The Power of the State

Published on Wed 18th Jun 2008

When MPs received the pager message that David Davis had resigned the immediate thought was that he must have committed some misdemeanour or heinous crime. However, as more news filtered out that his reasons for resignation centred on the previous nights vote on detention without charge for 42 days, there was even more incredulity as no-one could believe he had done anything so bad as to force his resignation. Naturally, there will be a spectrum of opinion on his motives, a good deal of political spin and a large measure of media hype, but whatever the truth I for one am very glad he has tried to focus the country's mind on the current state of civil liberties which have been constantly eroded over the period of this Labour administration.

In fact, the Government is a serial offender. Directly, after the Foot and Mouth crisis powers were introduced to permit Government officers or inspectors to enter any premises and kill any animal without any right of appeal. Some of us tried to qualify how and when this could occur, but the Government would have none of it. Only last week in the Finance Bill the Government wanted to introduce new powers for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to be able to enter, at any time, business premises to tackle tax evasion. On the face of it, not too controversial, but when we discovered "business premises" included an employees home, if he took home his company laptop, or parked his company car in his garage, and that "authorised" documents could include a personal diary, it once again demonstrated the tendency to trash civil and personal liberties. If we add the stealth DNA databases and the introduction of new Inquest Courts which will have only a presiding judge, no jury and sit in private we begin to see a disturbing picture of state intervention and control, which whilst apparently laudable, nevertheless attacks fundamental freedoms.

Please do not get me wrong, I want to tackle terrorism, I do not want another Foot and Mouth epidemic, I do not condone tax evasion or enable criminals to get away with their crimes, but what is lacking in such draconian legislation is proportionality and balance. We do not live in a police state or a totalitarian society but much recent legislation is the building blocks of such legislation in unacceptable countries and communities. Living in a free society means living with risks, there is no such thing as a risk free society but I believe the general public accept certain degrees of risk in return for having civil liberties and freedoms denied to so many others in the world.

I am in favour of the chance for a public debate presented by David Davis' resignation and the resultant by-election. I do not want that debate lead by the nose by the exaggerated claims of the tabloids, but by a sober assessment of what sort of state we want, the extent of the state's collection of personal data, its use and security. Recognition that citizens have rights when they have lived within the law, and laws which protect the innocent until wrongdoing has been discovered and charges brought are preferred. I do not want ever increasing stealth accumulation of personal data, or draconian powers of entry, or an extension of secret courts and the reduction of the use of juries, no matter whatever the perceived justification.