Gordon Brown said last night that Mahatma Gandhi would inspire him as prime minister after publicly admitting for the first time that he would be the successor to Tony Blair.

During a day in which he announced a full-scale shakeup of Britain’s fight against terrorism, the chancellor said the cheerful mood evident on his three-day visit to India was the result of him being free to talk about matters outside his Treasury remit. Laying a wreath at the Gandhi memorial in Delhi, he praised the courage shown by the leader of the fight for India’s independence, and Margaret Thatcher’s struggle against communism.

“I could never compare myself to Gandhi or those other heroes of mine but I do take inspiration from the way that they dealt with the challenges they faced when I think about how I will deal with the challenges the country and the world faces, including the security challenge,” he said. “That means especially having the strength of belief and willpower to do what is difficult and right for the long-term, even when there are easier short-term options on offer.”

In a separate interview, to be broadcast tonight, Mr Brown was asked whether his trip to India was a taste of things to come. He replied: “For 10 years it has been a discipline talking about the big economic issues, but I feel more relaxed talking about other issues as well.”

Asked what had happened to “Grumpy Gordon” Mr Brown joked that his mood had improved by not having to think about the balance of payments.

His comments came as he announced plans for greater parliamentary scrutiny in the fight against terrorism, warning that public support for identity cards and longer detention periods could only be won with tougher safeguards for the “liberty of the constitution”.

He gave a strong hint that as prime minister he would introduce a US-style annual national security statement that would report to the Commons on the domestic and international fight against what he called “jihadist extremism”.

Mr Brown said he was looking closely at the case for broadening the remit of the government’s hand-picked intelligence and security committee. “There is a case for looking at the ISC to ensure it has the fullest parliamentary scrutiny,” he said.

At present the ISC is appointed by the government, cannot summon witnesses and has its reports censored by the Cabinet Office before publication. With pressure mounting for greater accountability and transparency following the blunders ahead of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr Brown urged an enhanced role for parliament to ensure “proper accountability.”

He added: “Most people recognise the need for greater security and understand the need for greater vigilance. What people worry about is any arbitrariness. We have got to have greater accountability to parliament. That is the essential liberty of the British constitution.” Mr Brown signalled that extra spending on security would be announced in the comprehensive spending review later this year. The budget had already doubled from 1bn to 2bn since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the spending review would “reflect the priority we give to security”.

Increased spending on fighting terrorism may be channelled through a single budget rather than being dispersed through separate departments.

“We are looking at a single security budget to bring together the national and international effort,” he said. “The case for a single security budget is part of the spending review. The US has a national security strategy that brings together a national and international effort.”

Mr Brown said Britain had to learn the lessons of the cold war in order to fight terrorism. “We have got to deal with this at all levels,” he said, saying that the government would not shirk from the security, military and intelligence decisions deemed necessary. But the battle also has to be fought at the cultural level.”

He said there was a case for “an annual document that is the national security strategy of your country and an annual appraisal of your security system.” Aides said later that the review would be the basis for a full parliamentary debate.

Asked whether he was calling for the approach Margaret Thatcher took to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Mr Brown praised the tough line taken in the whole postwar period. It was a question of what has happened since the 1940s and not just in the 1980s. It was a long process to win the battle of hearts and minds first in western Europe and then in eastern Europe. It didn’t start in 1979.

“The lessons are not just from Thatcher and Reagan but what happened in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.”

NEW DELHI, Feb. 19 (UPI) — India says it may give concessions to oil marketing companies by reducing duty on diesel and petrol in the upcoming federal budget.

“The government is weighing the possibility of reducing customs duty on petrol and diesel to 5 percent from 7.5 percent,” a Finance Ministry spokesman said.

It is also planning to cut excise duty to 6 percent from 8 percent. It said the specific excise duty would remain unchanged. The reduction in petrol and diesel prices by 43 cents and 22 cents in mid-February resulted in an under-recovery of 44 cents per liter of diesel for oil companies and the 43 cents per liter profit they were making was neutralized, The Business Line newspaper reported Monday.

“A reduction in customs duty on petrol and diesel would bring petrol and diesel at par with crude oil as it also suffers 5 percent import duty. This would also bring down the effective protection the refineries are enjoying because the landed cost of the petrol and diesel would fall,” said an Indian Oil Corp. spokesman.

Besides, the amount of bonds that need to be issued has also dropped with prices of crude being lowered by $10 a barrel.

“The reduction in the duty would benefit the gross refining margins and integrated refining and marketing companies like Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum would be compensated by an increase in marketing margins, but the stand-alone refining companies like Chennai Petroleum, Kochi Refineries, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd. would suffer for not having the benefit of marketing margins,” the spokesman said.

AFTER 15 years of continuous presence on the ground in the war-ravaged mountains and cities of Bosnia, the British Army is leaving.

Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, confirmed yesterday that Britain will withdraw its more than 600 remaining troops from Bosnia as concerns about security in the Balkan state ease.

Britain is scaling back its military commitments elsewhere to concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan, where it now has 12,600 troops.

Mr Ingram said the withdrawal of troops from Bosnia followed a European Union decision to cut its 6,000 strong peacekeeping force there to 2,500 in June. A skeleton crew of British staff officers would remain at Sarajevo headquarters and a small number of troops would stay to dismantle a base at Banja Luka, he said.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, said this week that EU officials ultimately want to convert the military presence into a civilian force for lighter police-style tasks.

The UK is sending an additional 1,400 troops to Afghanistan, which will eventually take the force there to 7,700.

The Conservatives said the troop withdrawal from Bosnia was a sign that British forces were overstretched. “It’s clear that as overstretch hits hard, the government is having to scratch around to find anywhere from which it can withdraw troops to then send to Afghanistan,” said Liam Fox, the Conservative shadow defence secretary.

British troops served in Bosnia both during and after the 1992-1995 war that tore apart the former Yugoslavia.

Units such as the Cheshire Regiment, the Devon and Dorsets and the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment are just some of those that served in Bosnia.

Under the operational jargon, a serving battalion of British troops was known as “BritBat.” Due to their no-nonsense approach to incoming fire from Serbs, Croats and Muslims alike, they garnered the nickname of “ShootBat”.

Commanding officers such as the Cheshire regiment’s Colonel Bob Stewart and General Rupert Smith became household names during the war.

The withdrawal of the British troops will considerably reduce the efficacy of the EUFOR military mission, which is already widely regarded as operationally lacklustre.

One of the most embarrassing failures of the last 15 years was that of NATO troops, particularly the British and Americans, to apprehend the two most-wanted war-crimes suspects, the former Bosnian Serb president, Radovan Karadzic, and General Ratko Mladic.

Related topics

- http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=765
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=765
- http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034