Whilst reading excerpts of Hansard to children at bed-time (it works a treat – they soon become bored and drop off to sleep), I became aware of an element of Labour’s strategy for the forthcoming General Election. In essence, it is: “Labour fights crime with more CCTV and an extensive DNA database”. No doubt, when senior police officers are interviewed on the telly about these subjects, they will sagely nod their heads and say something like: “Yes please. We really love this stuff”.
Labour's political strategy is being run in Parliament at the moment. For example, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Claire Ward) told the Conservative front bench: “the Conservatives would do better, given that they want to tie the hands of the police and crime enforcement officers in relation to many of the measures that we are using effectively, such as those involving DNA and CCTV”. At a recent Prime Minister’s Questions Gordon Brown said: “If he would support us on CCTV and DNA, we might be more able to catch criminals at the right time and in the right place”.
Quite clearly a counter argument on the lines: “Most CCTV doesn’t do the job effectively” or “six year retention of DNA personal data on the innocent is a step too far” (see previous blogs) is going to need an explanation which is likely to be far too nuanced for tabloid headlines in the run up to an Election.
Consider the DNA database proposals which the Conservatives oppose in a limited way (six years retention of DNA of the innocent). When an Election is called, the Opposition Whips will sit together in a huddled room with senior Party MPs to decide what legislation gets through Parliament in its dying days. Their eyes will be focused on the forthcoming Election which is now a close run thing.
The closer it is, the more I think that the Conservative Whips might decide to defuse this element of Labour’s strategy by agreeing the DNA proposals subject to some additional “protection”. Also with respect to CCTV, I suspect that the Party will recognise that CCTV is popular with the public, and insist that there needs to be "stronger supervision" before a new scheme is implemented.
In other words, I am half expecting to hear the sound of political gears going into reverse and emollient words from Conservative spokespersons that they have gained “firmer reporting to Parliament” or “spot inspections from the Information Commissioner” etc etc. Such talk should be recognised for what it is: a fig-leaf to cover a retreat.
The result could be that the Government’s proposals on DNA and CCTV will come into being without too much questioning on the detail. Yet, getting to the correct privacy balance needs analysis of such detail.
References: Hansard, 23 Mar 2010, Column 114 and 10 Mar 2010, Column 293. Note: we have changed the search engine of the blog to one which we think works. If you have any comments, let us know.
Comments