Tag Archives: dna

Joyce Vincent

Posted on by

A woman was found dead in a flat in Wood Green. She had died more than two years earlier. The television was still on. Her shopping was at her side. Apart from the Brit media on this – interestingly – the Australian and Italian media are very het up about it. I had a word with an Italian TV station and asked them why this had become such a huge story in Italy. It’s because it is unimaginable in Italy that you wouldn’t a) know your neighbour and b) not be inquisitive about a flat that had no comings or goings. The Italian nation is agog at our apparent lack of community mindedness.

And where was everybody? It’s tragic that there were no friends or family there. There should have been a number of authorities involved in Joyce Vincent’s life. Someone should have been asking why the part of her rent not paid by housing benefit wasn’t paid. Where were social services? How did this poor lady fall through the safety net? This case shows the need for a human checking process.

Apparently Ms Vincent was a victim of domestic violence and, who knows, maybe she didn’t want people to know where she was and had discouraged contact from her family. She also lived in an area with quite high population turnover.

Nevertheless this is a reminder to all of us all that we should look out for our neighbours – but, as the interviews with her neighbours show, this is much easier said then done. At what point do you start worrying if you don’t see your neighbour? What do you do when you have started worrying? And so on.

Meanwhile, the answer to my Parliamentary Question on the ethnic breakdown of those people who have been arrested but not charged or cautioned – i.e. were innocent – has come back showing that 24% are from ethnic minorities. The black and Asian population of the UK as a whole is less than 8%. (The figures are based on the make-up of the DNA samples in the national DNA database as these arrests are the basic source of DNA in the database).

So what on earth is going on? My guess (although I will obviously await for the outcome of the investigation into these figures that I am calling for) is that disproportionality is alive and well; that is, where there is discretion in the use of police powers, they are disproportionately used against those from ethnic minorities.

What these figures demonstrate quite clearly to me is that disproportionate numbers of black and ethnic minority members are being wrongly arrested. They are innocent. This is wrong. This is discrimination. Whilst a lot of work has gone on to improve training for police in stop and search etc – it is clearly not working.

And Charles Clarke is adding more and more discretionary powers to the police to administer summary justice – let alone the carrying of ID cards in due course. All of which will make these problems even worse.

Coroner troubles

Posted on by

First thing over to City Hall for private briefing on Operation Minstead. It was basically the same presentation that I had had some while back – and still they haven’t got their man. They are still painstakingly sifting through lists and lists of possible persons of interest. And all the DNA trawl in the world hasn’t yielded up the perpetrator. Will it ever? Leave in a rush as I have my session with Ming at 11.15am.

I go in and up to the office where Ming is ensconced with Archie Kirkwood – his political adviser. We have a very good discussion I thought. There is a little awkwardness around our different sides in the leadership election, but that’s natural. More interestingly I get a chance to discuss where I might want to be in the future and also, more importantly, to bung my two pennies in on the organisation and campaigning aspects of the Liberal Democrats. Hopefully they will let me keep policing!

At lunchtime, I go to a meeting where three women (partners or parents) of someone who has died have had the most appalling and tragic experience and the most horrific mistreatment by a coroner. It seems to me from the evidence presented that there is plenty of reason for a public enquiry into the cases that appear to have been so poorly, or negligently handled. Watch this space.

And out on the campaign trail knocking on doors for a good session – which restored my soul. It was so good, and happy and people were just nice, nice, nice.

PS If you watched Question Time tonight you will have noticed that Nick Clegg who I was bumped in favour of, was not there. On Tuesday or Wednesday this week – QT had decided they wanted to change back to me. Unfortunately, by this time I had made another arrangement. So they bumped Nick in favour of Jean Lambert, Green MEP. C’est la vie!

Care in the community and crime in the community

Posted on by

Surgery all morning. The last case was quite challenging. Obviously no details – but in overview – a woman came because her son, 13 years old and black, had been stopped by the police and asked to account for what he was doing. He and some friends were described as hiding in the grounds of public building playing hide and seek. Nothing came of it and the police had written to the mother following her complaints to say that they accepted her son’s explanation. End of story. Except – that although there is no police record or criminality etc – the boy’s details will remain on the database as having been stopped and asked to account.

As we went through what had happened, the woman became extremely agitated and before long completely hysterical, sobbing and shouting and weeping and wailing. What was at cause of this was a mixture of indignation that her boy had been stopped at all and that the police shouldn’t be allowed to stop a 13 year old and ask for details (she said they intimidated her son to get them), that the details filled in on the Stop and Search form were inaccurate and that he would be down in police records and this would count against him throughout his life as black boys have the odds stacked against them.

It is one of those situations where I just use enough authority to try and bring calm. I know theoretically people used to say you are meant to slap someone who is hysterical around the face and the shock is supposed to bring them back to their senses. However, I hardly think that a viable or acceptable solution in this day and age! I can just see the headlines. What was the most difficult was that she couldn’t hear anything I was saying. And in fact I thought she had a good point.

It sort of relates to my work on DNA where I am fighting to bring some rationality and fairness to what gets retained by the police when someone is innocent. Likewise, her boy was innocent. She has the letter from the police saying so. But because the police stopped him, his details will remain forever on the database and this may well somehow count against him at a later date and in another context.

So I will pursue this. Because if there is any risk that retained details on an innocent black boy might one day mean that he is prevented from something – a job or a place at university because somehow that information is available – then it should not be retained on record. I will be writing to the police chief to find out what happens to such records, why they keep them and whether there is a particular reason for this boy’s details to be kept. We will see.

There is a whole surveillance society being created at the moment – and we have to be sure that the balance between our civil liberties and catching criminals is not only a fair one – but an agreed one!

From surgery make my way to Highgate Primary School where I am talking to about 30 children from the school council and school newspaper about climate change and recycling – and how lovely it was to be surrounded by enthusiastic youngsters who peppered me with lots of questions and who clearly understood already the need to care about what we use and how we use it and the dangers that faced us.

More fascinating for them – was the fact that this was my old primary school! Neither the head nor the teachers had realised that this was indeed my own Alma Mater! And what memories it sparked. I was describing to Anthony – the teacher in charge of this project – and we didn’t use first names when I was there- that we had had a boys’ playground and a girls’ playground. And he laughed at the idea of gender playgrounds – but that’s how it was. And I remembered all my old teachers’ names. Also, the head was called Mrs Ruby Jobson (I think) and I remember her calling my mother in for a chat because my mother was not a fan of education and thought you should get out into the world and work as soon as possible. She herself had left school at 13 to train under a milliner – which she hated. Anyway – Mrs Johnson called her in and told her that her little girl was quite clever and advised that I sit for a scholarship. My mother reluctantly agreed. But the interesting thing is that we hadn’t done any algebra and apparently you needed to be able to do algebra to sit the exam. So the Headmistress sat me in her own office for six weeks and tutored me personally. I sat the exam. I got the scholarship. And the rest is history. So – an unexpected walk down memory lane!

Then I get a call from a reporter from Radio 4’s Today programme who wants to come and interview me post the fabulous Dunfermline by-election result – as Haringey is one of those councils that is mooted may fall to the Lib Dems. It’s a program to do with what is happening and why in Labour’s heartlands. So he comes to the Three Compasses pub (where my office is upstairs) and I am sitting downstairs having a coffee with my 3 o’clock appointment – Ian Grant – from Open Door.

Open Door is voluntary organisation part funded by state and the rest by raising funds and it has a team of councillors that work with 13 to 24 year olds with mental health problems. One of the projects they are doing, and which they want to promote more widely, is support for parents of teenagers with mental health problems as there is nothing available. The other gap is care for 18 – 21 year olds who often seem to fall between two stools. I am particularly cross about the lack of resource or interest in mental health.

Firstly, neighbour disputes are often mental health based issues and often crime in the community is because care in the community doesn’t work. The police and the prison system end up dealing with what are mental health issues – and of all the under-funding – talking therapies are the lowest in the food chain!! We did actually have an opposition debate this week in Parliament for the first time on mental health for over eight years. And Charles Clarke in his statement yesterday on offenders doing community sentences did mention in passing that the government will be bringing forth legislation in the mental health area. Anyway – the reporter put his tape recorder on and taped a bit of that meeting too.

Then I did the interview – and yes – Labour heartlands will fall (I hope) and he was particularly interested to know how and why I had managed to overturn a Labour lead of 26,000 in two elections. It’s not hard to understand. Haringey Labour ran a one party state where residents were ignored and treated as voting fodder who would vote Labour whatever. Someone like me comes along and says I will listen and care and do things about your everyday life – yes it matters – clean streets, lighting, paving stones and so on. I have always argued that if you can’t keep a street clean how can you run the country? Of course, over the years the Lib Dems have been working in Haringey – we have succeeded in pushing through improvements – on cleaner streets, recycling, school places – all of which Labour ignored until we became a threat, campaigned on these issues and put them in our leaflets. So – there is every chance that we will take the Council in May. Fingers crossed!

As I finish the interview – the CND lobby arrives. I was expecting about 5 of them – but around 12 -15 turn up. We pass an interesting half-hour and each member (virtually) of the lobby presents their case. For the avoidance of confusion – I am against the replacement of Trident with an equivalent system. For the time being, I believe we need a minimum nuclear deterrent. What does that mean? Enough to make anyone think twice about attacking us. I would wish to move to disarmament – but I think that is unrealistic at this moment in time and am not in favour of unilateral disarmament. I want a debate in Parliament on this issue – and indeed a debate in my own party too. I believe the world has changed and is changing and the way war is waged is also changing. The threats of the past are replaced by different threats now. Our defence needs to adapt
to
these changes.

The flippiest flopper in town

Posted on by

Busy day today. First off – accompany Alistair Carmichael (our Shadow Home Secretary) to the Home Office for a meeting with Minister Tony McNaulty. Basically it was to run through his thinking on immigration and asylum. He wasn’t as bad close up as I had feared given to my knowledge he has never smiled. This is probably an exaggeration – and it may well be that he has simply never smiled at me!

Rush back for Home Affairs team meeting followed by Prime Minister’s Questions where Tony Blair made absolute mincemeat of Cameron – and very enjoyable it was too. I am not partial to blood sports – but it would be disingenuous if I denied the pleasure I got from his mauling.

Firstly Blair was well on song – albeit Cameron handed him a real gift by saying that Labour had flip-flopped. Coming from the flippiest flopper in town – it was then open season. I am particularly incensed over Cameron’s rubbish at the moment because of his latest conversion to getting rid of the Royal Prerogative – i.e. Tony Blair’s ability to take this country to war – and wants parliament to have the authority in this. Only a few months ago Clare Short brought in a Private Members Bill for the armed forces which would have done exactly that. Friday morning when such Bills are debated is quite difficult to get MPs to stay for – however lots of Lib Dems and Labour did – because it was so important. But only 6 Tories were in evidence and voted – and guess what – David Cameron was nowhere to be seen! The rank hypocrisy is striking – so his come-uppance was richly deserved.

Then I dashed over to Methodist Central Hall for a lobby by the local Defend Council Housing group – who are up in arms about ALMOs. Their complaint is that the goalposts are moving on what was voted on by leaseholders and tenants. I raise it with my Council Group in the evening and our housing spokesperson, Dave Beacham is going to make sure that the motions they passed in their forum are discussed by the Board.

Then I rush (late) to Environmental Audit Committee where we take evidence on why the government is too lily livered to actually stick to its targets or deal with taxing consumption. Then I rush to a meeting to thrash our the line on DNA (more to come another day). which is one of my passions (a bit nerdy) and then rush back to Haringey to Council Group.

Local school success

Posted on by

Well – no surprise what the gossip at the Palace of Varieties is today. Members of the other parties and the media keep asking – did you know? I think the answer is that no-one knew – except apparently the News of the World. And I guess, after Mark had withdrawn from the leadership they had to get their story out before their hook for it with the leadership contest wasn’t headline news any more.

I am kicking myself because the odds are shortening on Chris – and when I first urged him to run he was on at 300-1 and fourth in line for the throne – and I haven’t had time to put a bet on. Now the odds have shortened faster than any other political odds in history and he is in second place.

I go over to Alexandra Park School later morning for a photo op with two of the sixth formers who have gained Oxbridge places – one at each Oxford and Cambridge. The head, Ros Hudson, rang me last week to tell me the good news – so this is to celebrate to have two kids in the first year of the new sixth form attain such places. We have a cup of tea and a chat about the interviews they have both been through to get their places – terrifying. The newspapers turn up to take the photo – and hopefully this ‘good news’ story will encourage others to reach for the stars too.

When I get to the Commons, I discover it is Questions to the Minister of the Defence Department – and decide I want to put a question to him. In order to get called (if you are not one of the MPs selected in the ballot for Questions on the Order Paper) you have to stand up each time anyone finishes speaking during this session. I sit quiet until Question 5 which is on Iraq – as the question I want to ask is on this subject.

This time I am lucky and I get called to ask my question – which is: ‘Has the Minster had any discussions about gradually replacing British troops in Iraq with troops from Muslim Countries?’ John Reid, I think, looked pretty pleased to get an opportunity to say who he had been speaking to and push this up the agenda as he had had a number of meetings on the issue. So that was good all round – as I do think the sooner we are replaced by troops better trusted than ourselves the better for all.

I have a short meeting with the man who has been the subject of the police trawl for Operation Minstead and who was asked to give a ‘voluntary’ DNA sample and refused. The deadline for Met to respond to the CRE call for extra information is 30 January – as is mine for a response from Met Commissioner Ian Blair to my enquiries on this matter.

In fact DNA is in the news for all sorts of reasons at the moment. I have had a bee in my bonnet about it for some time and my various Parliamentary Questions (written) have elicited some startling statistics including the disproportionate amount of DNA taken from black men and the fact that the DNA of around 134,000 innocent people who were never charged or cautioned is now on the record books.

This weekend the coverage is about the 24,000 of those who are juveniles. This is shaping up for a real battle at some point – as there is a national database being built by stealth. If the Government want this – then they should have the balls to put forward legislation and have the public debate. My simple question to those who defend what is happening is this: ‘if it’s so great and without any problems, why not be upfront and have an explicit debate and agreement (or not) to set-up such a database?’

I think it would be dreadful – but at least there would be a logic to it if the whole country was held. Randomly keeping the DNA records of people the police erroneously arrest is ludicrous. Doing it by default also means we don’t get the same safeguards in place as we would if there was a proper debate and decision.

Personally, and this is not necessarily the party view we will come to when we discuss it further, I think it will lead to all sorts of mischief. For instance – once DNA is the main arbiter of guilt or innocence – how easy it will be to set someone up! I can foresee absolute nightmare scenarios – and what is a phenomenal detection tool and confirmation of guilt – will be misused ultimately. And a million other issues – but the temptations will probably be too much for old authoritarians to resist. Let alone if we have a malign government who might misuse such a system.

This issue comes up at the emergency Home Affairs Team Meeting which Alistair Carmichael has called as he has stepped up to take Mark’s place until the leadership contest is decided and the new leader reshuffles us. It would be fair to say that there are a variety of views on the issue – and so we need a paper that brings us up to date on facts around DNA before we can make our judgements. Alistair seems to have it all under control.

We sit talking into the late night between and after votes – about the leadership contest. We may all have differing views on who should be crowned – but the spirit is good between our different camps – thank goodness!

Hornsey Central Hospital

Posted on by

Early morning meeting with Richard Sumray, Chair of Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT). I have asked him to come and update me on the proposed development of Hornsey Central Hospital. It is now years since I joined local campaigners to campaign against the closure of the old hospital and then with local campaigners to ensure that a community health facility replaced what was lost.

Richard had been hoping to have a public meeting in December but this is now delayed until January because the relevant policy paper has not yet gone to the trust’s Board and won’t do now until January. The proposed scheme – the Primary Care Resource Centre, the Healthy Living centre and other health functions yet to be decided by the practitioners – is still on but there are still some big stumbling blocks remaining before the project can proceed. The second floor of the 2nd Stage, which was to provide offices, hit a dead end when it became clear that the costs were too high. The Strategic Health Trust rejected the project as it was thought to be unaffordable. Since then Richard Sumray and the Board have been re-examining the whole project for ways of making it more affordable and therefore viable.

The redevelopment is being funded through the Government’s LIFT scheme, which means involving a private partner. The PCT consulted their private partner over the idea that the private partner take on the risk of the top floor – developing it for themselves. This would theoretically make it financially feasible, and mean that there were no major changes to the amount of health services to be provided. However, there are risks. The PCT is pretty desperate to get the plans for Hornsey Hospital finished and through by March, because otherwise they will be left with a large financial deficit at the start of the next financial year. But because of the huge level of bureaucracy involved in LIFT schemes it is even money as to whether they will make it.

In the afternoon I am see an ‘informant’. Since my days on the Met Police Authority (MPA) I have been pursuing the use of DNA in the search for an abhorrent rapist. The crimes – against old women – are an abomination and have been going on for around ten years with no success by the police in capturing the criminal.

However, in recent years the police have been trawling the black community for ‘voluntary’ DNA samples. These samples have not, in my view, been voluntary at all. 125 refusniks received an intimidatory letter from a senior detective saying that he was going to look into their reasons for refusal and then let them know of his decision. Well – if it was voluntary – no need to look into anything or decide anything. Furthermore, five of those written to continued to refuse and in the end were arrested. Two gave in at that point, and the remaining three arrested had their DNA taken – as once arrested it is compulsory.

It is so easy to say end justifies means. It is easy to see the argument that this crime is so horrific that it is right to take DNA voluntarily or otherwise. Don’t get me wrong. The police are doing a great job. But it is a complete misnomer to call this type of testing ‘voluntary’. It is clearly mandatory in practice. And if mandatory DNA testing is happening, that should only be after a proper debate results in a decision to change the rules – we shouldn’t get mandatory testing introduced by the back door. Balancing civil rights, personal freedoms and the fight against crime are tricky – which is all the more reasons why such decisions should not happen on the quiet and without proper public debate.

Since then the trail had gone somewhat cold – for me. The police still hadn’t caught the culprit. Then I got an email from someone who only recently was pulled in to give a sample on a spurious excuse and refused. He said he couldn’t put it all in an email – so today he came into see me. And he had quite a tale to tell. Needless to say – I will be pursuing this as soon as I have put together an appropriate strategy to so do. It was extremely disheartening to hear some of the treatment he encountered.

Ironically, I then dash over to Earls Court for the Met Police Authority’s Christmas do! Very nice to see everyone again. I do miss the MPA – however being LibDem spokesperson on Police, Crime and Disorder and Prisons at least keeps me in the right portfolio.

Labour and civil liberties

Posted on by

I go to speak at the Liberal Democrat London Region Conference. I, Susan Kramer MP and Sarah Ludford MEP are on a panel answering questions from the attendees. However, the earlier debate is heated and running overtime and Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty has already arrived and is timed for 4.30pm – so I suggest to my co-panellists that we cut our session from an hour down to just half an hour. So that’s what we did.

Shami did a truly star turn. She has a phenomenal use of the English vocabulary – and a delivery that is very winning in manner. And of course, she is delivering music to Lib Dem ears – the civil liberties agenda. Her job must be a constant delight – to fight the good fight – and get paid for it! I think she is an excellent proponent and a real champion of this agenda.

She slides through all the terrible thefts we have witnessed since Labour came to power. From Control Orders, to ID cards, to proposals to remove trial by jury, to religious hatred legislation (removing free speech), to banning behaviour as a substitute for real cure, to the terror laws and the extension of detention without charge, to retention of DNA records on a national police database regardless of guilt or innocence – to name just a few. These are not just the ones that Shami brought up – but they are what has become a litany of loss. Shami finished with the shameful move to accept evidence got by torture. One wonders where it will end and just how far this will go.

Detention without trial for 90 days?

Posted on by

Our Shadow Home Secretary is really unwell – to the point that he cannot leave his house in Winchester. So I go forth for the Liberal Democrats on the terrorism issue today. I start with an interview for BBC 24 followed by a ‘package’. (That is a pre-recorded interview that they will use later in news programmes about the terror proposals and the 90 day sticking point). Then I go and do the meeting with Home Secretary Charles Clarke. Love the new Home Office building. Lots and lots of media outside. Such are these moments.

Clarke runs through the amendments they will table (or his assistant does the detail more accurately). They are small beer. Welcome – but not the meat of the disagreement between the Government and the rest of us struggling with the need to balance protection of our citizens with our civil liberties. He doesn’t wish to revise the bit on ‘glorification’ or redefine ”terrorism’ – nor does he want to put the number of days on the table.

But what he does say is that the Government is likely to table an amendment tonight at close of business which will be somewhere between 28 and 90 days.

Spend the next few hours coping with media bid after media bid. Basically our position is that we will use Lib Dem votes in whatever way brings the number of days extension as near to the original 14 as possible. Clarke appears willing to pluck a number out of the air based on no criteria or logic or evidence that I could get out of him. Later I hear that T Blair is warning us all that 90 days is a must and if anything happens it will be our fault.

Sabre rattling is so easy when we are all so frightened of terrorist attack. That’s why we have to stand firm and keep cool heads to analyse what is best to deal with terrorists. I don’t believe that the police argument really holds up. There is existing legislation barely utilised – and in one case not even enacted – which would deal with some of the issues and allow police the extended time they crave.

Anyway – at 2.30pm, just to top it all, it is Home Office questions in Parliament and I have to man the front bench and actually have Question 6 on the Order Paper. This is about the DNA national database. I have discovered that there are 3.3 million samples of DNA on the database – and 32% of all black males in the UK are in it compared with only 8% of white males. I ask the minister to investigate what lies beneath these figures – and ask him if he agrees that there is concern that there is racial profiling going on. Not much of an answer in terms of my request – to be pursued.

Do a couple more interviews and then dash off for younger daughter’s reports night having made sure that another of the Home Affairs team can cover the media for the evening.

David Blunkett

Posted on by

First thing Monday discover I have question number 1 on the Order Paper to David Blunkett as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. And yes – today is the day when he is all over the papers for buying shares in a DNA company and being on the Board without asking the advice of the Advisory Committee – a committee set up to help ex-ministers stay out of trouble.
 
My question is on pensions – which is the real issue – and the real problem with having a Minister seemingly too distracted by other issues. I get one supplementary and have a dilemma – if I don’t mention the current problems it would be bizarre – if I do the House will not like it (apparently it’s not “the done thing”). So I steer a middle course, merely asking if his judgement having been so recently called into question might make it a problem for him to unite a divided cabinet over solving the urgent pension crisis.
 
He was not best pleased and gave me a right bollocking for daring to ask and for not understanding that it is impolite to use questions to the Minister to ask a question to the Minister (!). He clearly didn’t like the question and raw nerves are, not surprisingly, easily set off.

For all Blunkett’s condescension, he – in answer to another question – happily joked about his virility. So talking about his virility at question time is ok, but asking if he’s able to do his job isn’t!
 
The more important point is what is going to happen to pensions. Blunkett may well survive this time, but the need for Labour to join the growing consensus around radical pension reform is pressing – and hopefully that is where he will turn his attention.

Late evening on Monday do a live radio show from a radio car outside my home. A Labour MP down a line somewhere else, Edwina Currie and another in the studio – all about Blunkett. Found myself in uncharted water with Edwina Currie congratulating me on my confrontation with the Minister. Politics makes strange bedfellows…

Parliament debates identity cards

Posted on by

Busy day as, after the committee stage on incitement to religious hatred, it’s the Second Reading debate on ID cards in the Chamber.

I am soooooooooo against ID cards – and desperate to get called to speak in the debate. The debate starts at 3.30pm and will conclude with a vote at 10pm. I know that I will have to sit in the Chamber for all that time – to have even a flying chance of catching Mr Speaker’s eye to get called. But it will be worth it.

Charles Clarke moves the proposed legislation – defending the indefensible. David Davis (Tory Shadow Home Secretary) then gets a go – and delivers a good speech. Unlike most of the Tories who only so recently in the election were for the introduction of ID cards – Davies was always against them. As power shifts from Michael Howard to the wannabe leaders – the wind has blown Tories into opposition. Latecomers – but nevertheless – finally on the side of the angels.

Then there are another couple of speeches before the Speaker comes to Mark Oaten – the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary. He gives a great speech – and then the debate moves on to back benchers who are limited to 10 minute speeches.

As the day wears on into night – I bob up and down as each speaker finishes hoping to be called. Hour after hour passes. The debate in itself is fascinating – and many, indeed most, of the speeches from all sides of the House (including Labour) are against ID cards. Ironically – the outcome will depend on Labour rebels – and whilst the words are strong, I doubt whether the votes will follow in adequate numbers to defeat the Government at this stage.

Without rehearsing the whole argument – the bill falls on so many counts, one is spoilt for choice as to what to oppose. (There’s plenty of good background on the arguments at www.no2id.net).

For me – the key is civil liberties. This proposed legislation flies in the face of everything I believe in. I was born free and thought I was innocent until proven guilty. I have the right – inalienable right in my view – to walk out of my front door without the need to prove anything to anyone so long as I cause no harm. I do not need the Government’s permission in the form of an ID card – a license to do this – let alone a license that will cost between one and three hundred pounds, is technologically unsound and will lead to a database of information about me that no one – not state nor anyone – has a right to know! I will be treated like a criminal. I will be fingerprinted and information on me stored on a national database – information that no one needs to know or has a right to know.

OK – you get my tone on this!

So there I am, bobbing up and down, as hour after hour passes. I hold the front bench for the Home Affairs team – whilst Mark and Alistair (my Lib Dem numbers 1 and 2 on the team – I am number 3) go to eat. As the clock approaches 8.30pm – I am becoming despondent about my chances of being called – as more people are still rising than there is time to call them. Suddenly Mr Deputy Speaker (the Speakers change throughout the session) announces that because so many people still want to speak – the speeches will now be cut to 5 minutes for the next hour. At 9.20pm – finally – I get called.

I make my key points: civil liberties, the problems with righting wrong information giving history of IT problems and the discrimination that will follow as ID cards become compulsory (which they will – as sure as eggs is eggs) towards members of ethnic communities who from my experience with police stop and search will be stopped and asked to produce the card in the end.

I cite what has happened with DNA and how now innocent people’s DNA is being kept on a database and how much more black DNA is being stored than white DNA in London.

Then we are into the winding up speeches. The Labour man – Tony McNulty – chooses to attack me from the Despatch Box as he closes, calling me irresponsible and wrong. So I must be doing something right!

Then the Speaker calls for Ayes – and there is a roar of ‘ayes’ from the Labour benches. Then the Speaker calls for the Noes – and there is a roar of ‘no’ from the Lib Dems and the Tories. It’s all very tribal and traditional, but we have the shouting match before the Speaker calls out ‘Division’ – and the bells start ringing as we pour into the lobbies to vote in person. Sadly – not enough Labour rebels rebel – and the second reading is passed. The Bill now passes into its Committee Stage.

Amazing to have had a voice and a vote (however tiny) in opposing something I believe will destroy our way of life and begin the journey to a police state. And – many, many local residents have contacted me to say they care passionately too. The weight of opinion in my postbag is very clear.