"For too long the Chancellor has been setting his own tests and then taking the credit for having passed. He should admit he has made a mistake this time."Economists said the Chancellor's move came against a background of growing concern among the banks that lend him money that the public finances are running out of control.Phil Shaw, chief UK economist at Investec, said: "Today's move provides the Chancellor with a 'get out of jail free' card for now."But it does nothing to address what appears to be a sticky fiscal position in the next economic cycle. He will have to bite the bullet and tighten fiscal policy to shore up the public finances."Jonathan Loynes, the chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said: "We think taxes will be raised by £10bn per annum in next year's Budget."Meanwhile, Mr Brown announced he was delaying his decision on spending over the next three years by a year to 2007. Instead, next year he will publish plans outlining pressures on public spending from the ageing population, infrastructure investment needs and the competitive challenge from China and India.Ian McCafferty, the Confederation of British Industry's chief economic adviser, said: "By delaying the view the Chancellor seems to be denying his Government the opportunity to re-examine the options for spending restraint in 2007. Without such restraint further - potentially damaging - tax increases will be hard to avoid."In a decision believed to have been agreed in consultation with Mr Blair, the Chancellor will call on Whitehall departments to stick to existing expenditure plans up to the end of financial year 2007-8.. A 15-year-old today won a landmark legal victory against child curfew zones used to tackle anti-social behaviour.

The teenager, from the London borough of Richmond - referred to as "W" for legal reasons - was granted a declaration that the police have no power to use force to remove young people to their homes under the "anti-yob" legislation. Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at the High Court in London, said: "If Parliament considered that such a power was needed, it should have said so, and identified the circumstances in which it intended the power to be exercised." In a statement after the ruling, "W" said: "Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong. Alex Gask, Liberty's legal officer acting for W, said: "This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause." Under the curfew legislation, any unaccompanied child under 16 who ventured into a curfew zone when the ban was in force - usually after 9pm - was liable to arrest and forced escort home, whether or not they were suspected of bad behaviour. W's lawyers argued that, in a democracy, only those suspected of wrongdoing should be subject to sanctions such as curfews and police arrest. "This judgment does affect the police's ability to use their power to take children home. "We believe that the police should have reasonable force to take children home.

"Otherwise the police could do nothing if a child refused to be taken home. We will be appealing to the Court of Appeal." She added: "These powers provide the police with a powerful tool to tackle intimidation and anti-social behaviour by groups of people. "Whilst not limited to young people, 'teenagers hanging around' is a big cause of concern to the public as cited in the British Crime Survey. "Young people themselves are also most likely to mention 'teenagers hanging around' as the biggest problem in their area." The dispersal powers were being used "creatively" across the country to tackle problems including underage drinking, joyriding, noise nuisance, throwing fireworks, and the harassment and intimidation of residents, she said. "A young person may have a legitimate reason for being out at night unsupervised. "This is a discretionary power, it is not a curfew preventing all children from being out in the evening," she went on.. MPs on the parliamentary committee which oversees Britain's intelligence and security services are to investigate MI5 failures over the London bombings.