The government should look at ways of opening communication channels with groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban if it wants a long-term political solution as well as a security solution, a former senior aide to Tony Blair says.

Jonathan Powell, who served as Blair’s chief of staff between 1995 and 2007, told the Guardian newspaper that such a policy helped secure a peace deal in Northern Ireland.

He was quoted as saying that a secret back channel between the British government and the IRA, first opened in the 1970s, was one of the key factors that contributed to a peace deal three decades later.

“It’s very difficult for democratic governments to do - talk to a terrorist movement that’s killing your people,” he was reported as saying.

“[But] if I was in government now I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al
Qaeda.”

The Foreign Office said it was “inconceivable” that it would ever seek to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with al Qaeda, and has called on disaffected Afghans to renounce violence.

It has also told Hamas “dialogue is impossible so long as one party is dedicated to violence and the destruction of the other”.

Can peace be achieved without dialogue, and if not, at what point do you begin talking?

Foreign Secretary David Miliband took time out from his recent trips to Hong Kong and China to answer questions from Reuters Online readers.

The Middle East peace process dominated the post bag as well as Britain’s reaction to Kosovo’s independence. Afghanistan and Zimbabwe also featured.

A selection of questions were sent to the foreign secretary, and his answers can be found below.

[Editor’s note: The first question was raised before the UK said it would recognise Kosovo]
Q: Nigel Gordon-Johnson asks: Will the British Government recognise Kosovo Independence and how will it improve relations with Russia?

A: Resolving the Kosovo issue mattered for Europe’s security. We saw in the 1990s what happened when the international community became paralysed with indecision - and the human and political costs that Europeans paid for it. That is why the UK, along with our European partners and others, recognised an independent Kosovo on 18 February.

Clearly the Russian government had concerns about the international community’s recognition of Kosovo. But inaction was not an option. The Russian Foreign Minister himself agreed last September that the status quo was unsustainable and that a solution had to be found without delay. I do regret that we were not able to reach agreement with the Russians to implement UN Special Envoy Ahtisaari’s proposal for a settlement. Nevertheless, I hope Russia will now work with us and others to encourage stability in Kosovo and the wider Western Balkans region.

Q: Mr Milliband asks: When will the British Embassy will be fully active in the newest country - Kosovo?

A: The UK established diplomatic relations with Kosovo on 18 February. The British Embassy , previously the British Office, is currently active in Kosovo.

Q: Marko asks: What does it feel like to have participated in a flagrant breach of international law by encouraging an illegal separatist state almost entirely and ethnically cleansed of its Serbian population with local power structures dominated by organised crime? Also, how do you intend to react when (1) Serbia eventually takes concrete and practical action to re-establish its sovereignty over its southern province and (2) the Bosnian Serb Republic issues a referendum for secession?

A: I don’t accept the premise of the question - United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which provided the basis for a Kosovo process, did not constrain the outcome of Kosovo’s final status. Of course we recognise how painful Kosovo’s independence is for Serbia. But reintegration of Kosovo into Serbia was not a viable option; independence with international supervision was the only realistic way forward, and in line with international law.

We expect all sides to behave in a measured way to developments and to adhere to their commitments to avoid violence and provocation. Throughout the 1990s, we saw the consequences of political irresponsibility in the Balkans. Today’s politicians must learn from that tragedy and act with moderation and restraint.

I see no linkage between Kosovo and Bosnia. The Dayton Accords provide a framework for Bosnia, which has been signed up to by Bosnia’s leaders as well as by Belgrade and Moscow.

Q: Tracy asks: Mr. Miliband, with multinational forces in Afghanistan, what particular role does the British presence play? Reading the reports, the current system of parcelling out individual provinces to each nation’s army seems to create disparate qualities of peacekeeping, security and quality of life for the Afghans that in turn seem to further divide them among provincial lines. What can you do to ensure that a standardized practice exists among international forces and keep Afghanistan whole?

A: The UK is one of 40 countries, from within NATO and beyond, that contribute to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Whilst UK Armed Forces are largely located in Helmand Province, where the UK leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), British soldiers are also deployed to ISAF’s Headquarters in Kabul (where the Deputy Commander is a British General) and to the Regional Command (South) Headquarters in Kandahar. But UK military forces are only part of our commitment to Afghanistan. They are complemented by a significant diplomatic presence, and an annual £100 million development programme.

These efforts are designed to help the Government of Afghanistan extend its authority throughout the country, and deliver security and public services to Afghan citizens. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach - every part of Afghanistan presents its own unique challenges. But there is a significant level of co-ordination between the contributing nations and, more importantly, with the Government of Afghanistan, who are firmly in the lead. The UN plays an essential role in this.

There is always room for improvement. That’s why Ministers regularly review ISAF’s progress to ensure that international co-ordination remains on track: I discussed this with my NATO Foreign Ministerial colleagues this week, and we will also review it at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April. Similar meetings take place regularly to review progress on the reconstruction and development side.

Q: Vincent asks: Dear Mr. Miliband. When will Britain and the United States end the covert/overt economic sanctions that are starving the (mostly black) people of Zimbabwe. The British government and BBC propaganda blame economic mismanagement by Mugabe, yet the USA has a law called ZIDERA that is crippling the Zimbabwean economy. Why the lies? Why punish millions of black Zimbabweans because of 2,000 white farmers?

A: Neither the United Kingdom nor the EU have economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. The EU’s targeted measures have no adverse effect on the Zimbabwean economy at all. These measures, which include a travel ban and an asset freeze, are directed only against the 131 individuals who are directly responsible for Zimbabwe’s suffering. There are no international restrictions on the flow of trade and investment into and out of Zimbabwe, with the exception of an arms embargo.

On the contrary, the UK remains committed to supporting the people of Zimbabwe. We are one of the three largest donors to the country. We have provided more than £500m in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe since independence. We continue to provide annual support to alleviate the increasing humanitarian crisis and to ease HIV/AIDs suffering totalling over £150m in five years. And we have responded to the growing crisis of food security through a £8 million commitment to the World Food Programme. Our concern throughout is for the people of Zimbabwe and we will maintain our support as long as it is needed.

Q: alex asks: Mr Miliband, will you and the foreign office be exerting any public pressure on Robert Mugabe / Equatorial Guniea in order to secure the release of Simon Mann? He is after all a British Citizen and and former servant of his country? similarly what about the former British soldiers kidnapped in Iraq? Does being a private security contractor - (mercenary to use the unacceptable word)mean the Foreign Office will do nothing publicly, even if you are a) a British citizen, b) a former British soldier and are c) engaged in activities that the goverment supports? the silence is deafening.

A: British officials have visited Simon Mann in prison, and we will continue to provide consular support to him and his family. Our priority in his case, and in the cases of the other 2,500 UK nationals detained or in prison overseas, is to ensure that consular and welfare needs are being met. That includes ensuring access to legal representation where available.

Q: jill asks: Reference the EU referendum. I acknowledge he asserts “in…[his] opinion there is no need for a referendum”. Therein lies the crux; that this is his opinion. It is taking absolutely no account of the majority he is supposed to be representing. How and in what way, can that be described as democracy?

A: The Constitution proposed in 2004 would have ripped up the existing treaties and replaced them with a completely new constitutional treaty. That is why the Government proposed holding a referendum on it. But all of Europe’s leaders have agreed that the constitutional concept is “abandoned”.

The Lisbon Treaty that we are currently debating in Parliament amends the existing Treaties - just as the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties did. No British Government has ever held a referendum on an amending Treaty, and Parliament is the appropriate place for debating and deciding on the Treaty of Lisbon. Others in Europe agree: whereas nine countries held or planned to hold referenda on the defunct Constitution, only Ireland now plans to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Q: Mike asks: Mr Miliband, a great deal of political capital is being invested into the Annapolis process in order to achieve a lasting resolution by the end of 2008. However, Israel, the US and the UK will not engage with Hamas. Do you think (a) Annapolis can succeed if there is no dialogue and (b) there should be a policy change within the UK in order to engage with Hamas?

A: The Annapolis conference marked the start of a process, and the UK is deeply committed to making that process a success. There is a real opportunity in 2008 to make genuine progress, but all of us will have to work hard to ensure that this leads to a comprehensive peace settlement.

Our policy on Hamas has not changed. There needs to be significant movement by Hamas towards the three Quartet principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements, before we can have a political dialogue. Such a dialogue is impossible so long as one party is dedicated to violence and the destruction of the other.

Q: Hassan asks: what is your reaction to the Israeli authorities inviting companies to bid for the contract to build the new homes at West Bank. The international community considers all settlements in East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Should the UK call on Israel to stop building new homes in the West Bank, on land Palestinians claim as part of a future state?
Should any action to be taken against Israel if it construction continued?

A: We are very concerned about recent reports of Israeli settlement activity, and I have raised the issue with Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, and Defence Minister, Ehud Barak. The Roadmap is clear: Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including the natural growth of existing settlements. The UK considers that Israeli settlement building anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal under international law. This includes settlements in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This has been our constant position and one we have raised and will continue to raise with the Israeli government at all levels.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has had his passport stamped many times since becoming Britain’s diplomatic voice last year.

He has had to deal with cooling relations with Russia and the threat of a British teacher being given 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear Mohammad in Sudan.

He has also commented on Burma’s crackdown on protesting monks, fears over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and bubbling tensions over Kosovo.

And there’s always Britain’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with.

Reuters Online readers were invited to send in their questions for Miliband to answer.

Thank you for your questions, a selection of which have been sent to him.

The foreign secretary’s answers will appear here shortly.

Britain is becoming a less attractive place for the rich to invest and work in because of government plans to end tax breaks for non-domiciled residents, a trade and investment minister says.

The government is due to report soon on its plan to charge, after seven years residence, non-domiciled residents 30,000 pounds a year to keep their status or become a normal UK taxpayer.

The comments by former CBI chief Digby Jones in the Financial Times newspaper are perceived to be a blow to the prime minister's policy of incorporating non-political experts into his so-called government of all the talents.

Is it a statement too far for a minister to make, or was Jones right to reflect concerns within the City?

Should rich businessmen who enjoy the opportunities Britain provides pay 30,000 in tax, or is the money they spend enough of a boost to the economy?

Send us your comments.

We asked Reuters Online readers to put their questions to Nick Clegg, the young, smooth talking, but so far, relatively unknown new leader of the Liberal Democrats, on policy and the party’s prospects.

Here are his answers:

Roy says:
January 8th, 2008 at 3:24 am GMT

Q: Are you related to Dave the Chameleon? In anycase I wish you well, and hope you can make the lib dems a true alternative and not an also run in British politics.

A: Thanks for your good wishes: I do indeed intend to lead the Liberal Democrats to future success.

Alex says:
January 10th, 2008 at 1:53 am GMT

Q: Will Nick Clegg be demanding a full public enquiry into the intelligence and time line of the Iraq war? And full public enquiry into the 7/7 attacks?

Is he aware that bio-fuels are false solution to the energy crisis? The embracing of which will lead to inflated prices in the agricultural markets, forcing the poor of the world to starve more than they do already? Not to mention the Hydro-carbons and pesticides require to grow the “green” fuel.

He did a good job today in PMQs not sinking to the childish level that we have come to expect from the 2 main parties.

A: The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for full public enquiries into both the Iraq war and the 7/7 attacks, and our position remains the same.

With regard to biofuels, I support the effort to find alternative sources of energy.  I recognise the concerns that you raise about sustainability, and believe that each biofuel should be judged on its own merits.  I want to see further investment in the search for sources that are both sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Tony says:
January 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am GMT

Q: Why have the Lib Dems gone very quiet about PR. Unless you live in a marginal seat you are effectively disfranchised. Its little wonder so few people bother to vote.

A: On your point about being disenfranchised, I couldn’t agree more.

PR would ensure that every voter counts and it is one of the major planks in our proposals to rebuild confidence in British politics.

The government is preparing to release its review of UK electoral system, and you can be sure that the Liberal Democrats will argue forcefully for proportional representation for all elections.  PR remains extremely important to our party.

Keith M Warwick says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am GMT

Q: Apart from being physically attractive to many (allegedly ;-)), I think you need to prove, without any doubt, that you are a solid, able, intelligent, thoughtful but tough politician who is totally reliable (others please note!).

Although, Nick my boy, you already have my vote - how will you prove to other people that you would make an excellent Prime Minister and garner their votes, too?

A: That’s quite a list of qualities: I shall certainly do my best not to disappoint.

Over the coming months I intend to set out in detail the clear dividing lines between the Liberal Democrats and our opponents. 

We are ready to offer the British people a new kind of politics in which local communities and individual people are empowered to take control over their own lives.  With that in mind, we are also developing new policy thinking to restore our civil liberties, protect our environment and provide schools and hospitals that are second to none.

By speaking loudly in our own distinctive voice, the possibilities for our future are limitless.

Jenny says:
January 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm GMT

Q: Why do you think 50% rate of tax for a working couple earning £70k is fair? that means half their money goes to the state when they’re both working and both trying to provide for themselves?

It may be alright for you with your rich wife and elite public school education but the rest of us don’t have such luck.

Also, why do you have such a unrealistic attitude towards illegal immigration? You say we shouldn’t deport all the illegal entrants yet, you won’t agree to stop new illegals entering the country? so essentially you’re making the problem twice as bad and refusing to acknowledge the problem.

Will you admit that you are ‘in bed’ with Labour?

With 80% of public sector jobs going to ‘foreign nationals’ and the vast numbers of UK unemployed how can you say we need immigration when clearly british people need more encouragement?

A: I don’t believe in higher taxes: I believe in fairer taxes.  That’s why the Liberal Democrats propose cutting the basic rate of income tax to its lowest level since 1916 and transferring part of the tax burden from people to pollution with green taxes on behaviour that harms the environment. 

I also believe that taxpayers should pay according to what they can afford.  That’s why we want to replace the unfair council tax with a local income tax would cut bills for the average household as well as pensioners and others on fixed low incomes.

Lab and Conservatives are being dishonest when they suggest that they can deport 600,000 immigrants whose whereabouts they don’t actually know.  That number is more than police states can deport in times of war.

That is why we have proposed the radical policy of “earned legalisation”.  This would be open to illegal immigrants who have been in the UK for at least ten years, who can show that the have not broken the law, have learned English, and demonstrated a long-term commitment to our society.  This is practical plan to get illegal immigrants out of the hands of some of the worst criminals and into hands of mainstream tax-paying society.  What would people really prefer: that these people continue to live in a twilight zone of illegality or that they should be able to make a real contribution to Britain’s future?

The fact that the proportion of new workers within the British economy is so high shows how vital their contribution is.  Foreign workers are essential for covering our national shortfall in semi-skilled employees: quite simply, we need them.  

On these issues - and many more - our position differs from Labour, and the Conservative Party too.  We are not “in bed” with any party: we stand apart from our opponents and we stand up for our beliefs. 

Edward Ashton says:
January 10th, 2008 at 12:27 pm GMT 

Q: Do you as Charles Kennedy support the view that a referendum should be given to the british public on europe? Not on the, should we be in or out, but on this so called treaty. The terms of this treaty have not been given to the public and since it is going to affect the lives of all in this country is it not only right and just to do so?

A: I don’t think that we need a referendum on the current treaty and I am astonished that the Conservatives have had the brass neck to argue so strongly for one, given that they pushed the Maastricht Treaty - which was a more far-reaching treaty than the current one - through Parliament without any question of a public vote.

Most people have not read the Reform Treaty, and those calling for a referendum often do so as a proxy for their wish to take Britain out of the EU altogether.  I am very happy to have an honest debate and referendum on that subject and I am confident that we would win the argument to stay in the Union.

Richard says:
January 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm GMT

Q: How do the Lib Dems differ from Labour and the Tories over public service improvement?

A: Our key priority will be to put people at the heart of public service delivery.  It is essential that our schools and hospitals provide high standard services, but equally important that they cater for different needs of individual people.  When we campaign in the next election the Liberal Democrats will campaign for public services with a human face.  

Paul says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm GMT

Q: How should Britain’s foreign policy change? Are we doing enough to encourage democarcy in places like Pakistan and Kenya?

A: We should start from first principles.  British foreign policy should reflect Britain’s priorities and values.  Under this Labour government, British foreign policy has all too often been set in Washington.

I strongly believe that democracy can bring benefits to previously authoritarian countries - whether Pakistan, Kenya, or anywhere else -but our recent experience in Iraq underlines the limits to imposing democracy by military might.

nicktyrone says:
January 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am GMT

Q: How can you justify breaking the law on ID cards?

A: ID cards would change forever the relationship between the individual and the British state.

They are expensive, unnecessary and intrusive: and almost certainly unsafe.

I am therefore unwilling to hand over my personal details to a government identity centre and carry an identity card.

1. Jo says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm GMT

Q: What are your views on the lamentable decision to “go nuclear”?

Assuming you believe the UK economy is very weak and vulnerable - as I do - what changes do you suggest?

A: Like you, I am angry about the government’s decision to give the go ahead to more nuclear power.  The 2003 Energy White Paper clearly stated that the case for nuclear power would be unconvincing if renewables and energy conservation were properly pursued.  By choosing to invest in nuclear the government is discouraging investment in renewables and there is a great danger that the electricity users will have to pay for the cost of decommissioning through higher charges on their energy bills.

There is no doubt that our economic outlook is less secure than it was.  The Prime Minister should admit that the government’s failure to regulate banks and money lending has created a sea of debt which puts British people in a dangerous situation as the economic outlook tightens.  Our Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable has been has been very clear about how this should be tackled and has argued at length for greater transparency and probity in lending practices.

Reuters Online last month invited readers to put their questions to Seb Coe and John Armitt about London’s staging of the 2012 Olympics.

We now have the answers from the two key men behind the preparation and running of the Games.

Costs associated with hosting London 2102 dominated the questions, but other subjects were raised such as the controversial logo and ticket sales.

The answers, below, were divided between Coe and Armitt. Coe heads the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog), which is responsible for preparing and staging the 2012 Games, handing out most
of the contracts.

Armitt is chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), responsible for the building of the new venues and their use after 2012.

Q: Timothy asked: Any chance of changing the hideous logo?

Coe:  We are proud of the logo and it’s here to stay.  We wanted something that was different, that works for our sponsors, that will connect with young people, works for our merchandise and will work digitally come 2012.  I said at the time that London isn’t bland, so there was no way we were going to create a logo that was bland.  You’ll see that it will evolve between now and 2012 - as we said it would - but the core shape of the logo is here to stay

Q: Richard Lorraine-Smith asked: Dear Sir. All new builds are VAT free so why has the Government tried to con the public into thinking it will cost more because they will have to pay VAT? Some parts of the project will attract VAT but not the construction. The Audit Commission should investigate this and make a statement to Parliament.

Armitt: VAT notices published by Revenue and Customs this year state that the construction of new buildings is subject to standard rates of VAT - the exemptions under this notice only relate to residential buildings so they are not relevant to construction work for London 2012.

Details about the amount of VAT payable were fully outlined in the 2012 budget announced in March this year and the Government and ourselves have continued to be open and transparent in the costs involved in this project.

Q: Mike asked: Is it in the builders’ contracts that, if actual costs exceed quoted costs, penalties are imposed? If not, why not?

Armitt: For the construction of major venues in the Olympic Park, we are using target cost contracts which encourage the client and contractor to work together to reduce costs - the lower the cost, the higher the profit for the contractor. Along with the incentives to reduce costs, these contracts also ensure that should costs be exceeded, the contractor shares any additional expense so there is a natural incentive to deliver within budget.

This is a standard approach for large and complex projects, and has been used successfully in projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5, High Speed 1, and the Emirates Stadium so we are confident it is the right approach.

Across the wider project, we have been given a realistic budget and prudent contingency which match our regeneration ambitions for the Olympic Park site so our focus remains firmly on delivering this huge project with the budget we have been given.

Q: Paul Szynkowski asked: When tickets finally go on sale for the 2012 Olympics, how are you going to make sure that they are not all bought up by various ticket touts, who then go on to sell them at ridiculous prices on internet auction sites? This happens with most music concerts and major sporting events (Rugby World Cup, for example) these days and no one seems to be doing anything about it!

How will you make sure that the true fans of the Olympics are able to buy tickets fairly without having to pay double/triple the face value?

Coe:  We are working on our ticketing strategy and we will of course look at how we can avoid tickets getting into the wrong hands.  Fairly priced tickets are absolutely part of the plan.  In addition of course, there are a number of events that will be free to see - for example road cycling, triathlon and the marathon.  These events will take place on the streets of London, where spectators can line the route.  In addition, we are working on having ‘Live Sites’ throughout the country - big screens that will show Games time action and provide a central meeting point for the cultural events that will be happening as part of the Cultural Olympiad. 

Q: Paul asked: Hi Seb. Are you able to give any indication on any ticket prices as yet for the different events?

Coe: We can’t give any indication just yet, as we are working on the plans at the moment but as I said in the previous question, they will be fairly priced.  We want to give as many people as possible the chance to attend the Games - and create a great atmosphere for all our events.  We look to Manchester for inspiration here - during the Commonwealth Games 90 percent of seats were sold. 

Q: Jojo asked: Why spend 500 million pounds on a once-off stadium when Wembley lies idle?

Armitt: Our plans for the 2012 Olympic Stadium are far from being a ‘once-off’ venue but a unique and innovative design that will evolve as we move from Games time into legacy.

Initially a stunning 80,000 seat Stadium as a flagship of the Games, the venue will then be converted into a 25,000 ‘living stadium’, with a comprehensive calendar of events on the field of play and a mix of sporting, social, community, health and education elements.

£500m is a significant amount of money but it is an investment not a cost and the Stadium will deliver benefits not just for the Games but for generations to come.

London already has an abundance of world-class stadia - Wembley, Twickenham, Emirates - and does not need another large scale stadium. Instead, the legacy Olympic Stadium has been designed to complement these other London venues by enhancing the sporting facilities the capital has to offer across a range of sports.

Far from lying idle, Wembley will also have a key role to play in 2012 by hosting the football events, including the final, during the Olympic Games.

Q: Paul Smith asked: I honestly think the village will be the biggest white elephant in British history.

Armitt: Previous Games have been blighted by poorly planned venues and infrastructure that offer little value after the Games have come and gone. That is why we are learning lessons from previous host cities by ensuring we plan Games and legacy together from the very beginning, before a brick has even been laid. Our goal is to deliver no white elephants at London 2012 and permanent venues and infrastructure will only be built if they have a clear use after the Games are over.

Rather than go down in history as a white elephant, the Olympic Park will be remembered as the biggest new park in Europe for 150 years, surrounded by thousands of new homes, sporting venues and community facilities served by world-class transport links - it will be a new heart for east London and help us kick-start the wider regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley.

Q: Barry asked: Seb - there was a lot of talk about re-invigorating athletics at club level. What exactly is planned ? What will the money be used for and how much will be involved ? Is it to go towards more coaches/better facilities or what ? Do clubs need to apply for extra funds?

As I see it any money will be hoovered up into the pockets of consultants doing surveys - rather than the creation of anything substantive.

On the ground I can see scant evidence of any changes at all - this is in the north east.

Coe:  Let’s be clear here.  Winning the bid was never going to mean that we have a magic wand we can wave over sport - be it athletics, gymnastics or basketball - and create funding.  The Games can provide inspiration, but Locog’s budget is for staging the Games not for funding sports clubs.  It’s up to the Government and bodies like Sport England to use the inspiration of the Games and make it count in London and across the UK.  The Games is an opportunity for everyone - for athletes to make a name for themselves, for the sports themselves to raise their profile and inspire future generations. 

Calls have been made for the words of ”God Save the Queen” to be changed because they are out of date and are non-inclusive, the man tasked with reviewing citizenship for the government has said.

Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, said there were problems with some of the later verses, particularly references to “rebellious Scots”.

The patriotic song, which may date back to the seventeenth century, became the national anthem at the start of the 19th century.

Most people can remember the first few lines, but others are less well known. They include:

O Lord our God arise, Scatter her enemies, And make them fall; Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all!

 From every latent foe, From the assassin’s blow, God save the Queen! O’er her thine arm extend, For Britain’s sake defend, Our mother, prince, and friend, God save the Queen!

Lord grant that Marshal Wade May by thy mighty aid Victory bring. May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush. God save the Queen.

The author was anonymous, but you can put your name to a new 21st century version.  

Send us a verse for modern times.

A new high-speed Eurostar train link was opened with much fanfare this week, cutting travel times to Paris and Brussels from London by about 20 minutes.

It takes a shade over two hours to reach Paris and less than two hours to reach Brussels after 5.9 billion pounds was spent on the link on the British side of the Channel Tunnel and on refurbishment of St. Pancras station in London.

Train travel times within the UK, however, remain stubbornly slow.  It can take about as long to get to Cardiff from London as it does the French capital and twice as long to reach Edinburgh.

It takes about two-and-half hours to reach Leeds and around four hours to get to Plymouth. And that’s without all the engineering works at the weekend.

Would it perhaps have been better to have spent all those millions on speeding up the rail network within the country rather than shaving a few minutes from a Continental route? Let us know your views.

Nearly 80 percent of Britons will re-read a book for pleasure because they are fascinated by the story, or because they empathise with a character or it cheers them up, a survey has found.

The Harry Potter series is the most popular, but the classics feature strongly with Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” and Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre” among the top 10.

Others include JRR Tolkien’s epic adventure books, George Orwell’s “1984″ and Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”.

Other reasons given for re-reading a book are that each read throws up something new, it is comforting and they haven’t found anything as good since their old favourite.

Some readers, 17 percent, have read the same book more than five times.

The survey by Costa, to mark their book awards, also showed nearly half, 43 percent, of those questioned in the survey said they will have decided whether to give up on a new book after the first chapter.

What books have you read more than once? And what made you return to it?

Reuters Online is inviting readers to send their questions about London’s staging of the 2012 Olympics to Seb Coe and John Armitt, key figures behind the preparation and running of the Games.

London’s successful bid has raised both expectations and ire among the general public and athletes.

Cost, design, current training facilities, the legacy and environmental issues have been among the questions put to organisers during political debates in the London Assembly.

Reuters is inviting readers to put their questions to Coe, who heads the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog), which is responsible for preparing and staging the 2012 Games, handing out most
of the contracts.

Armitt, chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), will also be available to answer questions in connection with the building of the new venues and their
use after 2012.

Reuters will pass a selection of your questions to Coe and Armitt, and print the questions and answers on the site at a later date.