| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Webb: The Minister raised an option that I had not thought of--the retention of the samples on a separate database. Can he give some idea of the time scale in which the review of PACE might be concluded?
Mr. Boateng: The review is under way. We are balancing the issues that I described and, in due course, we shall arrive at conclusions. Our concern is to make available the best and most robust basis for the successful detection and prevention of crime, so we are proceeding with all due expedition--of that, the hon. Gentleman can be sure.
The establishment of a truly national DNA database for the population as whole raises fundamental questions. There is a strong analogy with fingerprints, which uniquely identify individuals, but we do not require every individual to have their fingerprints on record. One could argue that that would be useful, but we do not do it for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
Therefore, before we take any step towards establishing a national database, we need to consider carefully the balance of the rights of the individual and its desirability and practicality. Although developments in the technologies required and the ability to search large databases mean that such a database is becoming technically feasible, the concept still raises fundamental questions, such as the balance of individual rights and the cost, which need to be addressed.
However, the Forensic Science Service is working closely with the police service, to develop a joint strategy with the Association of Chief Police Officers, to realise
fully the potential of forensic science to support criminal investigation and the detection and reduction of crime. Increasingly sensitive techniques are being developed to allow DNA profiles to be extracted from small crime stains, enhancing the ability of the police to bring criminals to justice. We are committed to taking all steps necessary and making the best use of new technologies to that end.
This has been a useful debate. It has given the House the opportunity to express its determination to ensure that we develop new technologies in a way that will benefit the police and the detection and reduction of crime. The care and concern that the family of Louise Smith have taken subsequent to her tragic death to be supportive of the police and mindful of the importance of gathering public support behind the steps that need to be taken to develop to the maximum the new technologies are to be commended. They have performed a great service by raising the profile of the issue with the public, not least in collecting the 9,000 signatures to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Ultimately, if there is to be a change in legislation, it will need to be supported by the public. It will also need to be seen to be supportable in terms of the balance of civil liberties and the rights and interests of all concerned and of a sufficiently large number of people volunteering to allow samples to be retained to make it meaningful--as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, were the number to fall below a certain critical mass, the value of the exercise would be destroyed.
Therefore, it has been enormously valuable that the family of Louise Smith have raised the issue as they have. The hon. Gentleman has also done the House a service in bringing the matter before us. I look forward to meeting the family to express in person my appreciation of what they have done. The case in question highlights the benefits of DNA evidence. It also highlights the importance of using the best and most readily available technologies to that end and the importance of intelligence expertise in the analysis of crime in the hands of our dedicated police service as a way to identify where and how such techniques might be used. The fact that Louise Smith's murderer was brought to justice stands as a tribute to the police and the public.
We began with Louise's case and it is right that we should end with it. We should all express a determination to ensure that her tragic death and the loss that her family suffered is something from which we can draw lessons to prevent the loss of other lives, with all that that would entail for other families. The House will wish to join me again in expressing my deepest condolences to Louise's family.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney):
I start by thanking Madam Speaker--through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker--for allowing this Adjournment debate on night flights into Heathrow, which is a subject that is near to the hearts of all those in the Thames valley and perhaps also now to Madam Speaker.
Two thirds of a million people suffer directly under the flight path from night flights into Heathrow, but I shall choose just one constituent, whose letter reads:
The second stage of the Government consultation has just closed and the timing of this debate is to ensure that the Minister has a chance to hear what is being said unanimously by the people and their Members of Parliament who live in the afflicted area: "No more night flights."
The first stages of the consultation clearly emphasised that view. Only the airline industry wants the status quo--or worse. As a representative of the people of the Thames valley, I must ask the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to represent the people, not the industry. The curfew requested by HACAN of 11.30 pm to 6 am seems eminently sensible, and I proposed it in my Adjournment debate of 28 October 1997.
The second stage consultation document of November 1998 asked for ways to deal specifically with noise from Heathrow night flights. Regrettably, its proposals would merely share the noise around the area. However, for my constituents' sake, I must back the idea of moving towards an easterly preference for landing. That would mean landing from over Windsor and to the south of Windsor wherever possible. I propose that runway alternation should be used to share the noise damage further.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) established in his Adjournment debate on 24 July 1998 that the Cranford agreement does not exist, and that the northern runway can be used as well as the southern one. I understand that BAA has no problem with the easterly preference or with runway alternation. A decision on that rests, of course, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.
I suggest that alternation should cease between 6 am and 7 am to allow both runways to be used to take flights arriving after the curfew from 11.30 am to 6 am that I have also suggested. The hon. Member for Windsor argued in his Adjournment debate for retention of the status quo, which would protect his constituents and the people of east Berkshire. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who cannot be here today, has asked me to make it clear that she, too, supports the status quo.
I must point out, however, that 580,000 people suffer from the westerly preference because they live directly under the approach path, and much larger numbers are also affected. Some 64,000 suffer from the easterly preference. Those figures come from the House of Commons Library. Clearly, my suggested changes would share the damage more equitably.
1.27 pm
"I have been living in Putney for the last two years and it is only recently that my husband and I seem to have been woken up at early hours in the morning with the noise of planes. They have become extremely infuriating and indeed very stressful. Over the recent Bank Holiday weekend I was woken up early at 4.20 am by a plane and they seemed to be coming in by the minute. In my sleepy state I made notes of the times they came in. The first was 4.20 am and then a succession at 4.21 am, 4.22 am, 4.30 am, 4.34 am and 4.35 am. I have been woken up many times with these early morning flights in the last two months. Isn't this the time when a person is in their deepest sleep? Perhaps because it has been so hot we have had the windows open wider whereas before it may have been possible we did not hear them as clearly because we had the windows closed. What are we expected to do--not breathe? What I would like to know is where in the world are planes allowed to fly over residential areas from 4.00 am onwards? I would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.
I am not suggesting that my constituents should do that, but it shows the strength of feeling of law-abiding citizens.
I am rather ignorant at this stage as to who the Chairman of the BAA actually is or the parties involved. I wonder if you could provide their names and addresses. I would like to go and park my car outside their homes at 4.00 am every morning, and blow my horn. I wonder how they might feel?"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |