DNA detection has been a phenomenally successful tool for fighting crime, helping to secure identification and confirm guilt in not only thousands of current convictions, but also in previously closed cases, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders and 90 rapes.

It is appropriate for the DNA database to hold samples of all those who are charged or cautioned. What is not appropriate, however, is the retention of DNA if the suspect is not charged or not cautioned. Currently DNA is taken on arrest and retained regardless of guilt or innocence – and this serendipity of DNA retention gives cause for concern.

There are now around 140,000 people on the National DNA database who have never been charged or cautioned with a criminal offence, including nearly 25,000 children. Moreover, nearly a quarter of the people in the National DNA database are from BME communities – although they make up under one in ten of the population as a whole.

In other words, for example, an innocent black man is far more likely to have their DNA stored in the national database than an innocent white man. Having a national crime-fighting database that singles out innocent members of ethnic minorities in this way raises a whole host of problems, including equity, reducing the confidence of people in the fairness of the police and their work and the risk of further discrimination up the line if the records are ever misused – and remember how often in the past big databases have gone wrong, had their security compromised or been misused.

Control and custodianship of the database is key. It is a positive step that the Government is now finally moving control away from the Forensic Science Service, so as to avoid conflicts of interest. However, it is only relatively late in the day that that Government is even starting to properly consider the issues of control and supervision.

And – regrettably – the evidence from Parliament is that Labour is keener to try to play Punch and Judy politics with this issue than to address these real concerns. I say this because Jack Straw has twice had to be corrected in the chamber for falsely claiming that the Liberal Democrats are against all keeping of DNA records. Not impressed, Jack. The keeping of such very personal records by the Government should be a matter of rather more serious debate.

Meanwhile, The Observer revealed that a private firm has been secretly keeping the full DNA samples along with highly personal demographic details of the individuals including their names, ages, skin colour and addresses. And the Government itself has also authorised research projects using the DNA samples for non-police work.

In fact, the police only need the DNA profile, which is extracted from the original DNA sample. This ability to misuse the full sample for non-police purposes means it should be destroyed once the DNA profile has been extracted. It is the only sure protection.

In addition, the DNA records of those charged, but acquitted in court, should be held for a designated period of time – catering, for example, for the possible need to return to the evidence in an appeal.

A person who wrongly arrested and is not charged or cautioned should be able to choose whether their DNA can be retained. This would bring England and Wales closer into line with the position in Scotland where, under the Labour-led Scottish Executive, most DNA samples and records are destroyed if a person is acquitted or given an order of absolute discharge.

Or in brief – data kept is data open to misuse, and so that which is kept should be kept to a minimum.

This article first appeared in The House Magazine.

Just off Park Road is a lovely open area of green land, long used for cricket and other sports. For many years the North Middlesex Cricket Club has been based there. This area has special qualities and – in something the authorities have got right! – it has been designated as Metropolitan Open Land, which means it can’t be put to other use.

However, many residents have been expressing concern at the recent take-over of the club by commercial developers who proudly announced that they were going to spend £4.5 million to modernize the club, including a new restaurant for 120 people and function rooms for 450 people.

Now – this will totally change the character of the area, and bring huge numbers of people in, with the traffic, disruption and noise that goes with it. Already, what was a location with well-kept cricket squares where players and spectators could watch a leisurely game of cricket, whilst imagining themselves in an almost rural idyll, is changing with an influx of much larger number of people, and little peace or tranquillity.

In the hustle and bustle of urban life, losing those little oasis of peace and tranquillity is a tragedy – we all need places to pause, reflect and move at a slower pace.

The site has provided a great balance between providing social, sports and leisure uses for the local community whilst also been green open-space with the environmental and wildlife benefits that brings.

So people are understandably nervous. The developers don’t seem to have done a great job around communication with the surrounding residents – and certainly many residents are complaining about not being kept informed of what is going on. The result has been the galvanisation of local residents associations into a group called Combined Residents’ Action Group (CRAG), contained representatives from the roads surrounding the open spaces and from CREOS – the local environmental protection and preservation group.

Already there has been a CRAG deputation to Haringey Council – which was well received by both political parties. CRAG has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for more information and has put Haringey Council on notice not to allow the developers to get away with developing the site without planning permission. Let’s hope that Haringey Council is ready to meet the challenge of keeping a close watch on the site.