ten downing street

She isn't doing badly though. She spoke out against 42-day detention last month, and this week welcomes the government's climb-down unequivocally. "We shouldn't introduce new intrusions into our civil liberties unless they are absolutely necessary - and nobody had demonstrated that they were necessary. If there isn't any need, then don't move the boundaries." She argues that we should "treat terrorism as a crime, and deal with it under the law - not as something extra, that you have to invent new rules to deal with." She is opposed to ID cards, because she can't see how they could be "a significant counter-terrorist measure", and although she admits she's "had more time to think about it since I left the service", she says her attitude to civil liberties has always been liberal. The big change, she argues, has been not her position, but the politicisation of the issue.

"One of the things I have observed in the last few years, since I left, is that national security has become much more of a political issue. And that parties are tending to use it as a way of trying to get at the other side. You know," she adopts a mocking playground tone, "'We're more tough on terrorism than you are.' I think that's a bad move, quite frankly.

"After the vote in the House of Lords, one heard the home secretary saying something like, 'Well nobody can say I'm not tough on terrorism'. As though the implication was there are people who aren't. Which strikes me as very odd. Because most of the people in the House of Lords whose contributions to that debate I'd read were serious people, who'd possibly spent a life, as I have, trying to protect the country from serious threats. So the implication that, you know, a politician was going to say 'I'm tougher on terrorism than you are' struck me as ... " and she flicks a wrist, batting away the boast with the back of her hand like a fly. "And it's happened broadly since 9/11."

The response to 9/11 was "a huge overreaction", she says. "You know, it was another terrorist incident. It was huge, and horrible, and seemed worse because we all watched it unfold on television. So yes, 9/11 was bigger, but not ... not ..." Not qualitatively different? "No. That's not how it struck me. I suppose I'd lived with terrorist events for a good part of my working life, and this was, as far as I was concerned, another one."

Rimington hopes President Bush's successor will stop using the phrase "war on terror". "It got us off on the wrong foot, because it made people think terrorism was something you could deal with by force of arms primarily. And from that flowed Guantánamo, and extraordinary rendition, and ..." And Iraq, I suggest. "Well yes," she says drily. "Iraq."

Jacqui Smith gave a speech this week on international terrorism which rather remarkably failed to mention the war in Iraq at all. I ask Rimington what importance she would place on the war, in terms of its impact on the terrorist threat. She pauses for a second, then replies quietly but firmly: "Look at what those people who've been arrested or have left suicide videos say about their motivation. And most of them, as far as I'm aware, say that the war in Iraq played a significant part in persuading them that this is the right course of action to take. So I think you can't write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we're looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading."

These might not be unremarkable views for most Guardian readers - of whom Rimington is one. But according to Rimington, they are widely held within the intelligence service - much more so than most members of the public, and perhaps particularly Guardian readers, ever suspect.

"I don't think I'm unusual, frankly. It's the general public's, or whoever's it is, view that's out of date." She points out that Baroness Manningham-Buller, another former head of MI5, has been "saying broadly the same things. I think what that reflects is that the caricature of the service is out of date now.

"People [in the intelligence service] are very conscious of the possibility of intrusions into civil liberties - and therefore the importance of restricting that to the extent of what's strictly necessary. I think people are fully aware that the more you intrude into people's civil liberties, the more you set up grievances for people to, you know, encourage people to do all the unpleasant things that are going on." link

Senior Home Office officials have expressed concern about the Government's controversial plans to set up a new "Big Brother" national database, according to a leaked memo.

The doubts among Home Office advisers put them at odds with the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham, which is pressing for records of all telephone calls, emails and internet visits to be retained to help combat terrorism.

The dispute between the two agencies may have to be resolved by Gordon Brown and the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. She insists that no decision has been taken on a giant new database, one of several options under consideration by the Government.

The Independent disclosed last week that the idea of a central database is being strongly opposed by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the independent reviewer of terrorist laws.

Yesterday, a memo leaked to The Sunday Times said that a "significant body of Home Office officials dealing with serious and organised crime" are lobbying against the proposal. They believe it is "impractical, disproportionate, politically unattractive and possibly unlawful from a human rights perspective," it said.

The paper also reported that everyone buying a mobile phone might have to produce a passport at the point of sale and register their identity. More than half of the UK's 72 million mobile phones are "pay as you go"; they are used by terrorists and criminals so they can remain anonymous. The proposed database would have limited value to the security services if these pre-paid phones were not included.

Ministers insist there are no plans to store the content of phone calls, text messages or emails. The most draconian option under consideration would allow the police and intelligence agencies to keep records on who communicated with whom and when.

The Home Office said yesterday that it did "not recognise" the leaked memo. A spokesman said: "The communications revolution has been rapid in this country and because of changes in technology the way in which we collect communications data needs to change too.

"If it does not we will lose this vital capability that we currently have and that we all take for granted in fighting and solving crime. Of course there is a balance between privacy and our liberty, which is why we have said we will be consulting on this and seeking a political consensus. No decisions have been taken and we will be consulting in the New Year."

Ministers want to proceed cautiously with the Data Communications Bill, fearing a backlash from MPs and civil liberties campaigners worried about a creeping "surveillance society".

Last week, Ms Smith dropped plans to allow suspected terrorists to be detained for up to 42 days without charge after they suffered a crushing defeat in the House of Lords.

New doubts about the Government's ability to hold data safely were raised yesterday after figures showed that the Home Office and Ministry of Justice had lost or had stolen 3,492 security passes since 2001 – more than one a day. link

"It was, he says, fighting racism that got him into politics. At sixth-form college he joined the Labour Party and ran a campaign against “Paki-bashing”. He chose to stand for election as an MP in the Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency, which has a high Pakistani and Kashmiri population. “It's had a race riot, it's had a huge BNP [British National Party] presence and it's a marginal seat. It's a complete crucible,” he says. “But we've never had a BNP councillor - I hope I've had something to do with that by getting in and getting dirty.”

Mr Woolas describes dealing with immigration as “my lifelong purpose” but he is not going to be pandering to what he calls Hampstead liberals."

Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism.

"The hijab can, in his view, be divisive. “People wear veils for different reasons: some out of religious conviction. some because they're forced to. It should be up to them, but at school you shouldn't wear one. It's harder to get a good education if you wear a veil as you're more cut off.”

In no multiethnic country is there an automatic connection between economic problems and racial/communal tension. Some politicians - and people generally - say there is - politicians often for political gain.

But the state creates the norms and rules through which all kinds of communities operate. For a minister to say that more immigration into Britain -[ or in any country ] would increase racial tension is to imply - wrongly - that such tension is inevitable. By saying this, a minister might make such tension inevitable, instead of discouraging it.

Governments of multiethnic countries should encourage people to rise above racial stereotypes, discrimination and insecurity, once they have allowed immigrants to enter. Leaders set norms - people follow them.