than last week's story in The Royal Gazette about the man who could not be investigated for suspected rape because he refused to turn over a sample.

According to our story, the man was arrested on suspicion of rape but was released for lack of evidence after he refused to give a blood or semen sample.

To be sure, the Police should not be allowed to go on fishing expeditions; demanding samples from all and sundry in the hope of catching the rapist, any more than they should have the right to enter and search homes or people without reasonable grounds.

But where there are reasonable grounds for a sample to be obtained, no-one should have the right to refuse. This could be done via a warrant in the same way that a house search takes place after a warrant has been obtained from a Magistrate.

Furthermore, as Women's Resource Centre chairperson Penny Dill has said, taking a DNA sample -- which need only be a hair sample -- is a definitive method of identification which is less invasive than blood or semen.

And as Ms Dill also said, records of the DNA of past offenders and past suspects could be kept by Police as well, thus creating a database which could be used to identify suspects in crimes ranging from rape to housebreaking.

BROKEN PLEDGE EDT Broken pledge Before the 1998 General Election, when the Progressive Labour Party was asked how it proposed to fund its pending plans, it said that more efficient tendering of Government services would achieve some of the proposed savings.

That proposal was a welcome one; open bidding for Government tenders should ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money at the same time that it prevents cronyism.

And there did appear to be some examples of cronyism left over by the United Bermuda Party government; the list of who rented property to Government in Hamilton was a virtual Who's Who of UBP supporters, even though one would expect property developers to support a conservative political party.

So when the Government was elected two years ago, there was every reason to believe that all tenders and bids would be opened and the best bidder would win the contract.

In fairness to the UBP, much of the groundwork had already been laid, especially in the Department of Works and Engineering where great efforts were made to ensure that work was spread around to large and small contractors.

That is why it is disappointing to see Government apparently awarding the contract for all of its travel to a single travel agency; not because one agency should not have the work but because it was not put out to tender.

Not only is this a direct contradiction of the party's policy, it's also bad for the taxpayer who cannot know if a better price could have been obtained.

Government Ministers have stated they wish to spread Government work around, either generally, or specifically to black-owned businesses. There are pros and cons to such a policy, but if that is Government policy, it should be laid out explicitly and not conducted on an ad hoc basis, which seems to be the case now. The public deserves better than this sloppy and suspect approach.