The Department for Education has drawn up a series of proposals which are to be sent to universities and other centres of higher education before the end of the year. The 18-page document acknowledges that universities will be anxious about passing information to special branch, for fear it amounts to "collaborating with the 'secret police'". It says there will be "concerns about police targeting certain sections of the student population (eg Muslims)".

The proposals are likely to cause anxiety among academics, and provoke anger from British Muslim groups at a time when ministers are at the focus of rows over issues such as the wearing of the veil and forcing Islamic schools to accept pupils from other faiths.

Wakkas Khan, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, said: "It sounds to me to be potentially the widest infringement of the rights of Muslim students that there ever has been in this country. It is clearly targeting Muslim students and treating them to a higher level of suspicion and scrutiny. It sounds like you're guilty until you're proven innocent."

Gemma Tumelty, president of the National Union of Students, said: "They are going to treat everyone Muslim with suspicion on the basis of their faith. It's bearing on the side of McCarthyism."

The document, which has been obtained by the Guardian, was sent within the last month to selected official bodies for consultation and reveals the full extent of what the authorities fear is happening in universities.

It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and speakers. The document warns of talent-spotting by terrorists on campuses and of students being "groomed" for extremism.

In a section on factors that can radicalise students, the document identifies Muslims from "segregated" backgrounds as more likely to hold radical views than those who have "integrated into wider society". It also claims that students who study in their home towns could act as a link between extremism on campuses and in their local communities.

The government wants universities to crack down on extremism, and the document says campus staff should volunteer information to special branch and not wait to be contacted by detectives.

It says: "Special branch are aware that many HEIs [higher education institutions] will have a number of concerns about working closely with special branch. Some common concerns are that institutions will be seen to be collaborating with the 'secret police'.

"HEIs may also worry about what special branch will do with any information supplied by an HEI and what action the police may subsequently take ... Special branch are not the 'secret police' and are accountable."

The document says radicalisation on campus is unlikely to be overt: "While radicalisation may not be widespread, there is some evidence to suggest that students at further and higher educational establishments have been involved in terrorist- related activity, which could include actively radicalising fellow students on campus." The document adds: "Perhaps most importantly, universities and colleges provide a fertile recruiting ground for students.

"There are different categories of students who may be 'sucked in' to an Islamist extremist ideology ... There are those who may be new to a university or college environment and vulnerable to 'grooming' by individuals with their own agenda as they search for friends and social groups; there are those who may be actively looking for extremist individuals with whom to associate. Campuses provide an opportunity for individuals who are already radicalised to form new networks, and extend existing ones."

The document urges close attention be paid to university Islamic societies and - under the heading "inspiring radical speakers" - says: "Islamic societies have tended to invite more radical speakers or preachers on to campuses ... They can be forceful, persuasive and eloquent. They are able to fill a vacuum created by young Muslims' feelings of alienation from their parents' generation by providing greater 'clarity' from an Islamic point of view on a range of issues, and potentially a greater sense of purpose about how Muslim students can respond."

It suggests checks should be made on external speakers at Islamic society events: "The control of university or college Islamic societies by certain extremist individuals can play a significant role in the extent of Islamist extremism on campus."

The document says potential extremists can be talent-spotted at campus meetings then channelled to events off campus.

The document gives five real-life examples of extremism in universities. The first talks of suspicious computer use by "Asian" students, which was reported by library staff. In language some may balk at, it talks of students of "Asian appearance" being suspected extremists.

A senior education department source told the Guardian: "There's loads of anecdotal evidence of radicalisation. At the same time there are people who pushing this who have their own agendas, and the government has to strike the right balance.

Mr Narey acknowledged that the comments were not meant literally.

"He surely cannot have intended us to take (them) seriously," he wrote in the Times.

Mr Narey described Mr Blunkett as being "reckless" during the crisis.

"What you are looking for is calm guidance, it's leadership, from a Secretary of State, and that was sadly lacking on that occasion."

Martin Narey
Martin Narey claimed Mr Blunkett was "reckless"

He added: "I don't think David was decisive that evening; I think he was reckless."

Mr Narey said he "was well aware of the capacity for riots to spread" because of his experience of the riots at Strangeways prison in 1990.

But the ex-minister has stood by his account of the Lincoln prison riot and denied Mr Narey's account.

A spokesman for Mr Blunkett told the newspaper: "The diary records precisely what happened.

"He did order the retaking of the prison. He did not say anything about machine guns. Quite apart from anything else, they do not carry machine guns in the Prison Service.

"Any such phone call would have been monitored by Mr Blunkett's private office."

Mr Narey said he would be "delighted" to hear such a recording.

"I promise you my account is absolutely true."

It had been hoped that his appearance at the talks with Mr Adams would build confidence in a series of choreographed moves towards a plan for full devolution and power-sharing by March 26 next year.

Mr Paisley and Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness are likely to be nominated first and deputy first minister at Stormont on November 24.

But a new row has broken out, with the DUP demanding that an agreement is in place before then for Mr McGuinness - Sinn Féin's chief negotiator and a former IRA commander - to swear an oath supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the rule of law.

The DUP believed it had a commitment that Mr McGuinness would sign up to the new ministerial pledge and code on November 24.

However, the party has been concerned at recent suggestions that the code will not be in place by time of the nominations.

Republicans are resisting moves to have the code in place before the nominations, partly because they take place before a special conference the party is holding to decide policies on policing.

This morning, Mr Paisley's son, Ian Jr, said: "The party leader will not be going to today's meeting. We need to talk with the government about these matters before he starts going to programme for government meetings."

Mr Paisley's decision to pull out of the meeting was being seen as a first warning sign of problems with the British and Irish governments' elaborate deal for re-installing power-sharing.

The prime minister, Tony Blair, and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, announced details of the deal at St Andrews in Scotland last week.

The DUP's Jim Allister MEP today expressed reservations about the St Andrew's agreement and said the IRA army council would have to disband if Sinn Féin was to sit in government.

He also expressed concern about the prospect of Mr Adams' party being able to sit in government in perpetuity and the lack of any default mechanism to punish parties which fail to live up to their ministerial obligations.

The MEP recognised that progress had been made and said he was raising these concerns to encourage healthy debate within the ranks of the DUP.

It would be a significant blow for both the UK and Irish governments if the nominations for first and deputy first minister did not take place.

In a statement to MPs yesterday in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, said: "I do not have to spell out to the house the great significance of these nominations - the more so given those who are likely to be nominated: the leader of the DUP and the chief negotiator of Sinn Féin.

"I pay tribute to the Right Honourable Member for North Antrim [Mr Paisley.] Like anyone who understands something of the history of Northern Ireland, I realise that this is not an easy step for him or for his party."

Viviane Reding, the Media Commissioner, argues that the purpose is simply to set minimum standards on areas such as advertising, hate speech and the protection of children.

But Shaun Woodward, the Broadcasting Minister, described the draft proposal as catastrophic. He said: "Supposing you set up a website for your amateur rugby club, uploaded some images and added a link advertising your local sports shop. You would then be a supplier of moving images and need to be licensed and comply with the regulations."

The draft rules, known as the Television Without Frontiers directive, extend the definition of broadcasting to cover services such as video-on-demand or mobile phone clips.

Ministers argue that while television programmes should be subject to minimum standards, the content of websites should not be subject to EU regulation.

Mr Woodward is proposing a compromise that requires EU states to agree a new definition of what constitutes "television". He said: "It's common sense. If it looks like a TV programme and sounds like one then it probably is. A programme transmitted by a broadcaster over the net could be covered by extending existing legislation. But video clips uploaded by someone is not television. YouTube and MySpace should not be regulated."

British criminal law already covers material that might incite hate or cause harm to children, Mr Woodward added. The Government's definition of online broadcasting covers feature films, sports events, situation comedy, documentary, children's programmes and original drama. It excludes personal websites and sites where people upload and exchange video images.

"The real risk is we drive out the next MySpace because of the cost of complying with unnecessary regulations," Mr Woodward said. "These businesses can easily operate outside the EU."

Ofcom, the media regulator, is also opposing the proposed directive, which it believes could discourage new multimedia business in Europe.

Mr Woodward is seeking EU member state support for the British compromise. So far only Slovakia has pledged support, but Mr Woodward believes that other nations will come onboard before a key EU Council meeting on November 13.

The influence of "user-generated" websites was demonstrated last week when Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion (£883 million). Launched in February 2005, it has grown into one of the most popular websites. YouTube has 100 million videos viewed every day.

The House of Lords European Union Committee began an inquiry yesterday into the directive, which could also introduce paid-for product placement on UK television for the first time.

Lord Woolmer, the committee chairman, said: "The proposals bring within the regulatory framework areas of the media previously untouched by broadcasting legislation.

"Britain is at the cutting edge of new media and alternative broadcasters in Europe, and we are keen to ensure that the proposals will not damage this growing industry in seeking to incorporate them into EU regulation."

But Chirac and his closest ally, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, are having to tread a careful line between trying to trip up Sarkozy and making sure the conservative ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) they all belong to - and which Sarkozy heads - does not lose in the elections.

Le Journal du Dimanche called the plot an "anti-Sarkozy offensive" and printed an interview with the leader of the UMP in parliament, Jean-Louis Debré, that it suggested was the latest Chirac manoeuvre.

Debré, another firm ally of the president, railed against Sarkozy's repeated pledge to "break" with the political tone and traditions laid down during the decade Chirac has been head of state.

"Those who put out too much hot air should watch out - they could quickly find themselves in the middle of a storm," Debré warned.

"To denigrate, challenge, criticise the policies of a government you belong to is not only a mistake but a political error," he said.

The magazine Marianne said Chirac and Villepin had only one idea in mind: "to attack (Sarkozy) from all sides, rob him of legitimacy as a presidential candidate."

They are buoyed by recent surveys that show public support for Sarkozy slipping, though he remains the most popular figure in the UMP.

A poll in Le Journal du Dimanche showed a five-point dip for the interior minister over the past month, to 40 percent.

His fortunes in France were not helped by a recent trip he made to the United States, during which he met President George W. Bush, and criticised French foreign policy.

The problem for Chirac, however, is that no other figure in the party comes close to Sarkozy in looking like they could emerge victorious in the elections, which are to be contested by a hugely popular Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal.

Royal stands a reasonable chance of becoming France's first woman president, according to polls that put her neck-and-neck with Sarkozy.

At 73, Chirac is considered unlikely to run for a third term, though he has obstinately refused to rule it out, complicating Sarkozy's efforts to bolster support ahead of the elections.

Villepin and France's defence minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, another Chirac loyalist, have also dropped heavy hints that they should be considered as conservative candidates - regardless of whether Sarkozy wins the formal party nomination.

Each have less than a third of Sarkozy's public support, though they are narrowing the gap.

The tensions in the UMP camp were evident last week when Sarkozy suddenly came down with a "migraine" to avoid a weekly breakfast with Villepin and other UMP leaders.

Villepin, who visibly detests Sarkozy, was quoted Sunday in Le Monde as saying the ruling party could still resolve its internal strife before heading into the elections.

"There is a time for everything in politics," he said during a trip to the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe.

Mr Barroso's remarks echo the memorable conclusion of Sir John Kerr, the former head of the Foreign Office, who said that European leaders had created a "cavalry charge to disaster" by naming the measure a constitution. Sir John, who was the most senior official on the convention, which drew up the constitution, was speaking after French and Dutch voters rejected it in referendums last year.

Britain, which never felt comfortable with the constitution, is hoping that the treaty will quietly die. But Mr Barroso indicated in his speech last night that he agrees with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who believes that many of the institutional changes in the constitution should be introduced under a new label.

"Let us be clear about the label which should be attached to further institutional reform," Mr Barroso said. "What Europe needs is a Capacity to Act.

"The fact remains that the current set-up is less than optimal. In any event, the Nice Treaty legally obliges us to revise the composition of the commission as soon as there are 27 member states - and that day is less than three months away."

Mr Barroso's remarks, in a speech designed to encourage Britain to be more enthusiastic about the EU, show that key European leaders accept that it will be impossible to revive the constitution in its current form after last year's no votes. But his speech also shows strong support for Mrs Merkel's ambitions of maintaining many of the constitution's key measures -reforming the voting system in the council of ministers, opening up the chambers of the EU and creating a foreign minister.

Mr Barroso said: "We must improve the efficiency of decision-making. As the number of member states rises, the time it takes to reach a decision increases. Agreement, and action, becomes more difficult to reach. This has to change. There is no point reaching the right policies on globalisation if they arrive five years too late.

"The distance is growing between Europe and its citizens. Again, that must change. Injecting greater accountability and transparency into Europe's institutions will help to close that gap. That means letting fresh air into the smoke-filled rooms, and developing a more political way of building Europe, rather than a diplomatic or technocratic one.

"There can be no global Europe without greater external coherence. There is no single number for the United States to call. The EU is not a federal state. But a European Foreign Minister...would go a long way to achieving that coherence."

His remarks show there will be a stormy debate when Mrs Merkel carries out her instructions from fellow European leaders, to draw up proposals on what to do with the constitution when Germany assumes the EU's rotating presidency on January 1.

Her plans are likely to be tentative because the real work cannot take place until France elects a new president next spring. Major negotiations are due to be held in the latter half of 2008, by which time France will hold the EU presidency.

European leaders are expecting a battle because the original constitution was a balance between federalists, who wanted to deepen the EU, and so called "nation staters", such as Britain, who are wary of deeper integration. Unpicking the measure will upset that balance.

Mr Barroso indicated that Britain should be able to buy into the process of institutional change because the reform of the EU budget will be launched at around the same time. Britain is hoping to cut spending on "old" areas, such as farming, in favour of "new" areas, such as research and development to meet the challenge from China and India.

Mr Barroso said: "A new institutional settlement for the EU should be seen within the same intellectual framework as the continued reform of existing EU policies...The budget for 2007 to 2013 points in a more forward-looking direction, thanks to the deal brokered under the British Presidency."

Up to 10 million people died in the 1932-33 Great Famine, which was provoked by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as part of his campaign to force peasants to join collective farms.

Countries including the United States, Canada, Austria, Hungary and Lithuania have recognized the event as genocide, but the issue remains highly charged in the former Soviet republic, since declaring the famine as genocide would amount to an indictment of Soviet policies - something that Communists, Socialists and many pro-Russian politicians loathe to do.

Vasyunyk said Yushchenko aides were drawing up legislation proposing that parliament recognize the event as genocide.

"Unfortunately our society has not yet realized not only the necessity to condemn the tragedy but also the necessity to commemorate the victims", Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk said.

"There are no doubts that the famine was man made, that it was genocide. We must recognize it (as such) if we respect our people," scientist Vladyslav Barsyuk said.

Tass sources told Reuters that Voronin was supposed to return to work on Monday from holiday and his driver waited 3 hours for him outside his block of flats in Moscow this morning before returning to Tass to report him missing.

With Tass officials, the driver went up to his flat and found the door open with all of his things scattered all over the flat and saw Voronin's body, the sources told Reuters.

"It is a colossal loss for Tass," said Ludmila Perkina, an editorial official at Tass's main news center.

"He did so much for Tass. He tried to do everything so that we - the journalists - could work. Our hearts are very heavy today."

Voronin had worked at Tass for 23 years.