Datasets:

Nikhitha2310

/

preprocessed_summaries

like 0

Faith schools citizenship warningSchools must improve the quality of citizenship lessons - or social cohesion and democracy will suffer, says the education watchdog.Independent faith schools were singled out by Ofsted chief, David Bell, for not doing enough to promote the "wider tenets of British society". Mr Bell said Muslim, Jewish and Evangelical Christian schools must be "intolerant of intolerance". Diversity "certainly must not mean segregated or separate", he said. Mr Bell's speech called for a much greater effort in all types of schools to teach citizenship - with an accompanying survey showing that young people knew little about politics and had no enthusiasm to find out more.Badly-taught citizenship lessons have previously been criticised by Mr Bell, and in a speech to the Hansard Society, he warned that it was failing to pass on an understanding of democracy, public service and shared values. He highlighted his particular concern for citizenship in the growing number of independent faith schools - which he said included about 100 Muslim, 100 Evangelical Christian and 50 Jewish schools.Mr Bell expressed concern about schools which did not teach children enough about a "common heritage" and needed to do more to promote principles of mutual tolerance and social inclusion. "I worry that many young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society," said Mr Bell. The Ofsted chief said his forthcoming annual report would make particular reference to Muslim schools. "Many must adapt their curriculum to ensure that it provides pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England and helps them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony." Mr Bell said such questions of religion and cultural identity were "tricky issues". But he argued that "we must not allow our recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation". "I would go further and say that an awareness of our common heritage as British citizens, equal under the law, should enable us to assert with confidence that we are intolerant of intolerance, illiberalism and attitudes and values that demean the place of certain sections of our community, be they women or people living in non-traditional relationships," said Mr Bell.

Mr Bell said Muslim, Jewish and Evangelical Christian schools must be "intolerant of intolerance"."I worry that many young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society," said Mr Bell.He highlighted his particular concern for citizenship in the growing number of independent faith schools - which he said included about 100 Muslim, 100 Evangelical Christian and 50 Jewish schools.Mr Bell said such questions of religion and cultural identity were "tricky issues".Mr Bell expressed concern about schools which did not teach children enough about a "common heritage" and needed to do more to promote principles of mutual tolerance and social inclusion.Independent faith schools were singled out by Ofsted chief, David Bell, for not doing enough to promote the "wider tenets of British society".

Leaders meet over Turkish EU bidTony Blair has met Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to talk about Turkey entering the EU.The Downing Street talks covered a range of other topics ahead of an EU summit in Brussels later in the week. Mr Blair is an enthusiastic proponent of talks to bring Turkey within the recently-expanded EU. Italy and Germany also favour an early start to talks, but there is scepticism in France and elsewhere. Some are worried that Turkey's large and rapidly growing population and low average income might make integration into the EU difficult.Some are concerned that a change of government could lead to Turkey reneging on key human rights reforms it has recently enacted. And many in France would prefer Turkey to admit that World War I-era killing of Armenians constituted genocide. There are also issues in France and the Netherlands over the possible problems of integrating the first major Muslim nation into the EU. But Mr Blair and the Labour government have been the staunchest backers of Turkish accession, provided it sticks with human rights and economic reform. Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "The prime minister has regular meetings with both of them and particularly in advance of European Councils. "The key issue at this week's council will be that of Turkey, but they will also discuss a range of other matters."

Mr Blair is an enthusiastic proponent of talks to bring Turkey within the recently-expanded EU.Tony Blair has met Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to talk about Turkey entering the EU."The key issue at this week's council will be that of Turkey, but they will also discuss a range of other matters."Some are concerned that a change of government could lead to Turkey reneging on key human rights reforms it has recently enacted.There are also issues in France and the Netherlands over the possible problems of integrating the first major Muslim nation into the EU.

Guantanamo pair's passport banThe government has written to two of the British men freed from Guantanamo Bay telling them they will not be allowed passports.A letter sent to Martin Mubanga said his British passport would not be issued in the light of evidence gathered against him by the US. This suggested he was likely to take part in action against UK or allied targets if he left Britain, it said. An identical letter has been sent to Feroz Abbasi, the men's solicitor says.It is not known whether the other two men released from the Cuba detention camp in January - Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg - have also received letters. The government is implementing the rarely used Royal Prerogative in order to withdraw the men's passports. It is only the 13th time the power has been used since 1947 - the last time was in 1976. The letter, from the Home Office, says: "I am writing to inform you that on the basis of the information which has come to light during your detention by the United States, the home secretary considered that there are strong grounds for believing that, on leaving the United Kingdom, you would take part in activities against the United Kingdom, or allied targets."The Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases.The Liberal Democrats say they suspect the move is part of a package of security measures agreed with the US in order for the men to be allowed home from Guantanamo Bay.Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten also demanded assurances that the evidence against the men was not gained under torture. He added: "The power should only be used in absolute extreme circumstances and I find it hard to believe that these conditions have been met this time." He said the move also raised complex questions about the use of the Royal Prerogative. The Liberal Democrats have promised to raise the issue in Parliament.Amnesty International UK also questioned whether the decisions had been based on "torture evidence" obtained at Guantanamo Bay. "Furthermore, we believe there should be an investigation into the role played by the UK in the detention of UK residents and nationals and possibly many others at Guantanamo Bay," said director Kate Allen. The men's solicitor, Louise Christian, has raised questions about whether the evidence was gathered through torture. But the Pentagon told BBC News US policy "condemns and prohibits" torture and said there was no evidence that any British detainee was tortured or abused. Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, was taken to Guantanamo Bay after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Mr Mubanga, 29, from north London, was originally detained in Zambia.

The men's solicitor, Louise Christian, has raised questions about whether the evidence was gathered through torture.But the Pentagon told BBC News US policy "condemns and prohibits" torture and said there was no evidence that any British detainee was tortured or abused.The Liberal Democrats say they suspect the move is part of a package of security measures agreed with the US in order for the men to be allowed home from Guantanamo Bay.Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten also demanded assurances that the evidence against the men was not gained under torture.Amnesty International UK also questioned whether the decisions had been based on "torture evidence" obtained at Guantanamo Bay.The government has written to two of the British men freed from Guantanamo Bay telling them they will not be allowed passports.Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, was taken to Guantanamo Bay after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001.A letter sent to Martin Mubanga said his British passport would not be issued in the light of evidence gathered against him by the US.

Terror powers expose 'tyranny'The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial.Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties. But thriller writer Frederick Forsyth tells BBC News of his personal response to the move.There is a mortal danger aimed at the heart of Britain. Or so says Home Secretary Charles Clarke. My reaction? So what? It is not that I am cynical or just do not care. I care about this country very much.But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us. My point is, the British have always coped without becoming a dictatorship. We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat. But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny.I was born on 25 August, 1938. The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler. A week after my first birthday, the threat had become reality. We were at war. My father wore a uniform for five years. After 1945 we yearned for peace at last. But in 1946 Winston Churchill told us - from the Baltic to the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe. Behind the Iron Curtain, another genocidal psychopath, another threat. Josef Stalin triggered the Cold War, with the Berlin blockade in 1948. My whole generation was blighted by it.We were threatened by the nuclear holocaust, the nuclear wind, the nuclear winter. We built shelters that would have sheltered nothing. We spent our treasure on weapons instead of hospitals. We took silly precautions. Some fought it; some marched futilely against it. Some pretended it was not there. The Cold War lasted 43 years, but we remained a parliamentary democracy. By the early seventies it was terrorism as well. Al Fatah, Black September, Red Brigades, but most of all for us the IRA and the INLA. Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny. That was why the tyrants lost. Civil rights were infringed as little as humanly possible. Evidence had to be taken in secret to protect covert sources; yes , and one judge, no-jury courts had to be instituted when juries were terrorised. Informants had to be given immunity from their own crimes to win the bigger battle. But habeas corpus did not die; right of appeal was not abolished. Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism. Its leaders want to destroy our society; so did the IRA.It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA. It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA. It is extremely hard to penetrate with our agents; so was the IRA. The prime movers are not easy to bring to trial; neither were the IRA. But we did. And without becoming a tyranny. Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism. The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister. To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny. But a tyranny is based on the citizen's terror. This is not victory; this is defeat before a shot is fired.An interesting article - its good to see widening participation in the debate - but I suggest we move one step further. Our own bombs and bullets will can only shatter peace, because invading foreign nations, imprisoning the innocent and 'hunting' in the 'shadows' cannot destroy an evil of the mind, and hatred within the heart. Rather than focusing upon effect, we should consider the cause, because terrorism does not begin with bombs. Why not try a foreign policy of compassion, it can only enhance our democracy, and share our freedom.I agree with Frederick Forsyth. We really can't deal with terrorism by turning Britain into a fascist state. What we really need is more honesty from our security services and our politicians. If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any. Our security services, behave like the detective who having decided that a certain person is guilty, rakes over all kinds of obscure and flimsy evidence to try and prove it, while the real villain gets away. Remember there were no WMD in Iraq. Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist.In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out. Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc. (apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?). When ID cards become mandatory, the data collected will not be protected by the Data Protection Act, and will be readily available to people like GCHQ, with no control by the person whose ID is being checked.The threat now is new. You cannot compare the threats of past years with now. Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001. The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology. A Kilo of Semtex will flatten a building, a Kilo of plutonium will flatten a city. You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible. I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too.The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no. However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far.As somebody of Chinese origin, I can say that this country used to be a good place to migrate and start a new life. Whilst life wasn't perfect, we could make better for ourselves. Now we are riddled with red tape and be told what we can or cannot do. We have to be politically-correct and we are not allowed to have beliefs or opinions. We have a Prime Minister who spends too much time meddling in US politics and affairs which have little to do with the lives of British Citizens at home or abroad. Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions. Let's hope the BBC doesn't get gagged for letting people express their views. The people have the right to know and the BBC's role is to Inform, Educate and Entertain...I agree. Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties. In the end, the very thing we seek to protect is what we are giving up in the name of safety from this invisible enemy. The terrorists have already won.I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth. Yes we have to defend ourselves against terrorism but existing laws seem to be more than adequate. The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous. The evidence of any real terrorist capability in the UK is scant. Ricin, for example, is a dangerous poison but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear.If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not. We will have lost the precious freedom which Bush and Blair constantly tells us we have and that they seek to bring to others.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court. That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best".When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date.Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully. The government is seeking to introduce a police state. The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years. We are sleep-walking into this. Wake up!An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance. These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence. 2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it. Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses. It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked. We won't have much of a society left to debate !He's correct in most of what he says. Mind you he does seem to have forgotten that disgraceful internment policy in Northern Ireland which probably caused many idealistic if misguided young Catholics to join the IRA. Administrative detention of Muslims could have a similar effect now.Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack.I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on. There is no doubt that there are terrorist organisations who would like to do harm to the U.K. but it is very doubtful whether al-Qaeda is a global organisation co-ordinating this. The rise of surveillance cameras, ID cards, the plan to charge for road use by tracking every vehicle at all times, this is the stuff of nightmares. Add to this this new legislation which effectively means that the protection of the law will be removed from anyone at the whim of the Home Secretary, and I genuinely wonder what sort of world my two children will inherit. Where will this end. As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs.Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise. Thank you.Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides. He also forgets basic Human Rights were suspended then as now. Experienced Judges sat over some of the greatest miscarriages of justice during those times. For very little return and maximum alienation. These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same.Forsyth is wrong. The nature of the current threat is new. It is no longer to our armed forces, as the Soviet threat in the Eastern bloc was. It is to you and I. The terrorist aim to kill indiscriminately. The best comparison is therefore the blitz, 1941. At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public. We must not forget we are at war.I'd say that that the likelihood of an attack by a sleeper cell of fundamentalist lunatics against a major UK target is a "When" not an "If" probability. I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK. People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government. The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government. I believe what this government is doing, is, at the very least, highly questionable and at worst, sinister. At what point will they feel they have enough control over every single person in the British Isles; when we are all tagged and monitored constantly? Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing. It should be of great concern to everyone.I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him. I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one. I think that the attack on Iraq made the international situation worse and may have provoked further acts of terrorism.How true. There are extremely worrying parallels between Britain now and Germany during the 30's. I never thought it would be so easy to take over a country from within.Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed. As a result modern day terrorists are willing to do things their predecessors did not. That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort. But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently. Let us hope not.Frederic Forsythe's comments seem to me to be a well-thought-out analysis of why we (human society as a whole, and Britain in particular) should resist the temptation to over-protect through fear. It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest.I am reminded of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. "A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither."The government are faced with an incredibly difficult task, and have made a policy to deal with it. It's all very well criticising that policy, but if Mr Forsythe can't draw on his years of experience to offer an alternative, I say 'So what?' to his opinions.Frederick Forsyth's rhetoric is absurd and his conclusions laughable. He distorts reality to serve his own prejudice against New Labour. This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights. It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance.I rarely find myself agreeing with My Forsyth, but in this instance I think he is correct. The rule of law must prevail, civil liberties are worth defending. If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next?I agree absolutely. By introducing fascist type laws we loose the moral high ground in our fight against terror. Our democratic system is not perfect, but as Churchill points out it is "better than all the others that have been tried". Terrorist attacks will take place but for many reasons we should take that personal risk in return for personal freedom.I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here. The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose. Totalitarianism always requires an outside threat, justifying a range of extraordinary powers leaders want. The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation.Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people. The IRA wanted to limit the death toll of their attacks so as to maintain support among the republican movement.Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views. I do not believe the government's plans are justified. There is over reaction to and the negative influence of the US President's interpretation of democracy and freedom. He uses the same arguments that were current before the WWII, the Wars to "liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to come. We are leaving a poor inheritance for the future generations.Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs. The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests. Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.'Thomas Hobbes would be smiling in his grave at Labour's propositions. Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian. Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests. But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians. Simply put, he argued that in favour of the ultimate liberty - the liberty to live - man should be prepared to surrender all other liberties to a supreme sovereign, as protection against his fellow, barbaric, man. Hobbes has been roundly condemned by posterity, and rightly so. I hope New Labour suffers the same treatment.I agree with Mr Forsyth's views. The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy. They must not be allowed to get away with it.Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny. Has he forgotten about shoot to kill, torture, internment without trial, collusion with loyalist death squads etc?My background is somewhat similar to Freddie's so I am persuaded to agree with many of his sentiments. We can have no moral justification for imposing our system of government on anyone while we are systematically depriving our own citizens of basic individual and collective freedoms.Whilst the principle of keeping potential terrorists under house arrest might seem superficially attractive, it is, unfortunately, also the first step towards totalitarianism. Who is to decide whom is a suspect? Why should we believe them? Who can have faith in the honesty, integrity, and competence of our intelligence services and politicians in light of the events of recent years? What is to stop false denunciations? What of those falsely accused who will lose their careers? Who will support their families? Will their children still go to school? It smacks to me of the methods of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ceausescu's Romania - the list goes on. It looks as if a new dark age is coming.I see that opinion on Mr Forsyth's remarks are divided. The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of. But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power. After all, today you may be scared of the same people as those in power but someday those in power may be scared of you! And that day, you'll be the one imprisoned without the chance of justice. Our laws are such that you cannot just be imprisoned at the whim of our police forces, you have to be shown to be deserving of it. If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting.I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one. We, as a nation are in grave danger of being duped by pro US propaganda, which of course also means we'll inherit most, if not all of their total paranoia, and allow our governments, of any political persuasion incidentally, to gradually, and insidiously, impose a police state by well tried & tested back door methods. I grieve for the future of my children, it's no wonder they're adamant they don't ever want any of their own.This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial. This puts it on a par with the government of Burma.Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/I agree with Mr Forsyth. Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear. The facts turned out to be very different. If individuals are treated in the same distorted way, then we've done ourselves more damage than any terrorist organisation could with bombs. We become animals too.I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat". However it appears that he has misunderstood the term "Islamic fundamentalism". It should be pointed out that a Muslim who adheres to the true fundamentals of the Qur'aan and the teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad is an Islamic Fundamentalist. This person does not commit suicide in any shape or form, nor does she/he kill innocent women, men and children. This person is self-reflective and constantly tries to better her/his actions by being good to others. The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam. They have arrived at their own interpretations and assumptions with regards their actions. On top of that, they claim to be following Islam in its true form!I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British.Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on. During the IRA bombings there were massive explosions in Canary Wharf, to the right of where I write this, and also to the left in the City of London. Notwithstanding these and the attempted and nearly successful assassination attempts on Prime Minister Thatcher in Brighton and on later occupants of 10 Downing Street, there was no retaliatory blitz on Belfast or Dublin as there has been on Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when England was in true peril in 1940 apart from some detentions there were no wholesale derogation of habeas corpus and the like. We have to see off these latest attempts on our liberties including ID cards, which Winston Churchill decided had to go since, he said, the average Bobby on the beat could not be relied on to not be tempted to take undue advantage against the citizen going about their lawful activities (incidentally I can still remember my old ID card number). Hence it is clear that the far too great police state powers set for the statute books have to be resisted and neutered.What can I add to Mr. Forsyth's eloquently put arguments... except applause! Well done that man for standing up and being counted in the "war against tyranny".

Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat".The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam.Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed.The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation.The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government.Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/ I agree with Mr Forsyth.The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth.Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.'I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here.An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance.The threat now is new.I agree with Frederick Forsyth.As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs.I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order.Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions.The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial.If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not.People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair.I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too.We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat.I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth.Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people.Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc.In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out.Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise.I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK.I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court.It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest.The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government.This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial.To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny.2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it.The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology.What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear.The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of.I agree with Mr Forsyth's views.I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British.The nature of the current threat is new.But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us.Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views.But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently.Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny.Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on.)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack.It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked.Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001.But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny.I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one.I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him.These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same.Forsyth is wrong.If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next?That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort.The government is seeking to introduce a police state.That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best".Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides.Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests.Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear.These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence.Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully.Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties.The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler.Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs.The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy.I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one.But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power.The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose.Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism.I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on.It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance.This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights.The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no.The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister.Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism.At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public.The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years.If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting.Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses.The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous.You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible.However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far.It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA.This puts it on a par with the government of Burma.Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny.The terrorists have already won.Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian.(apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?).Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?And without becoming a tyranny.When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date.But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians.It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA.Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist.You cannot compare the threats of past years with now.Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing.I agree.If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any.Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties.

Gurkhas to help tsunami victimsBritain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.The deployment would involve troops from the 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles, based in Brunei. Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province. Downing St said a similar offer might be made to the Sri Lankan government.However a spokesman pointed out that there were particular logistical difficulties in Indonesia which the Gurkhas might be able to help with. The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters. "This is in addition to the ships and aircraft we have already committed to the relief operation in the Indian Ocean."Indonesia was by far the country worst affected by the tsunami, with 94,000 of the 140,000 confirmed deaths so far. International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh. "We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said. "We've also had RAF aircraft flying in equipment which the UN desperately need in order to set up a truly effective relief operation on the ground in Aceh province as well." The offer comes as the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrives in Indonesia for a special summit meeting on the disaster.

Britain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province.The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters."We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said.International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh.

Cabinet anger at Brown cash raidMinisters are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Gordon Brown reallocated £512m from central to local government budgets in his pre-Budget report on Thursday. Mr Raynsford said he had held some "pretty frank discussions" with fellow ministers over the plans. But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities. And he confirmed rows over the issue with ministerial colleagues. "Obviously we had some pretty frank discussions about this," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One. But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments". Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added. Mr Raynsford dismissed a suggestion the move was designed to keep council taxes down ahead of an expected general election."This is a response to the concerns that have been voiced by local government about the pressures they face." Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes. These would raise the age from which retiring workers could claim their pensions and limit how much they received if they retired early. He insisted the changes were "very modest" and designed to tackle the problem of workers retiring "very early". But general secretary of the public services union Unison Dave Prentis criticised the plans. "If you want world class public services you don't get that by hitting people as they approach retirement."

But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities.Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes.Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments".

Blair looks to election campaignTony Blair's big speech will be looked back on as the performance that kicked off the election campaign.That poll may still be about 16 weeks away, but there can be little doubt left that the campaign is now in full swing. The prime minister used his speech to a selected audience in the south east to set out his broad brush election manifesto. There was a detailed account of the government's past record, with a major emphasis on the economy and public services. There was an attempt to draw the line under the gossip surrounding his rift with Chancellor Gordon Brown. And there was an insistence on the importance of the party continuing to operate as unremittingly "New" Labour - although that may continue to irritate his chancellor.There was little in terms of concrete proposals or what might form manifesto pledges, although the prime minister talked about a "New Labour manifesto that will be aimed at all sections of society". His was more a speech designed to remind people, and some in his own party, precisely what New Labour stood for, and to leave them in no doubt there would not be any shrinking away from that approach. And, for some, that means showing that New Labour actually does stand for something - that it is, as he said, more than "an electoral device".To that end he set out a broad programme aimed to appeal to both middle England voters who switched to the party in 1997 and stuck with it, possibly through some gritted teeth, in 2001, and to more traditional lower income old Labour supporters. In a key section, he declared: "In our third term we can achieve an unprecedented widening of opportunity and prosperity. "For the first time ever a whole generation growing up with unbroken economic stability. Every family - not just the fortunate few - knowing their children will have an inheritance at adulthood. "Every pupil in every secondary school guaranteed a place in university or a quality apprenticeship. Every adult - including those who missed out at school - able to get the skills then need to advance. "Home ownership extended to its highest ever level and to families who have never before been able to afford it. "The highest ever level of employment with everyone in work guaranteed a decent wage and decent conditions".Under what is to be the general election slogan "Britain is working", the prime minister time and again insisted the future direction would be unremittingly New Labour. That might get under the skin of Mr Brown, but he also heaped praise on him as the most successful post-war chancellor Britain has had. Probably the greatest ideological divide between the two men, in so far as there is one, is about the degree of private finance allowed into the public services.An unremittingly "New" Labour manifesto, as the prime minister is happy to make plain, will stress the importance of that - the belief patients and parents, for example, want a choice of good services before they start worrying about who has provided them. The chancellor is said to be far more sceptical about private finance, although there is no suggestion he opposes it in principle. With an election looming the next big speech from Gordon Brown will be closely examined for any signs of divisions and, in particular, the use of that little three letter word. But for now, all eyes have been focused on the next general election. And for many in Westminster, Mr Blair's performance has only succeeded in hardening the belief that will be on 5 May.

There was little in terms of concrete proposals or what might form manifesto pledges, although the prime minister talked about a "New Labour manifesto that will be aimed at all sections of society".And there was an insistence on the importance of the party continuing to operate as unremittingly "New" Labour - although that may continue to irritate his chancellor.Under what is to be the general election slogan "Britain is working", the prime minister time and again insisted the future direction would be unremittingly New Labour.His was more a speech designed to remind people, and some in his own party, precisely what New Labour stood for, and to leave them in no doubt there would not be any shrinking away from that approach.An unremittingly "New" Labour manifesto, as the prime minister is happy to make plain, will stress the importance of that - the belief patients and parents, for example, want a choice of good services before they start worrying about who has provided them.The prime minister used his speech to a selected audience in the south east to set out his broad brush election manifesto.With an election looming the next big speech from Gordon Brown will be closely examined for any signs of divisions and, in particular, the use of that little three letter word."Home ownership extended to its highest ever level and to families who have never before been able to afford it.Tony Blair's big speech will be looked back on as the performance that kicked off the election campaign."Every pupil in every secondary school guaranteed a place in university or a quality apprenticeship.

Tory backing for ID cardsThe Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats.They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration."Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."

If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Hague 'given up' his PM ambitionFormer Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling. Mr Hague, who stepped down after his party's 2001 election defeat, does not rule out a return to the front bench. He also told the paper he hopes to remain MP for Richmond, North Yorks, and start a family with wife Ffion. Mr Hague, who recently had published the biography of William Pitt the Younger, also said he wanted to continue writing books and speech-writing.He told the newspaper: "I don't know whether I will ever go back on to the front, but don't rush me." Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No. Definitely not." His determination to stay away from a central role will disappoint some senior Conservative members, who say the party needs him. Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench. Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36. He said: "I feel fortunate that, by the age of 40, I had crammed in an entire political career. "I had been in the Cabinet and been leader of the party, so now I can branch out into other things...it is a very liberating feeling." Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister. "Maybe I wasn't as driven by politics as I thought I was," he said.

Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36.Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench.Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling.Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister.Former Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.

Guantanamo four free in weeksAll four Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay will be returned to the UK within weeks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons on Tuesday.Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, from London, have been held by the US for almost three years. They were detained in the Cuban camp as part of the US-led "war on terror". Mr Straw said the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security. He said the government had been negotiating the return of the detainees since 2003. All four families have been informed of their return and have been involved in regular discussions with the government, Mr Straw said.But he added: "Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity." The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, welcomed the return of the four detainees. But he said there were still "serious questions" both over the possible threat the four pose to the UK, and the treatment they received while detained. Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the four had been rescued from a "legal no-man's land". "Their civil rights were systematically and deliberately abused and they were denied due process."Azmat Begg, father of Moazzam, thanked his lawyers and the British people for the support he had received while campaigning for his son's release. He added: "If they have done something wrong, of course they should be punished, but if they haven't, they shouldn't have been there." Lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner. She said: "They should at the outset have said quite clearly to the American government that they were behaving in breach of international law and that the British government wanted no part of it and wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down. "They didn't do that. They colluded with it." Moazzam Begg's Labour MP Roger Godsiff welcomed his release, but said questions remained unanswered, particularly about charges. Asked about possible damages Mr Begg and the other detainees could bring against the US, Mr Godsiff said: "People get released from prison when it's found that their prosecution was unsustainable and they are quite rightly awarded sizeable sums of money. "I don't see any difference in this case." Human rights campaigners have been outraged at the treatment of the detainees in Cuba. Amnesty International has called Camp Delta a "major human-rights scandal" and an "icon of lawlessness". Both Amnesty and the lobby group Guantanamo Human Rights Commission described the release as "long overdue". Civil rights group Liberty said it was "delighted" but called on the government to release men indefinitely detained in the UK without charge or trial.Director Shami Chakrabarti called on the government to "practise what it preaches" and either free or charge 12 detainees at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Law Lords ruled last month that the 12 were being held in contravention of human rights laws but they are still behind bars. The US has also announced that 48-year-old Australian Mamdouh Habib, previously accused of terrorist offences, will be released without charge from Camp Delta. Five British detainees released from Guantanamo in March last year were questioned by UK police before being released without charge.

Civil rights group Liberty said it was "delighted" but called on the government to release men indefinitely detained in the UK without charge or trial.All four families have been informed of their return and have been involved in regular discussions with the government, Mr Straw said.Mr Straw said the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security.He said the government had been negotiating the return of the detainees since 2003.She said: "They should at the outset have said quite clearly to the American government that they were behaving in breach of international law and that the British government wanted no part of it and wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down.But he said there were still "serious questions" both over the possible threat the four pose to the UK, and the treatment they received while detained.Asked about possible damages Mr Begg and the other detainees could bring against the US, Mr Godsiff said: "People get released from prison when it's found that their prosecution was unsustainable and they are quite rightly awarded sizeable sums of money.Lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner.Five British detainees released from Guantanamo in March last year were questioned by UK police before being released without charge.All four Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay will be returned to the UK within weeks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons on Tuesday.Moazzam Begg's Labour MP Roger Godsiff welcomed his release, but said questions remained unanswered, particularly about charges.The US has also announced that 48-year-old Australian Mamdouh Habib, previously accused of terrorist offences, will be released without charge from Camp Delta.

Tories pledge free sports lessonsChildren would be offered two hours' free sports training a week by a future Tory government, the party has said.The Club2School policy would provide up to £250m yearly for local sports clubs in the UK to deliver after-school sport. The extra coaching would be funded by the National Lottery and would come on top of the two hours of sport a week children are supposed to get in school. Shadow home secretary David Davis said five million children were being denied adequate sporting opportunities.The plans would help tackle the "fastest growing rate of obesity in the developed world", he said. Shadow sports minister Lord Moynihan said the policy would empower local clubs and create a lasting legacy. "We aim to shift the emphasis on after-school sport provision away from our overstretched teachers and schools directly in to the 151,000 sports clubs in the UK." The Tories say Labour's plans to give all children two hours of sports lessons a week in schools have failed. Government figures show that in England in 2002 only a third of schools at Key Stages 1, 3 and 4 and two-fifths of schools at Key Stage 2, met that target. The Tories also claim that of the £750m the prime minister pledged in 2000 to invest on school sports facilities, only £41m had been spent. But the Big Lottery Fund has said that complex capital projects are involved - and it was confident the money would all be allocated by next year as intended.

The extra coaching would be funded by the National Lottery and would come on top of the two hours of sport a week children are supposed to get in school.The Club2School policy would provide up to £250m yearly for local sports clubs in the UK to deliver after-school sport.Shadow sports minister Lord Moynihan said the policy would empower local clubs and create a lasting legacy.Children would be offered two hours' free sports training a week by a future Tory government, the party has said.The Tories say Labour's plans to give all children two hours of sports lessons a week in schools have failed.

Kennedy calls for Iraq exit plansTony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said.In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism". He wants to see a phased withdrawal of UK troops "as soon as the situation allows", he said in London. Any exit strategy must "augment and support" the democratic process."There are some who are of the opinion that the mere presence of British and American troops in Iraq feeds the insurgency," he said. "There is some truth in that, especially after the initial mistakes that were made - the heavy-handedness of operations like Fallujah, and the well-publicised instances of abuse at the hands of coalition forces." Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground".He accused Mr Blair's government of "being less than straightforward" over its plans. "Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech. "He should set out a proper exit strategy, including the phased withdrawal of British troops, as the security situation allows." Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".

Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".Tony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said."Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech.Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground".In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism".

Kilroy-Silk quits 'shameful' UKIPEx-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the UK Independence Party and accused it of betraying its supporters.The MEP said he was ashamed to have joined the party, which he labelled as a "joke". He plans to stand in the next general election but refused to confirm he is setting up a new political party called Veritas - Latin for truth. UKIP leader Roger Knapman said he would "break open the champagne", adding: "It was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'." However, he did say the ex-chat show host had been "quite useful initially". "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the (European) election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," Mr Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Knapman rejected the idea Mr Kilroy-Silk posed a threat to UKIP and queried why he had failed to confirm rumours he was starting a new political party.Mr Kilroy-Silk explained his reasons to his East Midlands constituents at a meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire. His decision came as UKIP officials began a process which could have triggered Mr Kilroy-Silk's expulsion. It marks the end of his membership of UKIP after just nine months. It began with a flood of publicity which helped UKIP into third place in last June's European elections but became dominated by rancour as he tried to take over the party leadership.Mr Kilroy-Silk accused his fellow UKIP MEPs of being content with growing fat "sitting on their backsides" in Brussels. He told BBC News 24: "I tried to change the party, I nagged all the way through the summer to do things, to get moving because I thought it was criminal what they were doing, it was a betrayal." Mr Kilroy-Silk also told Sky News there was "masses of support" for him to form a new party - something he has yet to confirm will happen.UKIP won 12 seats and 16.1% of the vote at the European elections on the back of its call for the UK to leave the European Union In his speech, Mr Kilroy-Silk says the result offered UKIP an "amazing opportunity" but the party's leadership had done nothing and "gone AWOL". There were no policies, no energy, no vision and no spokespeople, he said. "The party is going nowhere and I'm embarrassed with its allies in Europe and I'm ashamed to be a member of the party," said Mr Kilroy-Silk.He said his conviction in Britain's right to govern itself had not changed. He would continue that campaign outside UKIP when he contested the general election in an East Midlands constituency. Reports of his new party plans have prompted a formal complaint to UKIP's disciplinary committee for bringing the party into "disrepute". On Thursday, the party challenged Mr Kilroy-Silk to stand down as an MEP so voters can get a genuine UKIP candidate.

Mr Knapman rejected the idea Mr Kilroy-Silk posed a threat to UKIP and queried why he had failed to confirm rumours he was starting a new political party."He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the (European) election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," Mr Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.On Thursday, the party challenged Mr Kilroy-Silk to stand down as an MEP so voters can get a genuine UKIP candidate."The party is going nowhere and I'm embarrassed with its allies in Europe and I'm ashamed to be a member of the party," said Mr Kilroy-Silk.Mr Kilroy-Silk also told Sky News there was "masses of support" for him to form a new party - something he has yet to confirm will happen.The MEP said he was ashamed to have joined the party, which he labelled as a "joke".Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the UK Independence Party and accused it of betraying its supporters.UKIP won 12 seats and 16.1% of the vote at the European elections on the back of its call for the UK to leave the European Union In his speech, Mr Kilroy-Silk says the result offered UKIP an "amazing opportunity" but the party's leadership had done nothing and "gone AWOL".Mr Kilroy-Silk accused his fellow UKIP MEPs of being content with growing fat "sitting on their backsides" in Brussels.

UKIP candidate suspended in probeEurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.John Houston, 54, was due to stand in the East Kilbride seat in Lanarkshire at the next election. But he was suspended after his reported views, including the return of the British Empire, were sent to two Scottish newspapers. UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views. The episode comes at a difficult time for UKIP, soon after the high-profile departure of MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade. The document reportedly said: "We're looking for the resurrection of the British Empire. "The problems for the human race - environmental and others - can only be dealt with on a global scale, and that calls for a radical alliance of the English-speaking nations, which they are uniquely able to do." Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not. He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate. He told BBC News: "He appears to have said these things. We have suspended him as a member and as a candidate. "By all accounts none of this was mentioned at his selection meeting. "It is simply a distraction from the task in hand, the EU constitution, not individual idiocies." Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night. "He will remain suspended while the matter is being investigated and then we will decide if and what further action will be taken." He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party. He added: "I can't comment too much at the moment, I have one version from him but I haven't seen the papers yet."

Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night.UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views.He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate.He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party.Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not.Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade.Eurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.

Brown shrugs off economy fearsGordon Brown is to freeze petrol duty increases, fund a £1bn package to avoid big council tax rises and boost childcare and maternity leave.In an upbeat pre-Budget report, he slightly increased borrowing but insisted economic targets would be met. The chancellor also hailed the longest period of growth in UK "industrial history" but denied he was "gloating". But Oliver Letwin, for the Tories, attacked government red tape and debt, dubbing Mr Brown "Sir Wastealot".The shadow chancellor said Mr Brown's "golden rule" had "turned to dross in his hands" and said he was borrowing to spend, not invest, with predicted debt over the coming years totalling £170bn. Mr Letwin told MPs: "The tide is going out on the chancellor's credibility. He is spending, borrowing and taxing so much because he is not getting value for taxpayer's money."Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, accused Mr Brown of ducking tough choices.He said: "Last week the prime minister gave us the politics of fear; this week the chancellor has offered the economics of complacency. "There are serious challenges ahead from the falling dollar and from the rapid downturn in the UK housing market and rising personal debt. But they have not been confronted." Mr Brown rejected the Lib Dem's call to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, saying decisions on tax and spending should be made by ministers. Some economists say his forecasts on public finances are wishful thinking. BBC economic editor Evan Davis said the figures were plausible but also a gamble.Mr Brown's insistence he was not "gloating" was a pointed rebuttal of a warning from new European Commissioner Peter Mandelson. In his speech, he set out a 10-year childcare strategy for if Labour wins the next election.It includes a £285m cash injection to extend paid maternity leave from six months to nine, with parents able to transfer leave from the mother to the father. He also promised to increase free nursery education for three and four-year-olds to 15 hours from April 2007. And funds would be provided to keep schools open from 0800 to 1800GMT to look after children while their parents were at work. Taken together, the measures would create a "welfare state that is truly family-friendly for the first time in its history", said Mr Brown. He also announced a cash hand-out for older pensioners, with payments of £50 for the over-70s as part of the winter fuel allowance. In a move ministers say should keep council tax rises below 5% next year, the chancellor said he was providing an extra £1bn for local councils. The money is expected to come from government departments such as health and education.Mr Brown said he was set to meet his two fiscal rules - to borrow only to invest and keep debt "low and sustainable" - both in this economic cycle and the next. Borrowing figures for 2003/4 are £35bn - £2.5bn less than the £37.5bn predicted in March's budget, as already announced by the Office for National Statistics. Borrowing is tipped to fall to £31bn by 2005/06 - but that is still £2bn more than Mr Brown predicted in his March budget. Inflation would be 1.75% next year and 2% in the years to follow, Mr Brown forecast. He also pledged an extra £105m for security and counter-terrorism. Business groups have welcomed efforts to improve competitiveness and invest more in skills and innovation. But there worries about the costs of more family-friendly working. Simon Sweetman, from the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "The proposals on maternity leave have clearly been made with a general election in mind and with little thought to the impact on small employers."

The shadow chancellor said Mr Brown's "golden rule" had "turned to dross in his hands" and said he was borrowing to spend, not invest, with predicted debt over the coming years totalling £170bn.Mr Brown said he was set to meet his two fiscal rules - to borrow only to invest and keep debt "low and sustainable" - both in this economic cycle and the next.In a move ministers say should keep council tax rises below 5% next year, the chancellor said he was providing an extra £1bn for local councils.Inflation would be 1.75% next year and 2% in the years to follow, Mr Brown forecast.Borrowing is tipped to fall to £31bn by 2005/06 - but that is still £2bn more than Mr Brown predicted in his March budget.Taken together, the measures would create a "welfare state that is truly family-friendly for the first time in its history", said Mr Brown.But Oliver Letwin, for the Tories, attacked government red tape and debt, dubbing Mr Brown "Sir Wastealot".Gordon Brown is to freeze petrol duty increases, fund a £1bn package to avoid big council tax rises and boost childcare and maternity leave.Borrowing figures for 2003/4 are £35bn - £2.5bn less than the £37.5bn predicted in March's budget, as already announced by the Office for National Statistics.Mr Brown rejected the Lib Dem's call to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, saying decisions on tax and spending should be made by ministers.BBC economic editor Evan Davis said the figures were plausible but also a gamble.The chancellor also hailed the longest period of growth in UK "industrial history" but denied he was "gloating".Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, accused Mr Brown of ducking tough choices.

Kilroy-Silk attacked with slurryEuro MP Robert Kilroy-Silk has had a bucket of farm slurry thrown over him by a protester in Manchester.The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush. Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry. Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam". In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers".Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors". The remarks prompted outrage among Muslim groups. The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.The police were called but the attacker had disappeared by the time officers arrived. They are treating the incident as assault. The programme's host, Jonathan Dimbleby, later told the audience the MEP had been covered from "head to toe". Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes.He told reporters he was "very angry" and planned to press charges if his attacker was caught. He said the man shouted: "You've offended my religion, I'm doing this in the name of Islam." "As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said. "I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven. It went all inside the car and splattered Ruth Kelly." A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show. Fortunately someone at the school had a change of clothes to let him have." Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste. Officers took statements at the scene, but no arrests have been made. Police say the suspect ran off after towards Wilmslow Road after committing the offence but is believed to have been driving a red Vauxhall Corsa earlier. The suspect is described as white, aged 30 to 40, with a ginger beard. Police want to hear from anyone who has any information.Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader. However, he remains a member of the party. He said on Friday he hoped to be elected party leader before Christmas. "I think that is sufficient time for us to put in process what is necessary... in time for us to fight and have a significant impact upon the General Election." But a UKIP spokesman said that would be impossible under the party's constitution, which requires 70 days before any leadership ballot can take place.

Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam".Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste.A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show.Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes.In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers".The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush.Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors".Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry."As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said."I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven.Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader.

Profile: David MilibandDavid Miliband's rapid rise through the ranks of government continues with his promotion to Cabinet Office minister.Elected in a safe Labour seat in 2001 his previous job was school standards minister - a role he won in May 2002. Prior to the last election he was a key figure in New Labour as the head of the Downing Street policy unit where he was a key member of the manifesto writing team. Seen as one of the more intellectual figures in the government, he was also working for Tony Blair in his policy unit when he was leader of the opposition.A brief glance at Mr Miliband's family background reveals an impressive socialist pedigree in the form of his father Ralph, who died in 1994. He was an eminent and influential leftwing academic. And while David Miliband is seen as a key Blair lieutenant his brother Ed is a special advisor to Chancellor Gordon Brown. Prior to working for Mr Blair, David Miliband spent time at the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research. He then became secretary of the Commission on Social Justice. The 39-year-old was educated at Haverstock Comprehensive before going on to Oxford to study politics, philosophy and economics. He also took an MSc in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Seen as one of the more intellectual figures in the government, he was also working for Tony Blair in his policy unit when he was leader of the opposition.Prior to the last election he was a key figure in New Labour as the head of the Downing Street policy unit where he was a key member of the manifesto writing team.Prior to working for Mr Blair, David Miliband spent time at the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research.He was an eminent and influential leftwing academic.Elected in a safe Labour seat in 2001 his previous job was school standards minister - a role he won in May 2002.

Parties warned over 'grey vote'Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out. A total of 3,028 adults aged 18 or over were interviewed for the study. Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.He also called for measures to combat ageism and build effective public services to "support us all in an ageing society". "Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said. "Political parties must wake up to the fact that unless they address the demands and concerns of older people they will not keep or attract their vote." In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections. Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55. Age Concern says the over-55s are "united around" key areas of policy they want the government to focus on. For 57%, pensions and the NHS were key issues, while the economy was important for a third, and tax was a crucial area for 25%.

Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55.Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out."Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds.Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.

MPs to debate 'euthanasia laws'MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door".The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated. The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment. But Christian groups say it could mean doctors withholding food and fluids even if they think it inappropriate.Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life.The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise. It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors. Critics fear it could allow "killing by omission" through withdrawing treatment. An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. Ninety one MPs have signed a petition backing the amendment. MPs could vote on it later on Tuesday, during the bill's report stage debate. The Bill will then go to a third reading and be debated in the Lords, before becoming law.The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door". Peter Saunders of the CMF said it believed advance refusals should be only advisory, not legally binding. "CMF is concerned that patients will make unwise and hasty advance decisions to refuse food and fluids without being properly informed about the diagnosis and the expected course their illness will take," he said.The LCF's Andrea Williams said there were "too many loopholes that could be abused by unscrupulous doctors". Ex-Labour minister Frank Field told BBC Two's Newsnight programme there was a danger people would feel under pressure to "do away" with themselves so relatives could inherit their assets.Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy said laws affecting 750,000 people with dementia needed updating. Mr Lammy told BBC News Labour MPs would not get a free vote as the law was being strengthened, not changed. "We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said. "Doctors are saying they want more clarity. Patients are saying they want more clarity." The Making Decisions Alliance, which includes the Alzheimer's Society, Age Concern, Mencap and the National Autistic Society, said misunderstandings over the bill had to be cleared up. "It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement. The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others. Debate on legalising euthanasia has intensified in the UK because of cases like that of motor neurone patient Diane Pretty. She died two years ago after losing a legal battle to allow her husband to help her commit suicide.

The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated.The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door".It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors.The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment."We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said.MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door".The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise."It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement.Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life.The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others.An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

UK needs tax cuts, Tories insistA major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox had opened the forum in Brighton with an attack on Labour's record and party leader Michael Howard is due to speak later. Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure. But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league."Can this country compete, can this country prosper, unless we do something about the burden of regulation and tax on our economy?" he said. "If we are going to take on the great challenges, the challenges like those posed by the Chinese and the Indians, we have got to do something about getting down the burden of regulation and getting down the burden of tax," he said. "The fact is the very carefully costed, fully funded plans we have laid out for saving £12bn by 2007-2008 are absolutely crucial to delivering an economy that will prosper and provide people with jobs and indeed provide the public services with the money they need on a sustainable long-term basis." Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver". He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime. A Tory government would sort out the "shambles" of immigration, put patients before statistics and bring discipline to schools, he said. Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech. His welcome address had to be postponed after he stayed in London to lead the party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in its lengthy progress through Parliament. The bill was finally passed on Friday evening, after more than 30 hours of debate. Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.

he said.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising.Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure.But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league.A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver".

Boothroyd calls for Lords speakerBetty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber.Baroness Boothroyd, who was the first woman to be Commons Speaker, said she believed Tony Blair initiated reforms without a clear outcome in mind. "Now we have to take care of it ourselves and make the best of it," she told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost. In 1999 Labour removed all but 92 of the Lords' 750 hereditary peers. That was billed as the first stage of reform of the institution. The lord chancellor hinted further reforms could be unveiled in the next Labour manifesto."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost. "How it interacts with the Commons is a very, very important issue. "We need to address the issue in the manifesto, but you will have to wait for when the manifesto comes." The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker. He is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet as constitutional affairs secretary.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker. "I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said. "I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords. "I want somebody there who is going to look after that House and do a job there.

The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker."I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost.Betty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber."I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said.

EU fraud clampdown urgedEU member states are failing to report fraud and irregularities in EU funds on a consistent basis, the UK's public spending watchdog has said.The National Audit Office said although the latest figures showed reported fraud was falling, the EU still had no common definition of fraud. It also expressed concern that, for the 10th year, the European Court of Auditors had qualified the EU accounts. The NAO urged the government to push for improvements in reporting fraud. It said member states needed to be more accountable on how money was spent. The report said: "Member states still do not report fraud and other irregularities to the European Anti-Fraud Office on a consistent basis."As the court has now qualified its opinion on the Community accounts for a decade, it is essential for all the authorities involved to contribute to the strengthening of the audit of EU revenue and expenditure and improving accountability for the financial management and use of EU resources." It said there were 922 cases of reported fraud or irregularities in EU funds in the UK in 2003, worth £38.5m (52m euros), up from 831 cases worth £35.7m in 2002. At the same time, reported fraud throughout the EU dropped from 10,276 cases worth £808m to 8,177 cases worth £644m. Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said Britain had to set an example when it assumed the EU presidency."Any fraud in other member states is potentially fraud against the UK taxpayer, given that we are the second largest net contributor to the Community," he said. "Departments responsible for administering EU funds need to make sure that they're doing everything possible to weed out improper spending. "The government must take the opportunity afforded by the UK presidency of the EU to press the Commission and other member states to take an equally robust stance against fraud and irregularity, and raise overall standards of financial management." A spokesman for the European Anti-Fraud Office said the organisation agreed with the NAO's assessment of fraud reporting. "The quality of reporting does differ from member state to member state, and there is room for improvement," spokesman Jorg Wojahn said. He added that there is generally good co-operation with member states and the anti-fraud office on specific cases of fraud, with the statistics studied by NAO providing a "good overview for planning strategic ways of detecting fraud".

EU member states are failing to report fraud and irregularities in EU funds on a consistent basis, the UK's public spending watchdog has said.The report said: "Member states still do not report fraud and other irregularities to the European Anti-Fraud Office on a consistent basis.It said there were 922 cases of reported fraud or irregularities in EU funds in the UK in 2003, worth £38.5m (52m euros), up from 831 cases worth £35.7m in 2002."Any fraud in other member states is potentially fraud against the UK taxpayer, given that we are the second largest net contributor to the Community," he said.The National Audit Office said although the latest figures showed reported fraud was falling, the EU still had no common definition of fraud.He added that there is generally good co-operation with member states and the anti-fraud office on specific cases of fraud, with the statistics studied by NAO providing a "good overview for planning strategic ways of detecting fraud"."The government must take the opportunity afforded by the UK presidency of the EU to press the Commission and other member states to take an equally robust stance against fraud and irregularity, and raise overall standards of financial management."

'No UK apology' for colonial pastThe days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.The chancellor, speaking during a week-long tour of Africa, said it was time to talk about enduring British values of liberty and tolerance. Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion. South African president Thabo Mbeki has attacked British imperialists, saying they treated Africans like savages. Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty. He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country. BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history".The UK has pledged to pay 10% of the developing world's foreign debt bill in an attempt to fight poverty. On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world. Under the plan - which could cost the UK £1bn - countries must spend the cash saved on health, education and welfare. "We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said. Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line.There he is expected to strike a similar debt relief pact. The chancellor said he hoped other G8 and European countries would follow suit. The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania. Former international development secretary Clare Short questioned the effectiveness of debt relief as a means of tackling poverty.

Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion.On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world.The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania.Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line."We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said.

'Debate needed' on donations capA cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.Fears that big donors can buy political favours have sparked calls for a limit. In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it. It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m. The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions. The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work. "While we are not in principle opposed to the introduction of a donation cap, we do not believe that such a major departure from the existing system now would be sensible," says its report. If there was to be a cap, it should be £10,000 - a small enough amount to make a difference but which would have banned £56m in donations between 2001 and 2003.Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200. It also suggests increasing state funding for parties to £3m so help can be extended to all parties with at least two members in the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. And it suggests new ways of boosting election campaigning, seen as a way of improving voter turnout. All local election candidates should be entitled to a free mailshot for campaign leaflets, says the watchdog. And there should be a shift in the amount of money allowed to be spent at elections from a national level to a local level to help politicians engage better with voters.The report suggests doubling the money which can be spent by candidates, while cutting national spending limits from £20m to £15m. The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections. Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger said: "There is no doubt that political parties have a vital role to play in maintaining the health of our democracy and for this they need to be adequately resourced. "Our research has shown that people want to be more informed about party politics and that they want politicians to be more visible and accessible. "The public are reluctant for the state to fund parties but at the same time are unhappy with large private donations." He called for a wider public debate on party funding to find the consensus needed for radical changes to the current system.

It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work.Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200.There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m.The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions.In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it.The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections.

Blair moves to woo Jewish votersTony Blair has pledged to "never, ever, ever" attack Tory leader Michael Howard over his Jewish beliefs.The prime minister told the Jewish Chronicle: "If you look at what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically." Mr Blair also distanced himself from recent Labour campaign posters featuring Mr Howard, which critics claimed were "anti-Semitic". These were "not intended to cause any offence to anyone on the Jewish community," Mr Blair insisted.One poster depicted Mr Howard and his shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, who is also Jewish, as flying pigs. Another pictured the Tory leader swinging a pocket watch on a chain, which critics said echoed the Jewish money lender Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.Others compared the image to the character Fagin in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. Labour has since taken the designs of its website, saying members had preferred other designs. During his interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Blair said: "I've been a very strong supporter of the Jewish community and Israel, and will always be so." Pressed on whether he would draw attention to Mr Howard's Jewish beliefs in an attempt to attract Muslim support, he replied: "The idea that I would allow anybody to make such a charge is outrageous. It's untrue. "If you look what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically. I would never, ever, ever attack him on that basis."Mr Blair also defended his party's attitude towards the Jewish community, pointing out that it was his government that had introduced the Holocaust Memorial Day. He added that Labour also aggressively fought all forms of racism.Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats wished to comment on Mr Blair's words. The prime minister was speaking as London's Labour mayor Ken Livingstone remains embroiled in a row over comments he made to a Jewish reporter from the city's Evening Standard newspaper. Mr Blair repeated calls for the mayor to apologise for likening the reporter, Oliver Finegold, to a concentration camp guard. Mr Livingstone "should have withdrawn the comment immediately" once he realised the journalist was Jewish, said Mr Blair. "I'm sure that is what in truth he wants to do. Well, he should do it." Mr Livingstone has said he could not sincerely say sorry for the comments he made, and claims he has been targeted by the newspaper. He conceded his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.

Mr Livingstone "should have withdrawn the comment immediately" once he realised the journalist was Jewish, said Mr Blair.During his interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Blair said: "I've been a very strong supporter of the Jewish community and Israel, and will always be so."Mr Blair also distanced himself from recent Labour campaign posters featuring Mr Howard, which critics claimed were "anti-Semitic".Tony Blair has pledged to "never, ever, ever" attack Tory leader Michael Howard over his Jewish beliefs.These were "not intended to cause any offence to anyone on the Jewish community," Mr Blair insisted.One poster depicted Mr Howard and his shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, who is also Jewish, as flying pigs.Mr Blair also defended his party's attitude towards the Jewish community, pointing out that it was his government that had introduced the Holocaust Memorial Day.The prime minister told the Jewish Chronicle: "If you look at what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically."He conceded his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.Mr Livingstone has said he could not sincerely say sorry for the comments he made, and claims he has been targeted by the newspaper.

Crucial decision on super-casinosA decision on whether to allow Westminster to legislate on super-casinos is set to be made by the Scottish Parliament.The government has plans for up to eight Las Vegas style resorts in the UK, one of which is likely to be in Glasgow. Scottish ministers insist they will still have the final say on whether a super-casino will be built in Scotland. But opposition parties say that will not happen in practice. The vote is due to be taken on Wednesday and is expected to be close.The Scottish Executive believes that the legislation should be handled by Westminster. The new law will control internet gambling for the first time and is aimed at preventing children from becoming involved. A super-casino in Glasgow could be located at Ibrox or the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. The new gambling bill going through Westminster will allow casino complexes to open to the public, have live entertainment and large numbers of fruit machines with unlimited prizes. But the Scottish National Party and the Tories say the issue of super-casinos should be decided in Scotland and believe the executive is shirking its responsibility.

But the Scottish National Party and the Tories say the issue of super-casinos should be decided in Scotland and believe the executive is shirking its responsibility.Scottish ministers insist they will still have the final say on whether a super-casino will be built in Scotland.A decision on whether to allow Westminster to legislate on super-casinos is set to be made by the Scottish Parliament.The Scottish Executive believes that the legislation should be handled by Westminster.

Conservative MP defects to LabourA Conservative MP and former minister has defected to Labour.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe. Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs. Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990. In a letter to his constituency chairman he wrote: "It is in the country's best interest that Tony Blair rather than Michael Howard should form the next government." While saying he admired Mr Blair's "courageous" leadership of the country, he bitterly criticised the Conservatives stance on Europe. "The Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has now hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations," he wrote.Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members". "As he rightly says, [the Conservatives] have learned nothing from their two election defeats and are, if anything, drifting further rightwards," he added. A spokesman for Michael Howard said Mr Jackson's views on policy issues were "very different" from those of the party leadership. "He believes students should pay tuition fees, that Tony Blair should not be criticised over his handling of the Iraq war and that more powers should be given to Europe," the spokesman said. He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives. Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election. He is the third Conservative MP to defect to Labour since 1997.

Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members".Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs.He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives.Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe.Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election.

Report attacks defence spendingThe Ministry of Defence has been criticised over the soaring spending costs and growing delays of its top equipment projects.A National Audit Office report on the 20 biggest projects says costs have risen by £1.7bn in the past year. It says there is "little evidence" the MoD's performance had improved, despite the introduction of a "smart acquisition" policy six years ago. A senior defence official told the BBC lessons were being learned. The NAO's annual report showed the total cost of the 20 projects covered was expected to reach £50bn - 14% higher than originally planned. The total delays amounted to 62 months, with average individual delays rising by three months.Sir John Bourn, head of the NAO, said the problems showed the principles of the scheme known as smart acquisition had not been consistently applied. "Many problems can be traced to the fact that the MoD has not spent enough time and resources in the assessment phase," the report says. The NAO found that projects launched since the start of the scheme were showing the same worrying tendencies as the older "legacy projects", such as the Eurofighter. A senior defence official, speaking to the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams, said that although the figures were still not good enough, the report reflected unrealistic expectations early on in the project cycle. This year's overspend was significantly less than last year's £3.1bn total, and the Defence Procurement Agency - which is responsible for buying defence equipment - was improving.Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said he was "obviously still disappointed with the cost and time increases shown", but insisted that the Defence Procurement Agency had "undertaken a huge amount of work to expose any underlying problems on projects". The latest findings follow a string of critical reports issued within the last 12 months, and, according to our correspondent, contain few new surprises. Turning around the Defence Procurement Agency "was a little like trying to turn around a super tanker - it takes a very long time indeed", he said. Our correspondent said it was the same projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter, the Nimrod and A400M aircraft and the Type 45 Destroyer, which were resonsible for the bulk of the cost over-runs and delay. But he added some projects, such as the C-17 heavy lift aircraft and Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF), were showing good performances.

Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said he was "obviously still disappointed with the cost and time increases shown", but insisted that the Defence Procurement Agency had "undertaken a huge amount of work to expose any underlying problems on projects".A senior defence official, speaking to the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams, said that although the figures were still not good enough, the report reflected unrealistic expectations early on in the project cycle.This year's overspend was significantly less than last year's £3.1bn total, and the Defence Procurement Agency - which is responsible for buying defence equipment - was improving.The Ministry of Defence has been criticised over the soaring spending costs and growing delays of its top equipment projects.Our correspondent said it was the same projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter, the Nimrod and A400M aircraft and the Type 45 Destroyer, which were resonsible for the bulk of the cost over-runs and delay.The NAO's annual report showed the total cost of the 20 projects covered was expected to reach £50bn - 14% higher than originally planned.A National Audit Office report on the 20 biggest projects says costs have risen by £1.7bn in the past year.

Tories outlining policing plansLocal communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities. He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable. The Lib Dems said the plan could let extreme groups run policing, while Labour criticised "extravagant" Tory promises on policing.Responding to the plans, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, said it was essential operational independence was retained.Jan Berry said: "It is a service, not a political football to be kicked around every time an election approaches. "These plans could result in those with extreme political views dictating what actually happens on the ground," she warned. Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates. "The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The trouble is, and it's no reflection on the people who are on the police authority - they are good people - but hardly anyone knows who they are." Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Critics fear the move could hand control of the police to single-issue campaigners who would ignore the needs of the wider community. Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician. "That is overturning nearly 200 years of the way in which we have organised policing in this country to avoid the politicisation of policing decisions," he said.Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the plan was dangerous and "could create conflict between chief constables and elected officials". Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables. A Labour Party spokesman criticised Michael Howard's record, saying police numbers had fallen by 1,132 when he was home secretary. He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system." The Tories insists the commissioner role would not be like that of an American sheriff. Other Tory law and order plans include building more prisons and making criminals serve full jail sentences.

Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates.Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities.Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables.Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system."Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician.He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable.

BNP leader Nick Griffin arrestedThe leader of the British National Party has been arrested as part of a police inquiry following the screening of a BBC documentary.A party spokesman said Nick Griffin was arrested on Tuesday morning on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred. West Yorkshire police confirmed they had arrested a 45-year-old man from outside their area. BNP founding chairman John Tyndall was arrested on Sunday on the same charge.In July, the BBC documentary Secret Agent featured covertly-filmed footage of BNP activists. Mr Griffin is the twelfth man to be arrested following the documentary. Nine men from West Yorkshire and another man from Leicester have been arrested and freed on bail. Seven of the men had been held variously in connection with suspected racially aggravated public order offences, conspiracy to commit criminal damage and possession of a firearm. Two men, both from Keighley, were arrested in September on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage. A 24-year-old man from Leicester was detained on Monday on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred. A BNP spokesperson said Mr Tyndall, from Brighton, was arrested following a speech he made in Burnley, Lancashire, and was released on police bail.

Mr Griffin is the twelfth man to be arrested following the documentary.A party spokesman said Nick Griffin was arrested on Tuesday morning on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred.A BNP spokesperson said Mr Tyndall, from Brighton, was arrested following a speech he made in Burnley, Lancashire, and was released on police bail.Two men, both from Keighley, were arrested in September on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.Nine men from West Yorkshire and another man from Leicester have been arrested and freed on bail.

Choose hope over fear - KennedyVoters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy.In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares". He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll. On the Asian tsunami he said it had been "very heartening" to learn of the generosity being shown by Britons. Mr Kennedy said his thoughts were with all those caught up in the disaster, which had dominated the Christmas and New Year period. At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties.The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said. "A clear division is emerging in British politics - the politics of fear versus the politics of hope. "Labour is counting on the politics of fear, ratcheting up talk of threats, crime and insecurity. While the Conservatives are re-working their populist scares about asylum and the European 'menace'," he said. He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties.It was already using detention without trial at Belmarsh Prison, ignoring a recent Law Lords judgement that this contravenes basic human rights, he said. He also criticised attempts to bring in trial without jury, plans to lower the burden of proof in some criminal trials, curbing of rights to protest, increased stop and search powers and ID card plans. He said while everyone had the right to be secure they also had the right to be protected against unfair discrimination. "But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said. His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said. "We are less deferential; more inclined to think for ourselves; more open about sexuality and equality. "Our national institutions are changing too. We are no longer a nation of one church; we are a nation of many faiths. In our attitudes and the way we live our lives, this is in many ways a liberal Britain."

His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said.Voters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy.He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll.In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares".The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said.At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties."But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said.He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties.

Talks held on Gibraltar's futureTwo days of talks on the future of Gibraltar begin at Jack Straw's country residence later on Wednesday.Officials at the two-day summit at the foreign secretary's official Kent house, Chevening, will plan a new forum on the Rock's future. In October, Mr Straw and his Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos agreed to establish a body that would give Gibraltarians a voice in their future. Most Gibraltarians said in a referendum they wanted to remain British.Gibraltar's Chief Minister Peter Caruana will represent the British citizens living on the Rock, while Britain's Europe Director Dominick Chilcott will represent the UK. Madrid is being represented by Spain's director general for Europe, Jose Maria Pons. The initiative follows Spain's socialist government's decision to put its long-standing sovereignty ambitions on hold. Gibraltarians rejected plans for the Rock's sovereignty to be shared between Britain and Spain in a referendum organised by Gibraltar government.

Gibraltarians rejected plans for the Rock's sovereignty to be shared between Britain and Spain in a referendum organised by Gibraltar government.Most Gibraltarians said in a referendum they wanted to remain British.In October, Mr Straw and his Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos agreed to establish a body that would give Gibraltarians a voice in their future.Officials at the two-day summit at the foreign secretary's official Kent house, Chevening, will plan a new forum on the Rock's future.

Labour battle plan 'hides Blair'The Tories have accused Tony Blair of being "terrified" of scrutiny after Labour unveiled details of how it will fight the next general election.In a break with tradition, the party will ditch the leader's battle bus and daily press briefings in Westminster. Instead Mr Blair will travel to key cities and marginal seats to deliver the party's message. Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.He promised "the most positive and upbeat election campaign Labour has ever run". But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny"."At a time when the British people are looking for more accountability and openness, this government turns its back on them; abandoning plans to tour the country and scared to face journalists in a press conference - it does rather beg the question, 'What have they got to hide?'" The general election is widely expected next May and all the parties are stepping up their campaign preparations. Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites". Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people. The approach is particularly designed to appeal to women voters, he said. Mr Milburn brushed aside questions over why the chancellor was not present at the Cabinet meeting to discuss election strategy particularly since such importance was being given to the economy. "I'm not privy to everybody's diary," he said. Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time. In a break with the past, Labour will not hold a daily news conference in London. It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.In previous elections, each party leader has had their own battle bus transporting national newspaper, television and radio reporters to staged campaign events around the country. Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister. Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate. Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell is also returning to advise Labour on media strategy and campaigning.Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election. Liberal Democrat chief executive Lord Rennard suggested Labour was avoiding news conferences in London because it wanted less scrutiny of its record and proposals. "Tony Blair seems to have disappeared from Labour leaflets and broadcasts," he said. "In contrast Charles Kennedy will feature prominently in the Liberal Democrat campaign right across the country."

Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites".Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election.Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate.Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister.Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people.But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny".It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time.

Butler launches attack on BlairFormer civil service chief Lord Butler has criticised the way Tony Blair's government operates, accusing it of being obsessed with headlines.He also attacked the way the Iraq war was "sold" to the public, with important warnings on the strength of the intelligence left out. Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember. But Downing Street said Mr Blair should be judged by results not his style.Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions. The prime minister's official spokesman said the Cabinet was still used to achieve a consensus on important issues. But he added: "You cannot, in a modern government, take every decision in Cabinet. It's just not possible."Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees. The former cabinet secretary said in an interview with The Spectator magazine: "I would be critical of the present government in that there is too much emphasis on selling, there is too much central control and there is too little of what I would describe as reasoned deliberation which brings in all the arguments." Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important". "This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government. "It is certainly the most damaging testimony I can ever remember from someone in such an eminent position."Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin". The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson. He said: "When civil servants give material to ministers, they say these are the conclusions we've drawn, but we've got to tell you the evidence we've got is pretty thin. "Similarly, if you are giving something to the United Nations and the country you should warn them."Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was. The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat."When asked whether he thought the country was well-governed on the whole, he replied: "Well. I think we are a country where we suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive, and that is a very grave flaw. "We should be breaking away from the party whip. The executive is much too free to bring in a huge number of extremely bad Bills, a huge amount of regulation and to do whatever it likes - and whatever it likes is what will get the best headlines tomorrow. "All that is part of what is bad government in this country." Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong. Lord Armstrong told BBC Two's Newsnight: "I agree ... there doesn't appear to be the sort of informed collective political judgement brought to bear on decision-making that those affected by decisions are entitled to expect." Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government". But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary. Mr Cunningham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Taken together, Robin Butler's comments are partial, inaccurate and cannot be taken as anything other than politically biased against the Labour government."

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government".Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong.Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees.Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was.Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions.Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember.The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson.The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat.""This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government.But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary.Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin".Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important".

Tory candidate quits over remarkA Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".Danny Kruger, who also works in the Tory research unit, had been due to take on Tony Blair in Sedgefield. He says his remark last week was misrepresented but he will not contest the election for fear of damaging the Conservative cause. Tory leader Michael Howard accepted his decision "with regret". Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."In a statement, the party said the comment had been taken out of context. "He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement. "However, in order to avoid any further misrepresentation of his views and any damage to the Party, he has decided not to stand in the Sedgefield constituency at the next election." Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters. Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services. Mr Milburn said: "He is not some unknown hopeful fighting an unwinnable seat. He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim. "It is the authentic and shocking voice of the Conservative Party. It reveals the true picture of what they would do."

Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services.A Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim."He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement.Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters.

Blair stresses prosperity goalsTony Blair says his party's next manifesto will be "unremittingly New Labour" and aimed at producing "personal prosperity for all".The prime minister is trying to draw a line under speculation over the state of his relationship with Gordon Brown with the speech in Chatham, Kent. He is saying that prosperity means both individual wealth and ensuring "radically improved" public services. He is also claiming Labour is more ideologically united than ever. Mr Brown is currently touring Africa after a week of facing questions about reports of his splits with Downing Street.With the election widely predicted for May, angry Labour MPs this week warned Mr Blair and Mr Brown about the dangers of disunity. Now Mr Blair is trying to put the focus on the substance of Labour's platform for a third term in government. Labour made low inflation, unemployment and mortgage rates the centrepiece of a new poster campaign this week.And on Thursday Mr Blair is saying: "I want to talk about the central purpose ofNew Labour - which is to increase personal prosperity and well-being, not justfor a few but for all. "By prosperity I mean both the income and wealth of individuals and theirfamilies, and the opportunity and security available to them through radicallyimproved public services and a reformed welfare state."The Tories are trying to capitalise on the apparent feud at the top of government. On Wednesday they unveiled a poster which pictured the prime minister and Mr Brown under the words "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?" Michael Howard and frontbencher John Redwood on Thursday launched new plans to abolish hundreds of quangos. They say government is spending too much and lower taxes are needed to make Britain more competitive.The Liberal Democrats have also claimed infighting its obstructing good government. The latest speculation about relations between New Labour's two most powerful figures came after the publication of a new book, Brown's Britain by Robert Preston. In it he alleges that Mr Blair told Mr Brown in 2003 he would step down as prime minister before the coming general election. The book claims the premier went back on his pledge after support from Cabinet allies and suspicion that Mr Brown was manoeuvring against him. Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe." On Wednesday Mr Blair directly denied Mr Brown made that quote, and before he left for Africa on Tuesday the chancellor told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister."

Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."In it he alleges that Mr Blair told Mr Brown in 2003 he would step down as prime minister before the coming general election.With the election widely predicted for May, angry Labour MPs this week warned Mr Blair and Mr Brown about the dangers of disunity.On Wednesday Mr Blair directly denied Mr Brown made that quote, and before he left for Africa on Tuesday the chancellor told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister."And on Thursday Mr Blair is saying: "I want to talk about the central purpose ofNew Labour - which is to increase personal prosperity and well-being, not justfor a few but for all.Now Mr Blair is trying to put the focus on the substance of Labour's platform for a third term in government.On Wednesday they unveiled a poster which pictured the prime minister and Mr Brown under the words "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?"Tony Blair says his party's next manifesto will be "unremittingly New Labour" and aimed at producing "personal prosperity for all".

'More to do' on adult literacyThe government will only hit its target for improving adult maths and literacy skills if courses are made more attractive, a report says.The National Audit Office praised ministers for reaching the benchmark of 750,000 adults in England gaining basic qualifications by this year. But a target of 1.5 million more by 2010 needed "creative" ideas. Some 26 million adults lack maths or English skill levels expected of school-leavers.According to the report, "more than half" the qualifications achieved were by learners aged 16 to 18. These are defined as "adults" by the government for the purpose of compiling these figures. Normally adults are defined as being aged over 19. The number of these people gaining qualifications was "rising slowly". Auditor General Sir John Bourn said: "Higher levels of literacy and numeracy will benefit England both socially and economically. "More people will have the opportunity to live richer lives." In 2001, the government launched the Get On scheme - aimed at reducing illiteracy and innumeracy. Sir John said "substantial progress" had been made since, adding that this was "only the beginning". The government and its partners would "need to be creative and responsive". Some £3.7bn will be spent on implementing the programme by 2006. The report recommends gathering more details on the educational needs of areas, so courses can be set to meet local demand. Existing adult learners could use their "enthusiasm, commitment and local knowledge" to attract other people. The Department for Education and Skills could also use more "personalised learning" and work with voluntary groups, councils and employers.It should also assess adult learners' progress "at frequent intervals", the report adds. When the government announced it had reached its 2004 target earlier this month, Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "only the start of the journey". An estimated 5.2 million adults have worse literacy than that expected of 11 year olds, while 14.9 million have numeracy skills below this level. This is thought to cost the UK economy hundreds of millions of pounds each year. The qualifications achieved by those taking part in the government's scheme range up to GCSE equivalents. Get On's participation target has been set at 2.25 million by 2010, with an interim figure of 1.5 million by 2007. Education minister Ivan Lewis said: "We will continue to use creative ways of involving people with the lowest skill levels and the report shows that our efforts are gathering pace." Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins said: "This is the third report in two days to highlight Labour's failure to ensure young people acquire the necessary levels of literacy and numeracy for their working life. "Employers and business leaders have repeatedly voiced concern over the number of school-leavers without these basic skills, but all the government have offered is more talk." Liberal Democrat education spokesman Phil Willis added: "Far too little has been done to enable adult learners to fit learning into their busy lives."

An estimated 5.2 million adults have worse literacy than that expected of 11 year olds, while 14.9 million have numeracy skills below this level.The government will only hit its target for improving adult maths and literacy skills if courses are made more attractive, a report says.Some 26 million adults lack maths or English skill levels expected of school-leavers.Education minister Ivan Lewis said: "We will continue to use creative ways of involving people with the lowest skill levels and the report shows that our efforts are gathering pace."Existing adult learners could use their "enthusiasm, commitment and local knowledge" to attract other people.The National Audit Office praised ministers for reaching the benchmark of 750,000 adults in England gaining basic qualifications by this year.Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins said: "This is the third report in two days to highlight Labour's failure to ensure young people acquire the necessary levels of literacy and numeracy for their working life.Get On's participation target has been set at 2.25 million by 2010, with an interim figure of 1.5 million by 2007.According to the report, "more than half" the qualifications achieved were by learners aged 16 to 18.But a target of 1.5 million more by 2010 needed "creative" ideas.Normally adults are defined as being aged over 19.

Chancellor rallies Labour votersGordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts. He told his party's spring conference the Tories must not be allowed to win. The Conservatives and Lib Dems insisted that voters faced higher taxes and means-testing under Labour.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country. Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed. "Never again Tory boom and bust."This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more." Turning to the economy, the chancellor promised to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power.He also pledged to continue the fight against child and pensioner poverty. And he promised help to get young people on the property ladder. "My message to the thousands of young couples waiting to obtain their first home is that housing is rightly now at the centre of our coming manifesto," he said. "And the next Labour government will match our low mortgage rates with a new first-time buyers' initiative." In the speech, which prompted a standing ovation, he also promised to end teenage unemployment within the next five years.He also highlighted plans for 100% debt relief for the world's poorest countries, a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds, the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown. "We've heard it all before. Instead of talking about the future he kept on talking about the past. "He completely failed to say which taxes he would put up to fill the black hole in his spending plans. "There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it. "For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said. "Gordon Brown has created a system of massive centralisation and bureaucracy, a system which subjects millions of people to means testing, and a system of taxation which is extremely complex. "For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation." Also in Gateshead, the prime minister took questions sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign. Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done. He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs".

Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown."There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts.Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed.Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it."For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said.Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country.Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done.He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs"."For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation."

Muslim police stops 'more likely'UK Muslims should accept that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, a Home Office minister has said.Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists. Qualifications for religious leaders to enter the UK could also be made tougher, she told a Commons inquiry. Her comments have been described as "irresponsible" and "outrageous" by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)."The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam," the Salford MP told the Commons home affairs committee."It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community." It was a reality that should be recognised, she said. "If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area," she added. On ministers of religions, such as imams, she said faith groups would be asked what other qualifications and skills, such as civic knowledge and ability to engage the community, should be demanded. Last year, ministers introduced a requirement that ministers should speak English to a certain level.IHRC chairman Massoud Shadjareh accused Ms Blears of "playing an Islamophobia card" in the run-up to a general election."She is demonising and alienating our community," he said. "It is a legitimisation for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community. "This sort of comment is just music to the ears of racists." Later, the prime minister's official spokesman urged people to put Ms Blears' comments into context. The minister had been saying she understood there was a perception that stop and search was aimed at one community, but that was not what was happening, the spokesman said."What is happening is that those powers are aimed at those who are suspected of carrying out or planning certain activity who happen to come from one community. "It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community," he added. Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics.Figures showed that, for 2003/2004, Asians were 1.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched, compared with 1.7 times more likely in the previous year. Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted. Muslim groups have repeatedly claimed that their communities are being victimised under terror laws. In 2003/2004, 12.5% searches under the laws were on Asian people, even though they make up 4.7% of the population. Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws.

UK Muslims should accept that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, a Home Office minister has said.Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics."It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community," he added.The minister had been saying she understood there was a perception that stop and search was aimed at one community, but that was not what was happening, the spokesman said.Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws."She is demonising and alienating our community," he said.Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists.Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted.On ministers of religions, such as imams, she said faith groups would be asked what other qualifications and skills, such as civic knowledge and ability to engage the community, should be demanded."It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community."

Howard 'truanted to play snooker'Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall.Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage". But he told the Times Educational Supplement that truancy was "very bad" and said "firm action" was needed. Mr Howard also called for a return to O-levels and more classroom discipline.Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University. He said: "I don't think it's done me any lasting damage. Nor has it made me a snooker world champion. "There might have been some occasions when we left early of an afternoon."I'm just being honest. I think truancy is a very bad thing and that firm action should be taken to deal with it." Another player who has failed to win snooker's world championship - Jimmy "the Whirlwind " White - has previously admitted missing lessons, instead spending his days in smoky halls. "Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere. "School went out of the window. I went for a while and then started taking time off." Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner. And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979. It is not known whether the two of them ever clashed cues at Jack's.

Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage".Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University.Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall.Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner."Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere.And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979.Nor has it made me a snooker world champion.

Conservative backing for ID cardsThe Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats.They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration."Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."

If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Boris opposes mayor apologyKen Livingstone should "stick to his guns" and not apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter, Tory MP Boris Johnson has insisted.Mr Johnson also claimed Tony Blair's intervention in the row was "an attempt to reassure Jewish voters". London mayor Mr Livingstone says he is "standing by" his remarks which likened an Evening Standard journalist to a "concentration camp guard". But the prime minister says it is time for Mr Livingstone to say sorry.Labour's Mr Livingstone has said his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked. Later the prime minister said: "A lot of us in politics get angry with journalists from time to time, but in the circumstances, and to the journalist because he was a Jewish journalist, yes, he should apologise."However, Mr Johnson, who was forced to apologise last year for an article in the magazine he edits about Liverpudlians grieving over the death of British hostage Ken Bigley, said Mr Blair "should butt out of" the row. "I don't see why the prime minister has to get involved in this," The Spectator editor told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It's a dispute between Ken Livingstone and a reporter on the Evening Standard." Mr Johnson, MP for Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, said he suspected Labour was now trying to reassure Jewish voters "because of this curious way in which Labour seems to be trying to curry favour with disillusioned Muslim voters who may be disillusioned about the war"."Ken doesn't think he's got anything to say sorry for and if that's really his feeling, then I think that he should stick to his guns," he said. Mr Johnson apologised last October for perpetuating an "outdated stereotype" of Liverpool in the leader article on the death of Mr Bigley. The article in the magazine suggested grieving Liverpudlians were wallowing in their victim status. It also attributed blame to drunken Liverpool football fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster in which 96 died. Mr Johnson told Today: "It's perfectly true that I got into the grovelling game myself and when I apologised there were some things that I felt I ought to say sorry for ... there were also other things I didn't think I should apologise for," he said. "But here's old Ken - he's been crass, he's been insensitive and thuggish and brutal in his language - but I don't think actually if you read what he said, although it was extraordinary and rude, I don't think he was actually anti-Semitic."

However, Mr Johnson, who was forced to apologise last year for an article in the magazine he edits about Liverpudlians grieving over the death of British hostage Ken Bigley, said Mr Blair "should butt out of" the row.Mr Johnson told Today: "It's perfectly true that I got into the grovelling game myself and when I apologised there were some things that I felt I ought to say sorry for ... there were also other things I didn't think I should apologise for," he said.Labour's Mr Livingstone has said his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.But the prime minister says it is time for Mr Livingstone to say sorry.Mr Johnson apologised last October for perpetuating an "outdated stereotype" of Liverpool in the leader article on the death of Mr Bigley.Ken Livingstone should "stick to his guns" and not apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter, Tory MP Boris Johnson has insisted.Mr Johnson also claimed Tony Blair's intervention in the row was "an attempt to reassure Jewish voters".

Brown ally rejects Budget spreeChancellor Gordon Brown's closest ally has denied suggestions there will be a Budget giveaway on 16 March.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day. But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules. He was speaking as Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, warned Mr Brown not to be tempted to use any extra cash on pre-election bribes.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare". He said he hoped more would be done to build on current tax credit rules.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning. Expectations of a rate rise have gathered pace after figures showed house prices are still rising. Consumer borrowing rose at a near-record pace in January. "If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch. "This is a big change in our political culture."During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy. "I don't think we'll see a pre-election spending spree - we certainly did not see that before 2001," he said.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills. His message to the chancellor was: "Please don't give it away in any form of electioneering." Sir Digby added: "I don't think he will. I have to say he has been a prudent chancellor right the way through. Stability is the key word - British business needs boring stability more than anything. "We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away. But if you are going to anywhere, just add something to the competitiveness of Britain, put it into skilling our people'. "That would be a good way to spend any excess."Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary. "I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today. Prime Minister Tony Blair has yet to name the date of the election, but most pundits are betting on 5 May.

But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules.During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy.Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare"."We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning."If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch."I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills.

Blair blasts Tory spending plansTony Blair has launched an attack on Conservative spending plans, saying they are a "ludicrous improbability".The prime minister has told a Labour Party gathering that the Tory policies would cause economic failure. Tory leader Michael Howard has said his party would cut £35bn in "wasteful" spending to allow £4bn in tax cuts. On Saturday, Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories would fund the cuts by removing "inefficiencies" which had "burgeoned" under Labour. In his speech, Mr Blair contrasted a reformed Labour party, which had learned to occupy the political centre ground, with a hidebound Tory party, which he said would turn the clock back with spending cuts. Mr Blair said: "The Conservative tax and spending proposals would put at risk, both Britain's hard-won economic stability - the lowest mortgages, inflation, unemployment, for decades - and the key investment in public services."I believe that the Tory plans are as plain a call to return to the past as it's possible to imagine," he said. "It's a recipe for exactly the same boom and bust economics and cuts in public services that were their hallmark in 18 years of Conservative government." Mr Blair added: "They, the Conservatives have learned nothing." By contrast, he said, New Labour had listened to its electorate and changed.Mr Blair went on to list his government's achievements and to issue a rallying call to the party. "So now we have a choice, we can defend this record and we can build on it and go on and fulfil the promise or give up and go back. And I say we have to fight." In response, David Davis said the Tories would make cuts, such as removing regional assemblies, but would bring in more police officers and match Labour's spending on health and education. "Everybody knows, having lived through this government the last seven years, that they faced lots of stealth tactics, lots of increases in taxes, but no improvement in public services," he said. Mr Davis said Labour had been responsible for "huge waste, huge overspending, not on the frontline at all but on bureaucracy". "The public face a choice between more waste and more taxes with this government, less waste and lower taxes with a Tory government," he concluded.Gordon Brown has addressed the conference behind closed doors. The Chancellor said the Conservatives' plans would see some £50bn in spending cuts by 2011, which the Tories deny. Mr Brown also issued call for party unity and warn of the dangers of allowing themselves to be "distracted or diverted". According to an advance text released by officials, he told delegates: "We must all show the strength and unity of purpose to take the long-term decisions necessary to meet them."Mr Brown warned that the Tories were planning "the biggest cuts ever in the history of any election manifesto". Meanwhile, Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blair of "misrepresenting" the party's proposals and questioned how Labour would fund its own plans. "He still cannot accept the simple truth, which is that we will spend more on what matters to people - schools, hospitals and police - and that we will offer value for money and lower taxes," Mr Letwin said. "Once again Mr Blair and his Chancellor have failed to answer the question that lies at the heart of this election - which taxes will they put up to fill the £8bn shortfall in their plans?"

In his speech, Mr Blair contrasted a reformed Labour party, which had learned to occupy the political centre ground, with a hidebound Tory party, which he said would turn the clock back with spending cuts.Tory leader Michael Howard has said his party would cut £35bn in "wasteful" spending to allow £4bn in tax cuts.Mr Blair said: "The Conservative tax and spending proposals would put at risk, both Britain's hard-won economic stability - the lowest mortgages, inflation, unemployment, for decades - and the key investment in public services.The Chancellor said the Conservatives' plans would see some £50bn in spending cuts by 2011, which the Tories deny.Meanwhile, Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blair of "misrepresenting" the party's proposals and questioned how Labour would fund its own plans.On Saturday, Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories would fund the cuts by removing "inefficiencies" which had "burgeoned" under Labour.The prime minister has told a Labour Party gathering that the Tory policies would cause economic failure.In response, David Davis said the Tories would make cuts, such as removing regional assemblies, but would bring in more police officers and match Labour's spending on health and education.Mr Davis said Labour had been responsible for "huge waste, huge overspending, not on the frontline at all but on bureaucracy"."Once again Mr Blair and his Chancellor have failed to answer the question that lies at the heart of this election - which taxes will they put up to fill the £8bn shortfall in their plans?"

Fox attacks Blair's Tory 'lies'Tony Blair lied when he took the UK to war so has no qualms about lying in the election campaign, say the Tories.Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda". Dr Fox told BBC Radio: "If you are willing to lie about the reasons for going to war, I guess you are going to lie about anything at all." He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.The prime minister ratcheted up Labour's pre-election campaigning at the weekend with a helicopter tour of the country and his speech at the party's spring conference. He insisted he did not know the poll date, but it is widely expected to be 5 May.In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street." He described his relationship with the public as starting euphoric, then struggling to live up to the expectations, and reaching the point of raised voices and "throwing crockery". He warned his supporters against complacency, saying: "It's a fight for the future of our country, it's a fight that for Britain and the people of Britain we have to win."Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward". Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies. "What we learned at the weekend is what Labour tactics are going to be and it's going to be fear and smear," he told BBC News. The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver. Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election. "We repay loans when they are due but do not comment to individual financial matters," he said, insisting he enjoyed a "warm and constructive" relationship to Lord Ashcroft.Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday. Mr Kennedy is accelerating Lib Dem election preparations this week as he visits Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Somerset, Basingstoke, Shrewsbury, Dorset and Torbay. He said: "This is three-party politics. In the northern cities, the contest is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. "In southern and rural seats - especially in the South West - the principal contenders are the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who are out of the running in Scotland and Wales." The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.

Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward".Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda".Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election.The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver.Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies.In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street."Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday.He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.

Blair's hope for Blunkett returnThe events leading to David Blunkett's resignation must not "swept under the carpet", the Tories have warned.On Wednesday Tony Blair said he hoped the former home secretary would serve again in government in the future. Mr Blunkett quit in December after a probe linked him to the visa application of his ex-lover's nanny. Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous". Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I know David very well and I believe him to be a man of real integrity and real ability and I was very sad for him as to what happened."He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs. But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet." Senior Labour backbencher Martin O'Neill, who chairs the Commons trade committee, said he believed the prime minister would want one of his "praetorian guard" - a reference to the elite body guard of Roman emperors - back alongside him. But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.

Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous".But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet."But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs.