|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Security and liberty - do
they conflict? |
| Hi all – As the local development issue has dominated my recent updates, I'd like to start this one by consulting you on issues being debated in Westminster (next week I want to talk about the abortion and fertilisation bill), but I'll add a further update on the housing issue below. 1. Security and liberty: do they conflict? I've been asked by Home Office Ministers to review the potential personal benefits of a voluntary ID card, and also want to discuss with them the concerns that people have. Because my background is in IT and I've lived in countries with identity registers and cards, they felt I could bring a fresh eye to the project. The project, as you may have seen, is to complete the current project to record the fingerprints of all visa and asylum applicants (they've collected a million so far, and in the process spotted 10,000 people who had previously applied, often under a different name) and then move on to record fingerprints for passport applicants. People won't need to have an ID card, but if you want one it should cost around £30 and last 10 years. The idea is that eventually all residents should have their fingerprints registered so that identity can be verified in case of legitimate need (e.g. someone has been arrested and refuses to say who he is, or a traffic accident victim is unconscious and it's urgent to identify him), while the card will provide easy proof of identity and address for people who want it (we are surely the only country in the world that asks people who want to open a bank account to produce a gas bill). A big concern that some have is the `audit trail', which is a record of which organisations have checked your identity. This was designed to protect the individual (since it enables you to check that nobody you hadn't authorised has been checking up on you), but people worry that a list of such enquiries could give clues about your lifestyle – e.g. if you have had enquiries from several banks, perhaps you are shopping around for a mortgage, or if there's a hospital check (to see you're entitled to free long-term treatment as a British resident), it could hint at a major health problem. I've been thinking about this, and I'm thinking of proposing that we should give everyone full control over their records, so that we can inspect and delete entries in the audit trail whenever we want to – first we could have a look to satisfy ourselves, then get rid of any enquiries that we would rather not have on record. Whatever one thinks about this idea, it's just one example of the recent debates on whether greater security involves a threat to liberty. Another is the DNA register. As things stand, if you are ever arrested for an offence, a DNA sample is taken and kept on record, even if you're later acquitted. Two recent convictions for murder resulted from previous DNA samples for unrelated offences. The campaign Liberty argues that all records should be deleted except for serious sex and violence offenders, on the grounds that committing a minor theft shouldn't leave you on file for life. This would however have meant that one of the murderers (who had only been convicted of burglary) would not have been caught. Another view (currently being tested in the courts) is that you should only go on file if you're convicted. Alternatively, some MPs have proposed that *everyone* in Britain should be compelled to give a sample. What do you think? The case for the current system is that the target group is arguably exactly the right one: people who've committed crimes or at least come under such serious suspicion that they were arrested. Adding another 50 million records right down to bedridden 95-year-olds would be hugely expensive and produce diminishing returns. On the other hand, certain crimes like rape would be almost entirely soluble if everyone had to give a sample, since it's not possible to commit rape without leaving DNA traces, and many assaults would be easy to solve too. Or do you support the Liberty position and feel the whole thing is too intrusive except for the most serious offenders? Technical notes: I understand that a DNA sample is essentially a bit of spit – no needles etc. are required. DNA evidence is not treated by the courts as 100% conclusive – in rare circumstances you can get "false positives", especially if the sample isn't very good and you have a big database. It's obviously a huge help to police to narrow a case down to a couple of potential criminals, though. 2. Development update I'm glad to say the Nottingham Regeneration Limited have agreed to meet me, and I'm now pressing for an early date for this. Very many thanks again to all who wrote to them to urge them to listen. I would still like to be able to talk to their consultants as well so as to influence each stage of the process in our collective interest. Some of the local developers have been in touch to put their side of the story: the church group (not Beeston Free Church as I reported earlier) who own land west of Bardills, Peverils who want to develop the Chilwell segment (they say they would allow a tram park and ride site), and the consultants working on the Stanton Ironworks proposal, which seems potentially attractive to me. I remain entirely unconvinced by the Peveril (Chilwell), Trowell/Cossall and Watnall/Nuthall sites. The timetable is roughly this: March 15: I've organised a meeting with my colleagues Paddy Tipping and Vernon Coaker with the County Council and numerous NGOs with an interest in the local environment – the Wildlife Trust, CPRE, etc. These are not represented on NRL and we are keen that they too should be able to weigh in at an early stage. Early April: the consultants should complete heir report to NRL. Summer: NRL should report back to the councils on which areas look plausible for development. I am hoping that, following all our efforts, at least some of the Broxtowe areas will be seen as clearly unsuitable. Post-summer: the councils update their assessments in consultation with the Government Office for the East Midlands. 2009: concrete planning proposals are likely to be put to the elected councils for anywhere that has survived the initial process. 3. Local party politics A correction from my last update: Conservative councillors tell me that the person who misrepresented me at the Chilwell meeting, who looked to me like Cllr Tom Pettengell, was actually someone else. I'm happy to accept the assurance and would like to apologise to Tom. Meanwhile, though, the Conservative candidate, Anna Soubry, is maintaining a continuous barrage of partisan comment on the issue. Her report on the Bramcote meeting says this: "No explanation was given for the fact that the Lib Dem Leader of Broxtowe Council didn't attend as billed. I somewhat suspect he hasn't quite recovered from his "Chilwell experience" when residents booed and heckled him". She goes on, "In recent weeks I have been concerned that the local Labour MP is raising a number of red herrings. Initially he blamed the threat to Broxtowe's Green belt on "greedy developers" was not true [sic] and now concedes that the report that raised the threat was commissioned by all the local authorities in Greater Nottingham. Maybe it's just a question of time before he admits that the figures of 60,000 new homes in 25 years have come from his Government as a target that must be met". Finally, on the issue of NRL's refusal to listen to input, her only comment is a dismissive: "Your Labour MP knows fine well the consultants who are assessing the sites are under no duty whatsoever to meet with local politicians" . Ms Soubry has consistently said that if she were the MP she'd leave local planning matters to local Conservative councillors and instead would be demanding from Ministers that they reconsider the projected housing need for Nottingham. Well, I try to keep my updates largely non-partisan but I can't ignore this sort of stuff altogether, as otherwise it gets accepted by default. So a few factual comments: a) Of course the threat to the Green Belt is from developers. If nobody wanted to build on it, we'd have nothing to discuss. b) Yes, the consultants aren't under a duty to talk to local politicians. But in my opinion it was both undemocratic and short- sighted for NRL to instruct them not to. This isn't a party point – NRL gets its instructions from three Tory councils, two Labour ones and two LibDem-led ones. c) Asking Ministers to reduce the projection is like lobbying for a better weather forecast. There is an affordable housing shortage in the area right now (see every council's waiting lists and the price of starter homes), and the projected need is the best estimate of demographers. We can't simply wish it away or say we don't care about people who can't afford a decent home: the responsible thing to do is to fill vacant property and find suitable sites for affordable new homes. d) It's flatly untrue that the organisers (the respected and entirely unpolitical Bramcote Conservation Society) had billed the presence of the LibDem council leader. I also disagree with the whole "Westminster village" idea of MPs as being focused only on Westminster, leaving local councillors to deal with local matters. It's tidy, but it means you let down people who need help and were relying on you. MPs should in my view focus on anyone who is making decisions that affect their constituents. Right now, the only people making assessments that affect us are NRL and their consultants, so I'm focusing on NRL. I'm also trying to keep constituents in the picture. Most people first heard about the issue because I wrote to them: if they were waiting for a Tory councillor to get in touch, frankly many would still be in the dark. Ms Soubry spends most of her messages on the issue trying to make party political points against LibDems and Labour. I can do that sort of thing too, e.g. pointing out that the latest Tory leaflet on Chilwell is so obviously un-locally produced that it even manages to misspell Chilwell. But this sort of point- scoring doesn't save a single blade of grass, does it? If you would like a more party political and Westminster- focused MP than me, you'll have the option to choose Ms Soubry in a year or two. In the meantime, I'd like to concentrate on the issue at hand. Feedback, as always, welcome, though I'm still catching up with the avalanche of letters supporting the development campaign, so NNTR (no need to reply) preferred if you don't really need an answer. And thanks to everyone for their patience. Best wishes, Nick
|
