Where's the debate on the DNA database?

It contains the profiles of a million innocent people and lacks basic safeguards – but it has no legislative foundation

• 
• • Diane Abbott
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Wednesday July 30 2008
  • Article history

A government-funded inquiry is calling for the DNA profile of people, who have not actually been convicted of a crime, to be removed from the national DNA database.

Britain has the largest DNA database in the world. There are over 4.2 million people on it. But a million of those people have never been convicted of anything. And 50,000 of them are children. Millions of these profiles are given to private companies without the consent of individuals. Yet the DNA database has mushroomed with no basis in legislation. And members of parliament have never been given the opportunity to vote on it.

Perhaps, if the database did have some legislative foundation, there would have been a chance to put in place the safeguards which are lamentably lacking from the current system.

Forty per cent of black men are on it, but only 9% of white men.

This bears no correlation to relative arrest or conviction rates. And the police seem determined to hold on to their power to put people on the database in a completely arbitrary way.

I saw this when a friend had her 14-year-old daughter's DNA sample taken because she happened to get a lift home in a car which was stopped by the police. No one was charged, no offence had been committed, but the police took it upon themselves to take a DNA sample from her. They tried to suggest to the parents subsequently that it was mandatory for them to do this. It was only when I took up the case with government ministers that they admitted that it was at their own discretion.

Six hundred and forty five rapists have been caught using the DNA database.

But I doubt that many of them were 14-year-old girls. Yet the police had the power to criminalise my friend's daughter with no appeal and no safeguards.

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who actually invented DNA fingerprinting, is concerned. He says:

The national DNA database is a very powerful tool in the fight against crime, but recent developments such as the retention of innocent people's DNA raises significant ethical and social issues. The real concern I have in the UK is what I see as a sort of 'mission creep'. When the DNA database was initially established, it was to database DNA from criminals so if they re-offended, they could be picked up. Now hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people are populating that database.

Professor Stephen Bain, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, said much greater consideration had gone into databases put together for research purposes than for the national DNA database used for forensic purposes.

Lord Justice Sedley has said that the police are engaging in crude ethnic profiling. He says this is indefensible and it would be fairer to include everyone, innocent or guilty. This would be a huge step.

But there is no doubt that a proper debate on the uses and abuses of the DNA database is long overdue.

Selected Comments All comments (62)

• MoveAnyMountain

  Jul 31 08, 10:04am (about 13 hours ago)

  May I once again point out that this database which "has not legislative basis" does in fact have so - under the Criminal and Police Justice Act 2001.

  Which Diane Abbott voted for on not just one occasion but at least three that I can see.

  So we have an article here from someone who voted for this database, decrying it and claiming that it is not legal. Despite the fact she approved the legislation that gave the police the powers she thinks they should not have.

  Priceless.

  I think that needed to be said again in case anyone missed it the first time.

DNA database - Unequal record

All comments (2)

• Editorial
• The Guardian,
• Wednesday July 30 2008
• Article history

Just after 9am on Monday September 10 1984, Sir Alec Jeffreys, a professor of genetics, triggered a revolution. He compared a DNA sample from one of his colleagues with that of the man's wider family and found a pattern. The discovery made DNA fingerprinting possible. The benefits are undeniable. No one would wish the invention undone.

But the process, and the British database it has generated, the most extensive in the world, has blurred the divide between private and public, innocent and guilty - a state intrusion into the genetic makeup of individuals that, until now, has been little monitored and could be easily abused.

The dilemmas are more ethical than scientific. It would be possible, if costly and illiberal, to record information from everyone legally resident in the UK. Sir Alec, who in an interview in the Engineer magazine this week rightly described a universal database as "wholly inappropriate", is not the only one to object to that idea - yesterday a citizen's jury set up by the Human Genetics Commission opposed it too. But if only some people are to be included, then it is all the more important that the rules are fair and people have a right of appeal.

The current situation, in which data from some 4.5 million people is held by chance, either because (innocent or guilty) they were arrested for a recordable offence or because they volunteered their DNA to help an investigation, is a bad compromise.

The risk is that the register ceases to be treated as an impartial forensic tool and becomes a list of the usual suspects - with the simple fact of inclusion implying possible guilt.

The recent DNA expansion programme, which sought to include all "active offenders", made the database more useful - but may also have exacerbated its bias. The fact that people who come into contact with the police are the most likely to be included has produced a distorted record, weighted towards certain sections of the population - especially young black men, up to three-quarters of whom may now be included, out of proportion to their actual involvement in crime.

The government admits that this is a problem. But

it has been reluctant to limit the sprawl on the grounds that the bigger the database, the more likely criminals are to be caught in its net.

But that is a recipe for a universal record by stealth. In April, the Home Office's advisory DNA Ethics Group urged a limit on the use of information provided by innocent volunteers. Yesterday the citizens' jury suggested people who are acquitted should have their names removed, among other ideas to prevent uncontrolled expansion.

Used badly, a database will harm the society it is supposed to protect.

Cameron considers Davis's future

Mr Cameron said Mr Davis had made his point on civil liberties

Tory leader David Cameron has praised David Davis for his by-election victory but is refusing to say whether he will offer him another frontline role.

He called the former shadow home secretary a "very strong" figure who could "contribute in the future".

But Mr Cameron added that he already had a "very strong shadow cabinet".

Mr Davis won Haltemprice and Howden on a civil liberties platform, with a majority of 15,355. Labour and the Lib Dems did not put up candidates.

'Made his point'

And Home Office minister Tony McNulty reacted to the result by accusing Mr Davis of "vanity" and comparing him to the hapless cartoon character Homer Simpson.

Mr Davis quit as an MP in June over the government's plans to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.

At the time, Mr Cameron stressed it was his personal decision - and swiftly moved to replace him as shadow home secretary with shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve.

We have fired a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown's arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government David Davis MP Davis cruises to by-election win By-election: Full results Analysis: Did he keep his dignity?

Mr Davis, who will return to the Commons as a backbencher, said he did not plan to become a "single-issue campaigner" on civil liberties.

Asked if the Haltemprice and Howden MP will be given another shadow cabinet role, Mr Cameron said: "He can contribute in the future... I think he's made his point in the way that he wanted to.

"What matters is what's right and standing up and saying what's right as the Conservative Party, throughout this whole argument, has done."

'Authoritarian government'

Mr Cameron added: "I will obviously talk to him about what the future holds, but I've got a very strong shadow cabinet. David is a very strong Conservative figure.

"I'm sure there will be many ways he can contribute in the future."

Mr Davis, who was beaten by Mr Cameron in the contest to become party leader in 2005, said: "We have fired a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown's arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government."

He said he would return to Westminster on Monday with a mandate "to fight Gordon Brown's vision of Big Brother Britain tooth and nail, to stop 42 days in its tracks, to prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens, to protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state".

Mr Davis is expected to discuss his future role, if any, with Mr Cameron after he returns but he admitted it was unlikely the Tory leader would invite him back onto the party's front bench.

'Cowardice'

"I took on board that I would lose my shadow cabinet post and probably my shadow cabinet future," he said. "I accept that."

Mr Davis promised to "put a lot of effort" into opposing 42 days' detention on his return to Parliament.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The trouble with this is, from the beginning, the Westminster village hasn't really understood that someone wants to take a stand on a matter of principle that may have some effect on themselves."

Mr Davis also accused the government of "spectacular cowardice" for not fielding a candidate.

But Mr McNulty accused Mr Davis of "vanity" for prompting a by-election, saying: "It doesn't need David Davis to give the country his permission to have a debate on the issue (of 42 days' detention)."

'Lonely stand'

He added that Mr David should have remained an MP to "make the arguments" in Parliament.

In light of Gordon Brown's recent admission that it was "absolutely correct" to compare himself to Heathcliff, the romantic hero of the novel Wuthering Heights, Mr McNulty was asked who Mr Davis reminded him of.

He replied: "David Davis? Probably Homer Simpson."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "The Conservatives are a long way from being defenders of liberty.

HAVE YOUR SAY

What has the David Davis by-election result achieved? Absolutely nothing!

Geoffrey Cole

Send us your comments

"David Davis' lonely stand only highlights the big questions that still remain over whether the Conservatives really are committed to protecting our freedom."

Turnout in Haltemprice and Howden was 34%, with the Green Party coming second on 1,758 votes and the English Democrats third on 1,714.

Out of a record 26 by-election candidates, 23 lost their deposits after failing to attract 5% of the vote.

At the last general election Mr Davis won the seat with a 5,116 majority.

However, the 17,113 votes he polled were fewer than the 22,792 he achieved at the 2005 election, and turnout was also down from 70.2%.

The Lib Dems - who came second in 2005 - chose not to run because they also opposed the government's plans to extend the time limit on holding terrorism suspects.

Labour refused to stand, describing the by-election as a farce and a waste of more than £80,000 of public money.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, former MI5 chief, savages 42-day plan

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Last Updated: 7:05PM BST 08/07/2008 | Comments 52 | Have Your Say

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, today dealt a huge blow to Gordon Brown’s plans to extend the detention of terrorist suspects to 42 days.

Making her first speech as a member of the House of Lords, the former security chief said the Government’s plans were wrong in principle and in practice.

She spoke as the Government’s controversial Counter-Terrorism Bill, narrowly approved by the Commons last month, reached the House of Lords.

The Bill would extend the period of time the police can hold terror suspects without charge to six weeks, up from the current limit of 28 days.

Ministers and some police chiefs say the new powers are needed to keep Britain safe from terrorist attack.

But Baroness Manningham-Buller, who retired last year as director-general of the Security Service after a 35-year career in British intelligence, forcefully rejected that argument.

“In deciding what I believe on these matters, I have weighed up the balance between the right to life, the most import civil liberty, the fact that there is no such thing as complete security and the importance of our hard won civil liberties,” she said. "And therefore on a matter of principle, I cannot support the 42-days pre-charge detention in this bill."

She went on to say that measures in the bill giving MPs oversight of long detention cases would be likely to prejudice any trial of a suspect that followed.

She said: "I don't see on a practical basis, as well as a principled one, that these proposals are in any way workable."

David Davis, the former Tory shadow home secretary who resigned to campaign on civil liberties issues, seized on Baroness Mannnigham-Buller's comments.

He said: "This new law would actually harm the counter-terrorism effort rather than assisting it, and this demonstrates only too clearly that it is an action motivated by politics rather than the nation's security."

Lady Manningham-Buller is the latest in a string of high-profile figures from the security and legal establishment to come out against the 42-day plan, following former lord chancellor Lord Falconer, former attorney general Lord Goldsmith and Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald.

But senior police chiefs including Sir Ian Blair, the Met Commissioner, and Peter Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism at Scotland Yard, have said the new powers are needed.

Would you feel safer with a 42-day limit? Leave your comments below

The 42-day plan is dead, but its assassin may surprise you

It wasn't David Davis or East Riding voters who holed the government's plans. It was a new arrival in the House of Lords

All comments (10)

• 
• • Martin Kettle
  • The Guardian,
  • Friday July 11, 2008
  • Article history

David Davis and Ken Livingstone may not seem to have a lot in common - apart, that is, from their frustrated ambitions to lead their respective parties. Yet they share an unusual distinction among prominent modern politicians. Both of them have resigned to fight byelections on what they saw as issues of principle, only to find that the byelection, although striking and daring in its way, was actually the easy bit.

I write this in advance of last night's result in Haltemprice and Howden, so it is just possible that Davis is waking up this morning to the realisation that he has carried out the most politically suicidal move by a senior British politician since the Labour minister John Stonehouse faked his own drowning off a Miami beach in 1974. In which case, you may have better things to do today than to read much further.

However, on the assumption that the pundits were right and that Davis has indeed been re-elected to parliament overnight, it is important to remember the lesson from Livingstone's now widely forgotten byelection. In 1984, Livingstone resigned his Paddington seat on the Greater London Council in the hope of creating a defining single-issue contest against Margaret Thatcher in which he would be swept back to County Hall on a Save the GLC tide. Yet things did not go as Livingstone hoped. The Conservatives dismissed the contest as a stunt and refused to run a candidate. When the election took place, turnout was embarrassingly low. Livingstone was re-elected with ease, but there was no shot-in-the-arm for the wider campaign to save the GLC, and the council was soon abolished.

I don't think Davis paid enough attention to the lesson from Livingstone's ploy. Yes, Davis caught some people's attention. Yes, it was heartening to see some public re-engagement with the political process. And, yes, it is increasingly likely that the government's 42-day pre-charge detention plan will not now end up on the statute book at all. These are all good things. But this byelection was by most standards a damp squib like Livingstone's.

Perceptions of the Haltemprice and Howden byelection have churned dramatically in the four weeks since Davis stood outside the Commons in the June night and announced he was quitting. Phase one was dominated by the widespread view at Westminster that this was a quixotic act of vanity whose main immediate consequence was to turn the spotlight off Gordon Brown's humiliatingly narrow win in the 42-day vote and on to Davis's enduring rivalry with David Cameron. That was quickly followed by a backlash, disproportionately from the blogosphere, which celebrated both Davis's independence and his cause, and which purported, without much objective evidence and in defiance of most opinion polls, to speak for the mass of ordinary people against the Westminster elite.

That gave way to a dawning awareness that things were a bit more complicated.

The contest in the Hull dormitory zone did not become the political equivalent of a Wimbledon Centre Court final that Davis had hoped for. Labour's refusal to be drawn in - which anyone who knew the Livingstone case might have anticipated - deprived the former shadow home secretary of the setpiece confrontation he needed.

The entry of 25 fringe candidates drastically reduced the election's credibility. Instead of a fight to defend ancient liberties, Haltemprice and Howden turned into a battle to make sure that a decent number of people bothered to vote.

This byelection has been both oversold and undersold. Low turnout, if it has happened, will reinforce that scepticism. Right now, though, the positives also need to be accentuated. From my own brief visit this week I would say these are as follows.

First, the Haltemprice contest undoubtedly encouraged a reasoned debate, in but not confined to the constituency, about the place of civil liberties in the age of al-Qaida.

Second, it gave a small push, which should not be exaggerated, to the public mood on proposals like ID cards, where there has been a clear shift in views over the years, and on 42 days, where Davis is making exaggerated claims about changes in attitudes that are better explained by the kind of questions that the pollsters have asked.

Third, it provided a very practical form of public political engagement (almost certainly more practical than the green paper on this subject that the justice ministry quietly published this week).

Fourth, it made the government's attempt to get the counter-terrorism bill (including the 42-day power) on to the statute book a little bit harder.

It was undeniably impressive to stand in the Hull suburb of Willerby this week and listen to Davis, flanked by the Labour rebel Bob Marshall-Andrews, Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti and the eloquent 7/7 survivor Rachel North, calling on voters to take a stand and make some history. They may not be as big an alliance as they like to make out, but they have real achievements to their name.

But don't let's kid ourselves. It wasn't Davis or a few thousand East Riding voters who delivered the most important blow to the government's plans this week. It was Lady Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, in her devastatingly succinct maiden speech in the House of Lords. When the recently retired head of the security services declared that the 42-day power is not justified on grounds of either practicality or principle, the plans were holed below the water line.

Where, by the way, does her speech - and the similar speeches of so many former police, prosecutors and judges - leave those who always claim that "the state" is a sleepless and hegemonic conspiracy against the innocent downtrodden? The truth is far more nuanced than the conspiracy theorists can ever admit.

The 42-day plan is now all but dead. It is clear that the Lords will throw it out when they vote in October.

The larger the majority in the Lords the more difficult it will be for the government - which only won by nine last time - to reinstate the deletion in the Commons in November or to use the Parliament Act to flatten its opponents in the upper house a year from now. With a general election beginning to loom and the economy increasingly at the heart of the political battle, there will soon be neither space nor heart for this fight.

The question is increasingly not when the 42-day plan will fall, but how. David Davis can take some credit for this. But I think it is Lady Manningham-Buller who has fired the fatal shot.

ID cards are the most pernicious threat to our freedom

Rafael Behr: What liberty means to me: Unlike the citizens of Russia, we do not need the state's permission to walk the streets

All comments (117)

• 
• • Rafael Behr
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Monday July 7, 2008
  • Article history

I learned the meaning of civil liberty when I was a correspondent (for a different paper) in Moscow. Reporting on Russia had its unique charms: the merry scorn which officials showed to the very idea of telling journalists, especially foreign ones, anything other than big, fat, Soviet-scale lies; the dispiriting submission of most of the population to constant low-level oppression, as if that was the only way power could be exercised; the disgusting cynicism of the cover-ups that, were they not so appalling, would almost be funny. I remember one case of a border police official with a reputation for fighting corruption being reported as having "accidentally shot himself several times in the head while drunk".

But of the petty indignities suffered by Moscow residents who look a bit foreign, the most common is the arbitrary identity check. You are walking down the street and a Kalashnikov-toting policeman pulls you to one side and mutters a single word: "Dokumenty!" Show me your papers. You hand over your passport (no one is fool enough to walk around without it). The bullet-head stares incredulously at it for a while and then thrusts it back at you with a gesture that says, "OK, Brit. Walk on. You were lucky this time."

If you are not British, if you are a Chechen or an Uzbek, or a Russian without the correct stamp indicating your right of residence in the capital, being lucky would mean getting away with paying a bribe. Being unlucky would mean a beating in the back of the police van. And a bribe.

Being stopped for ID, even when your papers are in order, is an intimidating experience. For a second, you shrink dramatically in scale. You are an ant and the boot of arbitrary state power hovers over you. Then you scurry on and gradually resume your stature as an autonomous individual, but not a free one.

The essence of the identity check is to reinforce a false idea of permission. The street belongs to the state and you need to prove your right to walk down it. In Russia, that relationship is hardly questioned by citizens. Of course you depend on the Kremlin for its indulgence in allowing you to move around the country.

But in a democratic society, permission should work the other way round. We, as free citizens, give our consent to a small group of people, chosen from among us, to wield power for a fixed term and on the condition that they don't abuse it. If we get up to no good, we give them licence to intervene – to use force if necessary – to stop us. But the rest of the time, we do not need permission. That is why, of all the various erosions of civil liberties introduced by New Labour, I find the idea of compulsory ID cards the most pernicious. I do not need leave from the government to walk the streets. They need permission from me to police the streets – my streets, our streets.

Fortunately, Britain is immeasurably freer than Russia. The police generally do not wander around harassing people for ID to remind them who owns the place. Let's keep it that way.

Our paternalistic state makes this debate necessary

AC Grayling is an important contemporary philosopher. His book "Towards the Light" discusses history of 'Liberty'.

What liberty means to me: no one has the right to dictate to others how they should live, except if it threatens harm to others

All comments (74)

• 
• • AC Grayling
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Saturday July 5, 2008
  • Article history

It seems odd to be asked to explain why liberty matters, after 400 years of often bitter effort to wrest it from the hands of the privileged and powerful few; but, alas, here we are. The powers that be have fallen prey to the false belief that if a technology is available – say, that allows it to spy on the populace – it should be used. A nannying, interfering, paternalistic state cannot trust people to make their own decisions, take their own risks, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

Liberty – individual liberty, the autonomy of the human – matters because no one has the right to dictate to others how they should live, what they should choose, whom they should love, or what goals they should pursue, except if any of these things threaten harm to others, where harm includes limiting others' freedoms to choose.

Civil liberties protecting individual autonomy, privacy, free speech and enquiry, and due legal process that protects the possession of them all, guard individuals against the collective and the overweening use of power.

Entrenching civil liberties matters, because it is always in the interests of authorities to make it easier for themselves to exercise their authority and to impose their will, so there is always a tendency towards limitation of freedom in the name of efficiency, security, the majority, or some greater good such as public health.

As governments try social engineering schemes – at the outset always with the best intentions – so the mission creep of directing, controlling and improving by force, occurs: and with it the loss of the physical and psychological space around each individual that makes life worth living.

John Stuart Mill observed that one of the important things about liberty is that is allows many and various experiments in living to occur. That is true; but it is even more pointful to observe that humans are various. Only in a pluralistic dispensation can all that variety express itself, and pluralism needs liberty because it is impossible without it.

No one should be the property of another, or of a system. We should each be volunteers in society, and should choose our place in it. Of course this means signing up to a common purpose and agreeing with others how we should organise ourselves; that is what democracy is about, and if we are responsible we accept that this will sometimes inconvenience us. But the inconvenience has to be well motivated indeed, and ultimately justified by the harm principle on good grounds. There are no other grounds – and certainly not grounds of efficiency and security – on which we can be obliged to yield our liberties to a government that thinks only in large, round numbers.

Note, by the way, that this is not a "libertarian" view, which is that we should have license to trample over others in the pursuit of self-interest. The harm principle constrains that alternative. Nor is this a view that says we should not care about those among us who are less able to care for themselves: a humane community is one that is tender to the young, old, ill and hurt, and that seeks to equalise opportunities and make life equitable thereafter. Courtesy, the true moral foundation, takes care of much of the rest.

But it is part of moral courtesy that we should respect the freedom of others, as we wish our own to be respected. And then we can all find our way to our chosen destinations as autonomous individuals in chosen relationships, with responsibility and possibility as our own possession.

Who will come second in the fight for freedom?

David Davis's resignation has triggered not just a byelection but a scramble for publicity

All comments (2)

• 
• • Ian Jack
  • The Guardian,
  • Saturday July 5, 2008

An idea has got about that by resigning his parliamentary seat and standing in the consequent byelection - like a bungee-jumper's suicide bid or Joan of Arc on a pile of wet faggots - David Davis has alerted us to the dangers of an overweening state and jerked awake a dormant passion in the English soul. "As I see it," Jan Morris wrote in this newspaper last week, "Davis's display concerns not just political liberty but liberty of the mind, of the identity, of the spirit ... nothing less than a view of life itself, which civilised peoples have so painstakingly fashioned down the centuries ... a few more generations of nagging and surveillance and we shall have forgotten what true freedom is."

Can it be so? Is Davis fighting for our liberty? Of all the views I heard in Davis's former (soon to be present) constituency this week, that was the rarest.

The nearest expression of it from a potential voter in Haltemprice and Howden came from a brisk silver-haired woman passing the Tory stall at Cottingham market: "He'll get my vote. A man of integrity at last!"

Cottingham lies at the far eastern end of a constituency that stretches along the north bank of the Humber from Hull to Goole. Founded by 6th century Anglo-Saxons, it once claimed to be the largest village in England but is now joined to Hull by suburban sprawl. It has a 14th-century church, a pleasant market square and approachable inhabitants.

Several of the 26 candidates were stalking the main street; the electorate of Haltemprice and Howden is bunched at each of end of the constituency, so Cottingham on market day offered the prize of an unusual amount of pedestrian traffic. As well as the Tories, the Green party, the Miss Great Britain party and the Socialist Equality party were there, and the independents Eamonn "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick and Thomas Faithful Darwood. Nobody had seen Mad Cow-Girl (Official Monster Raving Loonies) or Ronnie Carroll (Make Politicians History), the latter absence a personal disappointment to me because I remember paying sixpence to hear his song Say Wonderful Things to Me ("I think you're wonderful too") on a jukebox in 1963.

I went for a drink with the Green party candidate, Shan Oakes. Because the pub garden was quiet - two women murmuring over two pints, three or four smokers reading - and because Ms Oakes' voice had still to moderate from full canvassing pitch, our conversation was easily overheard. People joined in - an impromptu focus group.

Long-haired man in a T-shirt: "A lot of people round here want the 42 days [maximum detention without charge]. Yeah, they say, go for it. Make it more! I still can't see Davis being ousted though, which is a shame because I think he's a total dipstick."

Respectable elderly woman: "I can't see what all the furore is about. I've not heard anybody I know talking about it."

Younger woman: "I agree with CCTV cameras. We need more of them. The kids in my area - there's no stopping them. And the police do nothing - nothing ever happens."

T-shirt man: "Haven't you got CCTV in your street then? Aren't they studying the pictures and following up all those leads?"

Younger woman: "The camera's broke."

Elderly woman: "I think Davis wanted to be in the public eye. Knight-on-a-charger sort of thing. He certainly never asked his constituents."

Younger woman: "Violation of human rights! Don't talk to me about it. I think it's time that Britain was Britain again. I'm sounding racist here, but I'm not. I know there's not a lot of our culture left, but they've got to respect our culture."

In the street, sheltering in a doorway from a sudden downpour, I met a parish councillor. How about Davis? "A good constituency MP, but what he did was absolutely wrong. It's costing us money, and for what?" Simon Reevell, a barrister, who is helping the Davis campaign, thought the "what" lay partly in the raising of public awareness about the fallibility of DNA and CCTV evidence. A meeting held by Cameron and Davis the previous evening at South Hunsley school had yielded a stimulating discussion with sixth-formers over the 42 days question - "the young are interested". There is no lack of famous names. Tony Benn has been up to give Davis his support and appears in the campaign literature. Reevell said Bob Geldof was due, "and he's the next best thing to Nelson Mandela". The only question is, who will come second?

My money would be on the Greens; they have a timely manifesto. Third, fourth and so on, is anybody's guess. Miss Great Britain is a friendly young woman from Belfast, Gemma Garrett, who has cousins serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants better pay for the troops. She also stood in Crewe, where she said she was in tears most of the time because the Labour party made fun of her spelling. In Haltemprice, a mischievous reporter asked her about the West Lothian question, which her minder, Robert de Keyser, thought completely below the belt. Miss Great Britain is his brand, so it might not be too sceptical to think he's spending £35,000 on her campaign to attract publicity. But then publicity is what all of them are after. Stand as a reporter in Cottingham market and you are as a lamp to moths.

Fitzpatrick, a 58-year-old fruit and veg dealer, came all the way from Northampton by taxi to pay his £500 deposit and stay 10 days in a small hotel. His message is: "Forty-days detention is a reasonable act for unreasonable people. I love my liberty; an honest man has nothing to fear." Tom Darwood, a carpenter, has travelled from Essex also at the price of his deposit and some nights in a B&B. As I understood it, he has the perfect CV (wasn't Joseph also a carpenter?) to become Britain's first elected sovereign, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or (his voice grew hushed here) the Pope. What troubled them most was obscurity.

If only because of her lack of exhibitionism, Jill Saward stands out among these independent candidates. She wasn't in Cottingham market. We met at a hotel in Hull, where she said she was "petrified" by the thought of approaching people in the street and talking to them. "My way is getting alongside people waiting at bus stops and having a chat." In this election she personifies the most articulate opposition to Davis's stance. In 1986 she was raped by burglars at her father's vicarage in Ealing. Since then she has campaigned for better help for rape victims. She wasn't impressed by Davis's small attention to this issue when he was shadow home secretary. She wants more surveillance, more CCTV, more DNA testing. "We don't live in nice old Magna Carta England any more,' she said.

On the one hand, an argument that says the state is becoming too powerful. On the other, a fear that it is increasingly weak. Haltemprice will elect David Davis because of his party, but the popularity of his beliefs will remain unproved. As an independent newcomer campaigning for liberty he might struggle, like Miss Great Britain, to save his £500.

Is the state taking liberties?

Last night's Cif/Observer debate laid bare the government's failure to convince a vocal proportion of Britons that their freedom is not under threat

All comments (37)

• 
• • Ros Taylor
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Friday July 4, 2008

Link to this audio

The hour long debate is recommended listening

No one likes to be called a paranoid fantasist. Certainly not the packed house at the Observer/Comment is free debate in Westminster yesterday, most of whom had come to hear David Davis and the Observer's Henry Porter (declared a "national treasure" by one of the audience) take the fight for civil liberties to Haltemprice and Howden, Westminster and quite possibly beyond. A vote established that most thought liberty in Britain was in peril. Denis MacShane MP and David Aaronovitch, formerly of this parish, attempted to persuade them that Big Brother was not, in fact, watching them – at least, not without very good reason.

It was an occasionally bad-tempered debate that laid bare the government's failure to convince a vocal proportion of Britons that 42 days' detention and the "surveillance society" – ID cards, CCTV and prying council employees – are contributing to the greater safety and wellbeing of society. MacShane and Aaronovitch, who share a basic faith in the government's trustworthiness and good sense, were pitted against two men afraid of its reach and what it might one day do with the data it accumulates. Why, Porter wanted to know, would Aaronovitch trust a government that had misled him over Iraq's WMD? The Times columnist replied that in the course of the Hutton and Butler inquiries he had realised why it had been deceived – and the very existence of those inquiries was evidence of a culture of openness in British government. "I don't buy the proposition that the state is always the enemy." Take the Equal Pay Act. By putting our trust in government – by volunteering our DNA, for example – we could avoid the kind of persecution of minorities that is taking place in Italy, where police are fingerprinting Roma.

"I do care about civil liberties," he added, "and I conceive it as a civil liberty not to have to use a lift that someone craps in every day" – which was why the residents of the building concerned were so keen to have CCTV installed. MacShane cited the case of his recently mugged 13-year-old son, whose attackers were captured on camera and will shortly appear in court.

Porter disagreed: "We're often mocked for worrying about CCTV, but we're building this apparatus, this vast network of surveillance. In ten years' time, the pressure to use this to control people will be enormous."

Davis's hardline reputation and his support for capital punishment - "The liberty not to be hanged by the neck until you're dead is a liberty," said MacShane – did not go unchallenged. Davis had voted for 28 days' detention, the Labour MP pointed out. Why was 28 days acceptable but 29 days an infringement of civil liberties? Because that was how long the police had told him they needed, Davis replied. "The problem with 42 days is we keep innocent people for longer than we do guilty ones," because those with clear evidence against them were charged first. That, he said, did nothing to encourage "moderate Muslims" to help counterterrorism operations.

The fact that the whole topic appeared to bore Aaronovitch did not endear him to the audience. "We have reached the point almost of paranoia about civil liberties ... It is, in my opinion, a paranoid fantasy," he said. The barely disguised hint that they were hanging out with the little Englanders and the green ink faction did not please the majority of those present. "You're not all being watched," he concluded, exasperated. But people who think they are being watched do not like to be told they are imagining it: and when the motion was voted on for a second time, barely a handful had changed their minds.

Davis's fight is not just for liberty. It is for Britain's soul

In defending 800 years of hard-won political rights, this rebel is also standing up for a crucial part of the national spirit

All comments (2)

• Jan Morris
• The Guardian,
• Wednesday June 25, 2008
• Article history

Whether David Davis makes of himself a public hero or a popular buffoon by his plunge into notoriety, he stands for me as an allegorical monitor of our times.

His behaviour has been quixotic, but like the great mad progenitor of the condition, Don Quixote of La Mancha, he is fighting a cause in a truly fateful battle - a battle for liberty of the human spirit.

It is not just a matter of those 42 days, of habeas corpus or even of human rights in the political sense of the phrase: it is an elemental struggle that is dividing the British again into two nations, as Benjamin Disraeli saw them long ago. They are in vulnerable condition anyway, their natural resistance weakened - all in a mess, demoralised, lacking confidence and conviction, enervated by failure and alien principles, swept this way and that by the forces of a rotten materialist culture.

And of the contemporary two nations, it seems to me, by far the greater is giving up on liberty. Anyone can see that in Britain, 2008, individuality is being suppressed, so that

year by year, generation by generation, the people are being bullied or brainwashed into docile conformity. What is more ominous is that so many want to be docile. They want to be supervised, cosseted, homogenised, obedient.

The ubiquitous CCTV cameras are the emblems of this malaise, not because of their existence but because people accept them as necessary for the public good: the police tell them so, councils tell them so, statistics proclaim it, and so they believe it, and are

perfectly willing to be spied upon, night and day, wherever they go, by unknown, invisible strangers out of sight.

The so-called war on terror is of course the supposed excuse for this appalling violation of all our privacies, together with the ominous rise of the secret intelligence agencies.

The public has been gulled into acceptance of the supervisory state, with all its paraphernalia of surveillance and identity cards, DNA databases, armed police and arbitrary search, by the mantra: "If you don't do anything wrong, why worry?"

Brainwashed by a tabloid press of brilliantly insidious techniques, then, numbed by the relentless mediocrity of television, half the people have willingly forfeited the right to make up their own minds, and mutely accept indoctrination. "He's not afraid of anything," I overheard one young mother say to another, watching her three-year-old clambering over an obstacle, but the reply came straight from the state: "Oh that's dangerous, you must never allow him to think like that."

Even the middle classes, once the very backbone of robust individualism, are not immune to the contagion. They all think twice about expressing their views in case they say something that is politically incorrect. They preposterously mollycoddle their children, not only because they have been so repeatedly warned of life's unspeakable dangers but also because they wonder what the neighbours will think. They are officially encouraged to snoop and sneak on their fellow citizens, so snoop and sneak they do.

And when you are afraid to say what you think, it is a step nearer to the most dreadful condition of all: being afraid of what to think.

As I see it, Davis's display concerns not just political liberty but liberty of the mind, of the identity, of the spirit - even, patriots might sententiously say, of the national soul. It is not simply 800 years of hard-won political rights he is defending, it is nothing less than a view of life itself, which civilised peoples have so pain-stakingly fashioned down the centuries. It has been an old pride of the British that they, above all, have honoured the truest forms of freedom, with all its anomalies, eccentricities and humour, above and beside all politics, obeying only laws they respect.

A few more generations of nagging and surveillance and we shall have forgotten what true freedom is. Young people will have foregone the excitements of risk, academics will temper all thought with caution, and the great public will accept without demur all restrictions and requirements of the state.

Ours will be a people moulded to docility, perfect fodder for ideologues. Then if the one nation of the British slides into autocracy, guided by opportunist or witless politicians and a gullible press, the other nation will be goaded towards despotism too. Already every free soul, I suspect, has sometimes wished that we had a benevolent dictator to sweep all the nonsense aside, the flabbiness and the conformity, the brainwash and all. Some day the structure may crack, and we shall find ourselves under the autocracy of conformists or libertarians - both forced into totalitarianism in defence of their own philosophies.

So perhaps Davis is a prophet as well as a politician. When he talks of habeas corpus he is echoing ideas far older and more profound, reaching back to the earliest yearnings of antiquity, the first glimmerings of human individuality, when our ancestors began to break from tribal disciplines and devise preferences of their own. Tribalism is what every despotism hopes to impose on its people. It is the will of the party, which Davis has apparently flouted. It is the will of the majority, which is one reason why Gordon Brown feels no need to put up a candidate at Haltemprice and Howden. Today the whistleblowers are our guardians of the spirit, and I like to think that Davis is one of them - a true successor of the grand old knight of Castile, but alas, tilting at windmills that are all too real.

· Jan Morris is a historian, travel writer and former Guardian correspondent
janmorris1@msn.com

Liberty sacrificed to politics

The prime minister wants to throw away the rights of the British people for a boost in the polls. It's sad to see him reduced to this

All comments (73)

• 
• • Diane Abbott
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Wednesday June 11, 2008
  • Article history

Over a year ago, quite unprompted, Gordon Brown decided to re-open the question of how long innocent people can be detained without being charged.

Britain already had the longest period of detention without charge in the English speaking world, indeed, in any comparable democracy. Nothing substantive has changed since parliament last debated the issue. The police were not asking for this. (Although some senior policemen, who were mindful of their career prospects, have been "persuaded" to come out in support.) The prosecuting authorities see no need for this. And Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, has said this publicly. Not a single Labour law officer past or present is prepared to defend the proposal. At first Brown did not suggest a figure. This is a clue that this was not objective evidence-based decision, but rather a wholly speculative political judgment. Finally he hit on the figure of 42 days.

Since then speculation has raged as to why he re-opened this issue. Some people say that he simply wanted to prove that he could do something that Tony Blair could not. (Blair was defeated on 90 days) Others argue that he was upset by an article in the Sun last year that accused him of being "soft" on terror and that this set him rampaging down this path. What is clear is that his burning motivation is to respond to opinion polls and focus groups, as opposed to dealing with facts. He also seeks to gain a tactical advantage over the Tory party by putting them in the "wrong place" on terror.

For a long time Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, and junior ministers sought to argue the case on its merits. But eventually it became clear that the case had no merits, that nobody (except for the most gullible) were taken in by Brown's "concessions" and that he was going to lose the vote in parliament.

At that point the government machinery went into overdrive. At first senior ministers were sent to pressure backbenchers they happened to be friendly with. And the usual array of threats and inducements were rolled out.

Then hapless backbenchers found the prime minister himself on the phone, by turns pleading and insistent. One colleague said to me that the prime minister rang him five times last weekend and he just refused to take the calls because he knew he just could not give him the reply he wanted. He added thoughtfully: "It comes to something when you won't take a prime ministers calls".

One long-time friend and supporter of the prime minister came off the phone from him in tears, because he seemed so lost and out of touch with reality. Backbenchers, who Brown has never spoken to before, found themselves ushered into his presence twice in 48 hours. The level of inducements also went up. Every rebel backbencher with a favourite cause found the prime minister suddenly willing to take action; but only after they voted the right way today.

Good honest colleagues, who know that what the prime minister is doing is wrong, have found the pressure too much to bear and have caved in. Less scrupulous colleagues have decided that a display of unctuous loyalty at this time is the way to secure a job in the coming reshuffle.

Government whips know better than to bribe or bully me and I have been spared the arm-twisting. But my view on this issue has never varied. I came into politics in the 1980s in the era of the Brixton riots when young black men were the "enemy within" in much the same way young Muslim men are today.

The issue of how the state engages with marginalised communities whom the general public fear is at the heart of my politics.

To throw away rights the British people have had since Magna Carta and push the Muslim community further into fear and marginalisation, just in order to gain Gordon Brown a few weeks advantage in the opinion polls would be utterly wrong. I am sad it has come to this for Gordon Brown. But I will be voting against the government tonight.

Q&A: Loss of freedoms?

Who's watching you?

Shadow home secretary David Davis has dramatically quit Parliament the day after the government narrowly won the vote on 42-days detention for terrorism suspects.

Standing on the steps of Westminster, the Tory MP said he would fight a by-election in his own constituency against the "insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms".

So what exactly is he talking about?

DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE

What did David Davis say?

"Up until yesterday, I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons, representing our constituents, was a noble endeavour because we defended the freedoms of the British people.

"Well we did up until yesterday. Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge."

What's the issue?

David Davis led the Tory opposition to the government's plans to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days without charge. He and other critics say 42-day detention breaches a fundamental right not to be unlawfully detained, enshrined in the Magna Carta.

What does the government say?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the move to 42 days is a measured preparation for a time when police may need extra powers in an exceptional situation. He says the public supports it and the safeguards are strong.

CCTV AND SURVEILLANCE

One CCTV camera for every 14 citizens

What did David Davis say?

"A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens."

What's the issue?

Millions have been spent on CCTV cameras, rolled out to deter city centre crime.

The figure quoted by David Davis comes from a guess contained in a fairly old study of cameras in two London streets and is probably an under-estimate of the number of cameras in the UK.

One police officer recently told the BBC, CCTV played a part in solving only 3% of crime.

Many cameras play little law and order role because they were not installed for the police's benefit or are not capable of capturing pictures clear enough to be used in evidence.

However, thanks to software that can read number plates and text and isolate specific human behaviour, their importance is increasing.

Controversial "Talking CCTV" has been installed in some areas, whereby control centre staff can speak to people they are watching, asking them to pick up litter or move on.

What does the government say?

Ministers believe CCTV helps people feel safe but Home Office research casts doubt on whether they genuinely cut crime.

THE DNA DATABASE

What did David Davis say?

"A DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it."

What's the issue?

The national DNA database is extremely controversial, partly because of how easy it is to be added to it and how difficult it can be to get removed.

When it was launched in 1995, only the DNA of convicted criminals could be kept but from 2004 it began holding the DNA of anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station.

DNA testing can help solve crimes

As of this spring, the database held 4.5m samples - a greater proportion of the population than any other DNA database in the world.

This includes disproportionate numbers of samples from black men, prompting one senior judge to argue that the only way the system can be made fair is to hold everybody's DNA.

What does the government say?

DNA is a key element of the modern crime-fighting toolkit but there are no plans to cover the entire population.

Of the 200,000 samples from people neither charged nor convicted, which would have in the past been removed, the Home Office says 8,500 had been subsequently matched to crime scenes, involving some 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes.

ID CARDS AND DATABASE STATE

What did David Davis say?

"We will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.... The creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers."

What's the issue?

The government's apparent determination to press ahead with a national ID card is one of the most controversial issues in national policy and politics.

ID cards will be gradually phased in

In short, the government wants ID cards as part of plans to fight crime, modernise the state and tackle illegal immigration.

Foreign nationals will soon need to carry a card, followed probably by students, and then others will be encouraged to get a card as a means of making their life easier.

In theory, at some point after 2012 there will be critical mass and Parliament will be asked to make them compulsory.

There are huge concerns over the costs, the practicality of the cards and whether the databases will work and remain secure.

What does the government say? Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told the BBC in March there were "big advantages" to making ID cards as widespread as possible but there needed to be public acceptance.

There have been repeated claims that the government is contemplating a U-turn on ID cards, none of which has been substantiated.

TRIAL BY JURY

What did David Davis say?

"We have witnessed an assault on jury trials - that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair."

What's the issue?

There have been several moves to limit the right to a trial by jury over the years, two since 1997.

These include attempts to reform how serious fraud trials are heard, because of the complexity of the evidence. Each attempt has failed in Parliament. Legal observers expect another attempt to reform juries in the near future.

What does the government say?

The government has always denied that it is trying to erode defendants' rights - but argues that reforms and modernisation are necessary in the name of effective justice.

Only this week, one of the country's top judges said the jury system "simply cannot survive" if terrorism cases last as long as 14 months.

Nick Robinson newslog - Wow. Cor blimey. Gordon Bennett.

Laughing off a late life crisis

• Nick
• 12 Jun 08, 05:48 PM

Wow. Cor blimey. Gordon Bennett.

Just some of the repeatable things said round Westminster on hearing the news that David Davis planned to step into the history books by resigning his seat to take the fight for civil liberties to the people.

What David Cameron said in private when he was told - not asked, not consulted, mind you - is probably unbroadcastable.

The two Tory Davids - one who beat the other to become Tory leader - insist they've not fallen out and not rowed about policy.

David Davis has, however, bounced his leader into a by-election he didn't want, on an issue he wanted to move on from and he has done it without consulting his colleagues in the shadow cabinet. It is hard to see how the two men could work comfortably with each other in future.

The man who is already the former shadow home secretary insists he's making a principled stand and laughs off suggestions from friends and foes alike that he's having a late life crisis.

A politician who is a self-confessed adrenalin junkie has just injected a little unpredictability into British politics.

Principled and brave, yes. But Davis still looks an oddball

He could yet be cast as a hero for liberties, but this shock resignation appears histrionic, lacks precision and damages Tory unity

All comments (18)

• 
• • Julian Glover
  • The Guardian,
  • Friday June 13 2008
  • Article history

Some sort of extraordinary brainstorm must have overtaken David Davis on Thursday night, an eruption of emotion that has persuaded him he can become the John Wilkes of the ID card age. His decision to quit the shadow cabinet and parliament - until he is re-elected, as he will be - can be explained by no ordinary political logic. It is as bewildering as a grown man collapsing into tears for what seems no reason; an expression of anguish and a search for attention from inside his soul.

The act is both very brave and very foolish, but either way it is confusing and will have consequences that Davis cannot predict. What it will do for the slow strangulation of British liberties, as he put it in a windblown statement on the steps of the Palace of Westminster after the Speaker meanly refused to allow him to make it in the Commons chamber, is uncertain - perhaps nothing. What it will do for his party is no easier to guess, except to say that it will be taken by Labour as Gordon Brown's best piece of luck in 12 months.

In a culture as monitored as British politics, there is something disturbing about anything done wilfully. Davis's decision has a reckless insanity that carries no sense of strategy - and which might come alive or crash and burn; as yet no one can know. It left his Tory colleagues by turns speechless and furious, an intentional jibe against their authority. It was a break from the collective, a bucking of the herd, an expression of individual freedom made in the cause of defending it.

His struggle will be to explain what he is standing for, and what it is he is against. His complaint is rooted in the government's policy on 42-day detention, but it sprawls much more widely, and risks turning into an individual manifesto rather than a single for-or-against question on an issue of controversial debate. There is a touch of the 18th-century Tory to his talk of lost liberties and Magna Carta, a backwoods defiance of Whiggish modernity in the name of protecting the roast beef and strong ale of old England. Hogarth would have been by his side, William Cobbett too, as well as today's rural protesters crying out about liberty and livelihood - but how is all this to be condensed into a case put to the voters of Haltemprice and Howden in a snap summer poll?

When Enoch Powell and his fellow unionists called byelections against the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1986, they could claim to be asking voters a question on something specific.

The problem is that for all the drama of his campaign, Davis only represents one form of liberty. He does not like the state very much, which other liberals rightly see as a necessary protection against social injustice. He has called for the return of the death penalty, backed section 28, and wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. What exactly is liberal about that? Magna Carta is all very well, but justice in this country depends on more modern protections, which do not all have his support.

How, too, can he expect to commit such an individual act without fracturing the Tory consensus, the preservation of which may prove vital to the 42-day cause he claims to represent? He has no public complaint to make about David Cameron or George Osborne; they voted by his side against 42 days and they have moved their party back into opposition to identity cards, though on the former issue both might have been open to persuasion if the government had attempted to talk them round.

They have been forced to offer tepid support for his move, while describing it as personal, which is the same as saying they would not have done it themselves. They will stick with the policy on 42 days and the new shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, will continue the fight as it heads into the House of Lords. But Davis's desertion halfway through makes little sense, unless it has been fuelled by other resentments.

He has behaved well since losing the leadership to Cameron when it looked as though he was certain to get it. There has been no sniff of disloyalty. But he must have been jealous of the younger Etonians who now run the Tories. He may have feared, too, for the party's future intentions on 42 days - although Grieve has confirmed a promise to repeal the law, if passed. There seems to have been no single row; rather yesterday's move was a show of defiance against establishments of all kinds, including the Tory one. The suspicion is that East Yorkshire's voters are being asked to back Davis's re-election without being given a full explanation.

Cameron himself sounded fraught in his statement yesterday. His fury at the way Davis has trampled all over the news is understandable. Cameron's anger may be tempered, though, by the thought that he will no longer need to defer to a leadership rival on home affairs, as Blair once had to leave the economy to Gordon Brown. But the impression of disunity will do damage.

As for other parties, Labour is trying to spoil Davis's day by not standing (hardly brave), while Nick Clegg's decision to do likewise was unavoidable, given he believes Davis's promise to confine his campaign to specifics. But some Lib Dems will hate it. Labour, too, will take note of Clegg's decision to back a Tory against the government, however unusual the circumstances and worthy the cause.

At a time when the political system is distrusted by the public it is supposed to serve more than ever, it may be churlish to pick on one man's desire to be different. Beyond Westminster Davis might become a hero for standing up to the system. He has at least created real drama about real concerns. All the wise heads who yesterday could see the illogicality may be missing the point: illogicality could prove to be the principle glory. And if there is to be a single-issue byelection, how much better it is, too, for it to be fought in defence of justice and individual freedom and not - as some other Tories might - on issues of migration or race.

For that, three cheers. Davis is right about 42 days, right about ID cards, right about the implications of a database-driven surveillance society. If he can explain in specific terms why he is staging this contest, and without lapsing into a little England grumble about all that is wrong with the state, he could yet achieve something magnificent. But the danger is that he will end up looking no more credible than a Fathers for Justice protester dressed in a Superman suit, jumping up and down angrily on Gordon Brown's roof.

julian.glover@guardian.co.uk

In full: Davis statement

IN VIDEO

David Davis' resignation speech



David Davis speaks to Nick Robinson



Here is the full text of the statement David Davis read out to reporters announcing his resignation:

The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. The word Haltemprice is derived from the motto of a medieval priory, and in Old French it means "Noble Endeavour".

I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday.

Up until yesterday, I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries or forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. Well we did up until yesterday.

This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta - the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms - Habeus Corpus.

The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge.

Now the counter terrorism bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for if not to defend Magna Carta.

But because the impetus behind this is essentially political - not security - the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto.

Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons, this government's going to do that. And because the generic security arguments relied on will never go away - technology, development and complexity and so on, we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days.

But in truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.

And we will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.

A CCTV camera for every 14 citiziens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with 1000s of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.

We have witnessed an assault on jury trials - that balwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair.

And the creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.

The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate - while those who incite violence get off Scot free.

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it's incumbent on me to take a stand.

I will be resigning my membership of the House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.

Now I'll not fight it on the government's general record - there's no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won't fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this great chess game.

I will fight it, I will argue this by-election, against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.

Now, that may mean I've made my last speech to the House - it's possible. And of course that would be a matter of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever-intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.

And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand.