HOME Secretary Charles Clarke has been widely criticised for flying out of Britain despite the country being at the centre of terrorist attacks.

Critics say it shows a bad example that the man responsible for law and order doesn't stay behind during the crisis; that he is deserting his post; that he is the (Not At) Home Secretary.

So for how long should Mr Clarke forego his holiday? If the terror strikes continue for a year, should he remain in London throughout the campaign? A crisis is never far away in politics, so should a total ban on holidays become a stipulation of accepting a ministerial post?

The message to the British people throughout the past two weeks has been that they should carry on with their lives as normally as possible. Mr Clarke's actions are consistent with that.

Tony Blair yesterday insisted that he, too, will embark on a family holiday next week and cheap headlines are no doubt already being written in preparation for his departure.

The Government will continue to function, the attempts to catch the terrorists will be no less determined, and the Prime Minister's return can be swift if events make it necessary.

Accusations of a dereliction of duty are plain nonsense. Everyone is entitled to a holiday. In fact, everyone needs a holiday if they are to perform effectively in their jobs.

Government ministers are no different.