges and magistrates" but in the next paragraph the minister spoke more widely about "judicial authorities".

"Anyone listening to this would be left with the impression that it was going to be some sort of judge," says Phillips.

Montgomery says the language is asserting a clear government policy that there will be no change to the people who will request extradition warrants.

There's nothing here that would allow … the obligation under the TEU [Treaty on European Union] to give effect to the framework decision to be violated, because overriding all parliamentary scrutiny is the obligation on the United Kingdom to give effect to the framework decision.

2.36pm:Montgomery is essentially saying that even though government ministers sound as if they back a law that only allows judges or magistrates to issue extradition warrants, in actual fact the law itself, the Extradition Act 2003, allows public prosecutors to play that role too.

2.37pm:Montgomery says:

It is crystal clear that the government did not accept that it was under any obligation to change the characteristics of the persons from whom they were at that time prepared to receive warrants, and those people included prosecutors.

2.44pm:Lord Brown seems quite sceptical about Montgomery's main point. He says that they have already agreed that the phrase "judicial authorities" can have different meanings in different documents, implying that ministers may not have meant to include public prosecutors under that phrase in the Extradition Act 2003. Montgomery says that the point of the Extradition Act was to give effect to the EAW framework, so it follows that the phrase would mean the same in both.

2.53pm:Parliament may not have understood what it was doing, Montgomery says, but that's no basis to "abandon" the extradition agreement. If this court finds for Assange, it would seriously impede the very scheme that was trying to increase speed and ease of transfer, Montgomery says, and that would cause serious difficulties for eight EU countries.

So could just anyone request a warrant, asks Lord Mance. No, they have to have a specific role in the judicial system, Montgomery says. Even police or Ministry of Justice, in the shape of the probation service, could come under the heading "judicial authority", under the right circumstances, Montgomery says.

3.12pm:Montgomery says that consistently, before and since the EAW framework decision took effect, the terms "judicial decision" and "judicial authority" have been applied to the activities of prosecutors exercising prosecutorial adjudicative functions in connection with the collection of evidence, supervision of offenders and other coercive orders.

3.29pm:Extradition "has always been a partial act", says Montgomery - the person asking for extradition does not need to be independent.

Even if she is wrong about proportionality, she says, that would still not mean someone who was impartial making the decision.

3.40pm:My colleagueRobert Booth sends this quote from Clare Montgomery:

We submit [judicial authority] has an established, and plainly requires, a wide meaning. It requires that because it serves the international purpose of being capable of allowing a system that does not have harmonious practices and procedures.

3.42pm:Dinah Rose, for Assange, stands to begin her reply.

3.43pm:She is allowed an hour to reply.

3.47pm:Rose complains that Montgomery is criticising the handling of the case by the divisional court, which heard the last stage of this case, but has not warned Rose about this. Rose defends the way the divisional court dealt with the case.

Rose says Montgomery is accusing her of "reading in" to the word judicial the notion of independence and impartiality. She says this shows Montgomery has departed from "legal principle".

3.53pm:Rose criticises Montgomery for claiming that "judicial authority" can have two different meanings within the EAW framework decision - in issuing a warrant, and in executing it. "We submit that is on the face of this instrument [the EAW document] an untenable submission and an untenable interpretation," Rose says.

If the issuing authority has to be a judge, so does the executing authority, Rose says.

Lord Phillips says if you remove the word "judicial" then the issuing and executing authorities would not seem to be the same. Rose says, in effect, that by adding the word judicial it becomes a specific term.

"You may be right, but it's pretty obvious from the list we've got that a lot of countries didn't see it that way," says Lord Brown.

3.59pm:A fundamental legal principle has been adopted in the Extradition Act, Rose says. The meaning of the phrase "judicial authority" has been ruled on many times by the European court of human rights, she says. They did not specifically define it as having a different meaning to its usual legal meaning - that it refers to independent judges.

4.08pm:Rose says Montgomery's definition of judicial authority to include people "appertaining to the legal process" is so wide practically anyone could come under its umbrella. She even says a Ministry of Justice could be a judicial authority, Rose points out. But the European court of human rights has gone for a simple approach highlighting independence, she says.

It is absolutely clear from the EAW framework decision that government departments were not to be included as judicial authorities, Rose says. "This was a new scheme replacing the old scheme of state to state extradition requests," she points out.

4.15pm:Rose says Montgomery is saying each country should be entitled to decide for itself what constitutes a judicial authority. Rose thinks that is wrong, but says even if it was right, the Swedish prosecutor is not regarded as part of the Swedish judicial system.

Lady Hale says she is worried Rose is eliding the terms "judiciary" and "judicial systems".

Rose says Montgomery asked why countries would put more safeguards in place than they had themselves. Rose says that is understandable; the agreement was meant to make extradition easier, so it makes sense that countries would put a high bar in there for those issuing the arrest warrants - a requirement for them to be independent.

4.23pm:This new extradition regime was to apply across the board to all EU countries, leading to requirements for new safeguards to reassure the public, Rose says. One of the requirements was the independence of those asking for a warrant, she says.

4.38pm:Rose turns to Montgomery's claim that there has to be an underlying court decision before a prosecutor calls for an extradition warrant. "In our submission that is simply wrong," says Rose. She says Montgomery is in this instance using the words "judicial decision" to refer to a judge - "the very thing that would defeat her case".

4.51pm:Rose says it is "simply wrong" to suggest a judge could ignore proportionality, as Montgomery has asserted.

Rose is given 10 minutes more to wrap up.

4.56pm:Rose says: "There were times today that I felt concerned for the bill of rights", when Montgomery suggested the minister did not know what he was talking about when he discussed the extradition bill.

The bill was amended to include the word "judicial", she says. "That course of events shows that it was indeed understood by everybody that the word judicial was intended as a safeguard, that it would provide an independent check on the issue of a warrant."

4.56pm:Lord Phillips says: "The court is grateful to counsel for their submissions and will reserve its judgment."

And the justices file out. The hearing is over.

5.19pm:Here is asummary of key events:

• The supreme court has heard two days of dense legal argument relating to Sweden's attempts to extradite Julian Assange to face accusations of rape and sexual assault, which he denies.The justices will now consider their verdict, which will be handed down within weeks.

•The WikiLeaks founder's appeal revolves around whether a prosecutor has the right to request an extradition - as Sweden's has - under the terms of the European arrest warrant (EAW) framework decision and the Extradition Act 2003 that incorporates it into British law.

• For Assange, Dinah Rose QC argued that the EAW's use of the term "judicial authorities" was meant to mean a judge or magistrate, and not a prosecutor, who is not independent.

• For Sweden, Clare Montgomery QC argued that the term "judicial authorities" was always meant to encompass prosecutors in some EU countries, and there was no requirement for the figure issuing the warrant to be independent.

• The lawyers clashed on the interpretation of many of the same sources, including the 1957 European convention on extradition and the statements ministers gave to MPs and peers during the passage of the extradition bill.Both QCs came under detailed questioning from the justices, and it was unclear which way the justices will lean. However, before the two-day hearing began legal experts expected the supreme court to back Sweden.

Here is the outline of Sweden's case against Assange(pdf), which the Crown Prosecution Service said I could not post until the end of the day.