The rise has followed an influx of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans into the UK since 2004. At the same time the number of British people claiming incapacity benefit has soared while there has also been an increase in people emigrating. Official figures from the Labour Force Survey show that the number of foreigners in the UK workforce increased between 2001 and last year by 864,000 - to just over two million people. This is equivalent to one in 14 of a total working population.

The Conservatives last night said the disclosure undermined Gordon Brown's vow to create jobs for British workers. Critics claim many British workers are either simply unemployed or claiming to be too ill to work. Around 4.8 million people are currently claiming out-of-work benefits. Around 2.6 million are on incapacity benefits - 120,000 more than when Labour came to power in 1997.

The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights from Europe to America by US airlines. The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements.

According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said. And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.

The data from the US's new electronic transport authorisation system is to be combined with extensive personal passenger details already being provided by EU countries to the US for the "profiling" of potential terrorists and assessment of other security risks. As part of a controversial passenger data exchange programme allegedly aimed at combating terrorism, the EU has for the past few months been supplying the American authorities with 19 items of information on every traveller flying from the EU to the US.

The new American demands go well beyond what was agreed under that passenger name record (PNR) system and look certain to cause disputes within Europe and between Europe and the US. Brussels is pressing European governments not to sign the bilateral deals with the Americans to avoid weakening the EU bargaining position. But Washington appears close to striking accords on the new travel regime with Greece and the Czech Republic. Both countries have sizeable diaspora communities in America, while their citizens need visas to enter the US. Visa-free travel would be popular in both countries.

As reported in Sunday's Post, a senior Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah said that the Palestinian negotiating team headed by former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei had been holding "secret talks" with Livni and other government officials over the past few weeks.

"There are public meetings and there are secret ones," the PA official explained. "The main progress has been achieved during the secret talks, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem. Today we can say that Israel is prepared to withdraw from almost all the Arab neighborhoods and villages in Jerusalem. Israel is prepared to redivide Jerusalem, and this is a positive development."

Livni's associates declined to comment on the story, saying that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams had decided not to respond to reports about what was taking place behind closed doors during the negotiations.

Jerusalem municipal opposition leader Nir Barkat, who has led a public campaign against the proposed division of the capital, called on Livni to reveal any agreements reached during negotiations with the Palestinians.

"I demand that the foreign minister, who heads the negotiations with the Palestinians, publicly disclose all secretive and other agreements that the State of Israel has reached with the Palestinians," Barkat said.

"Any such agreement achieved on behalf of an Israeli official would constitute an absolute deviation from Kadima's basic principles and a violation of the Basic Law: Jerusalem. It would betray the trust of the voter and undermines the sovereign basis of the Knesset. The Palestinians must understand that neither the government of Israel, nor any other body on its behalf, has the right to promise to give up areas where Israeli law, governance and legislation have been implemented."

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, 'Hello, President'. "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

Exxon Mobil is also taking its claims to international arbitration, disputing the terms it was granted under Chavez's nationalization last year of four heavy oil projects in the Orinoco River basin, one of the world's richest oil deposits. Other major oil companies including U.S.-based Chevron Corp., France's Total, Britain's BP PLC, and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil project. ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, however, balked at the tougher terms and have been in compensation talks with PDVSA.

Both sides gave ground last week at talks mediated by former U.N. boss Kofi Annan, paving the way for a deal to stop turmoil that has killed more than 1,000 and uprooted 300,000 more. Opposition leader Raila Odinga accuses Kibaki of rigging the Dec. 27 poll, triggering ethnic violence that shattered Kenya's image as a peaceful business, tourism and transport hub.

"We are advocating for power-sharing, if need be," Japhet Kareke, a member of parliament from Kibaki's coalition, told reporters. "The president and honourable Raila are talking. For the sake of peace, let them sit down and agree the way forward." Speaking outside a Nairobi cathedral on Sunday, Odinga said his party supported a political settlement, but gave no details: "We will not carry out mediation talks through the media."

His Orange Democratic Movement is no longer calling on Kibaki to step down, sources close to the talks say, while Kibaki's Party of National Unity has dropped its demand that the opposition take any grievances over the polls to court. For his part, Annan has sounded optimistic since the apparent breakthrough in the discussions on Friday, saying he now expects delegates to reach a deal within days.

"God forbid, I will never vote for mullahs," said Saif-ur-Rehman, a bearded stall owner in Qissa Khawani, a famous bazaar in Peshawar, before rushing for prayers at a mosque in the provincial capital of North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Parliamentary and provincial assembly polls set for February 18 will take place against the backcloth of a Taliban and al Qaeda campaign to destabilize President Pervez Musharraf.

For all the revulsion over almost-weekly suicide attacks, conservative religious folk of the area have more immediate concerns, like lack of jobs, rising food prices, power outages and gas shortages that left them without heat over the winter. The mullahs who have held power in NWFP as well as politicians aligned with the unpopular Musharraf have become discredited.

"If investors thought the market could only go up, January's wake-up call pulled them back into reality," the independent credit ratings' provider said. Standard & Poor's said the world's equity markets lost a combined 5.2 trillion dollars as emerging markets fell 12.44 percent and developed markets lost 7.83 percent to register one of the worst starts to a new year.

"There were few safe havens in January as 50 of the 52 global equity markets ended the month in negative territory, with 25 of them posting double-digit losses," said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&Ps. All 26 developed equity markets posted negative returns in January, with 16 losing at least 10 percent of their value. The January declines negated all previous market gains, leaving all of the developed markets in the red for the trailing three month period.

In Germany, in contrast, although the stock exchange lost 13.72 percent in January and 13.84 percent over three months, it was up 13.43 percent over the year.

At least, HE SEEMS TO BE LOSING HIS GRIP ON WHAT IS GOOD IN THIS COUNTRY and, indeed, to be throwing it away with both hands in his curious suggestion that aspects of sharia should be recognised in English law. Rowan Williams said that THE INTRODUCTION OF PARTS OF ISLAMIC LAW HERE WOULD HELP TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL COHESION AND SEEMS UNAVOIDABLE. Sharia courts exist already, he pointed out. We should "face up to the fact" that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said, and that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty. An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said. I think that's a bit of a danger."

WHAT DANGER? AND TO WHOM? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, WHO SEEM UNWILLING TO HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD. What is good and best and essential about our society it isn't merely a matter of "social identity" is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well. OUR LAW EXPRESSES AND MAINTAINS THE BEST VIRTUES OF OUR SOCIETY. ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE.

ONE ENCOURAGING SIGN IS THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL FURY THAT OUR FOOLISH ARCHBISHOP HAS AROUSED: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.

SO WHAT POSSESSED THIS TROUBLESOME PRIEST to stir up this predictable fury with his divisive and unnecessary suggestions? It has most certainly not been good for ordinary British Muslims, as they well understand. It has, however, GIVEN COMFORT TO MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, WHO WILL SEE THIS AS THE THIN END OF THEIR ISLAMIST WEDGE.

TO SEEK TO UNDERMINE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, IS A KIND OF TREASON. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?

On May 14, 1938, in Berlin's Olympic Stadium, the English football team were blackguarded by the Foreign Office and the Football Association into giving the "Heil Hitler" Nazi salute before a friendly game with Germany. IT WAS A PIECE OF CONTEMPTIBLE CRINGING rendered even more pathetic and futile because Hitler, who hated sport, didn't bother to turn up.

But that picture of impressionable footballers obeying orders from mutton-headed apparatchiks went round the world and became a lasting source of shame to this country. This was, after all, just weeks after Hitler had annexed Austria and came at a time when plans for the Final Solution were well advanced. Was Hitler made more reasonable by that salute, or by the willingness of the world to offer him a massive propaganda boost two years earlier at the Berlin Olympics by turning up without a squeak of protest? Of course not, which leads to some interesting parallels with today.

IN 1936, PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS WAS STOPPED BRIEFLY, DISSIDENTS WERE ROUNDED UP AND KEPT OUT OF THE WAY AND NAZI GERMANY PUT ON ITS BEST FACE FOR THE GAMES. And that is exactly what the Chinese are doing today. And the Chinese government, rattled by the possibility of public criticism from Olympians, has been applying crude pressure to the international community to keep quiet. "If at each Olympics people stood up and used politics to attack the host nation, where does that leave the Olympic spirit?" argued the official newspaper, The People's Daily, last month.

Let's take the interesting case of Zara Phillips. THE PRINCE OF WALES HAS MADE IT CLEAR IN A LETTER to the Free Tibet campaign THAT HE WILL NOT ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE USED AS A PROPAGANDA PAWN BY THE CHINESE, AND WILL NOT ATTEND THE GAMES. If Ms Phillips were to indicate her support for her uncle's principled stand, will Clegg really carry out his threat and send her home? If so, he might even snatch the Berk of the Year award from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

NO THOUGHT IS BEING GIVEN TO THE NEGATIVE IMPACT AN UNREFORMED CHINESE SUPERPOWER WILL HAVE ON WORLD STABILITY unless economic improvements are matched by equally profound advances in democratic institutions. And that problem goes far wider than Brown. THE AMERICANS ARE THE WORST CULPRITS IN ENCOURAGING CHINESE MANUFACTURING WITHOUT INSISTING ON ANYTHING IN RETURN. And that foolhardy desire to reward China for its many bad habits extends to the International Olympic Committee. THEY GAVE THE GAMES TO BEIJING DESPITE THAT CITY BEING AMONG THE MOST BADLY POLLUTED IN THE WORLD. Will a British competitor be sent home for daring to complain about the smog?

Any intelligent athlete will have a lot to think about on that plane to Beijing. And if they choose to voice those thoughts, why shouldn't they? If Simon Clegg and the BOA don't want to end up as despised as those who told our footballers to make Nazi salutes, he and his cronies should put those contracts where they belong - down the nearest lavatory.

THE MOVE - which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 - IMMEDIATELY PROVOKED A STORM OF PROTEST. The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes' contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games. It is contained in a 32-page document that will be presented to all those who reach the qualifying standard and are chosen for the team.

From the moment they sign up, THE COMPETITORS - likely to include the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe - WILL BE EFFECTIVELY GAGGED FROM COMMENTING ON CHINA'S POLITICS, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES OR ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF TIBET. Prince Charles has already let it be known that he will not be going to China, even if he is invited by Games organisers. His views on the Communist dictatorship are well known, after this newspaper revealed how he described China's leaders as "appalling old waxworks" in a journal written after he attended the handover of Hong Kong. The Prince is also a long-time supporter of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader.

Yesterday the British Olympic Association (BOA) confirmed to The Mail on Sunday that any athlete who refuses to sign the agreements will not be allowed to travel to Beijing.

Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily. Lessing, who won the 2007 Nobel Literature Prize, said it might be better if Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton were to succeed in her bid to become the first woman president of the United States.

"The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama," she said.

Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the "elephant in the room". Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: "If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem." The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: "The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability in children."

Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins. Medical research suggests that while BRITISH PAKISTANIS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 3% OF ALL BIRTHS, THEY ACCOUNT FOR ONE IN THREE BRITISH CHILDREN BORN WITH GENETIC ILLNESSES.

Woolas was supported by Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, who called for the NHS to do more to warn parents of the dangers of inbreeding. "THIS IS TO DO WITH A MEDIEVAL CULTURE WHERE YOU KEEP WEALTH WITHIN THE FAMILY," she said. "I have encountered cases of blindness and deafness. There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck. The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned again from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition."

The minister's comments come as Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, rejected calls to resign over claims that Islamic law should be introduced in Britain. "I'm not contemplating resignation," he told friends. Williams insists his remarks were misinterpreted and that he was not advocating a parallel sharia jurisdiction for Muslims, but Lord Carey, his predecessor, warned acceptance of Muslim laws in Britain would be "disastrous".

The proposal elicited instant ridicule from residents of the area on Thursday, as well as tongue-in-cheek saber rattling from Tennessee lawmakers. One state senator offered to settle the issue with a football game. Another suggested floating an armada of University of Tennessee fans down the Tennessee River to defend the state's territory. But behind the amusement is a serious issue that has bedeviled the Southeast: access to water. If the border is redrawn, the new state line would fall across Nickajack Reservoir. That would allow parched Georgians to tap into the waters of the dammed Tennessee River.

Georgia has been battling Florida and Alabama in federal court for about 18 years over water rights. Last summer, Lake Lanier, which supplies Atlanta's water, shriveled to historic lows. The resolution, which has passed early hurdles but has not received final passage, claims that the boundary was erroneously surveyed in 1818 and that Georgia has never accepted it. The resolution calls for the creation of a "Georgia-Tennessee Boundary Line Commission" that would perform joint surveys and change the line to the "definite and true" boundary line: exactly following the 35th parallel.

"We're not talking about sucking it dry," said Rep. Harry Geisinger, a Republican who sponsored the resolution in the Georgia House. "We're talking about augmenting some water needs, and as you know, the Tennessee has got plenty of water in it."

"We must not - we cannot - become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not," Gates told the Munich Conference on Security Policy, where Afghanistan was a central topic.

"Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance," he added. Washington has had innumerable disputes with its NATO allies in the 59 years since it was founded as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union. But today's debate over the importance of the mission in Afghanistan and how to accomplish it was portrayed by Gates as among the most difficult ever. A central theme of Gates' speech was his assertion that al-Qaida extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pose a greater threat to Europe than many Europeans realize.

Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery. The $168 billion economic rescue package Congress rushed to approval this week includes rebates of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, the hope being that they will spend the money and help revive ailing businesses.

The cost of the war in Iraq as of today is $493,211,053,000. - which is $275 million per day.

For update - go to:-http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home