Home Affairs Matters Of Concern We would like to comment on 3 matters, the use of data; medical ethics; and recreational drugs. The Use Of Data There has been debate for many years over the use of identity cards. Views have tended to polarise between those saying "we provide data in many forms nowadays (passports, credit cards etc), so what's the problem with more" and, on the other hand, the privacy or civil liberties argument - the more the State knows about the citizen, the less free he is, and the greater the risk of abuse. Identity cards were issued in this country during the second world war and are used in France and elsewhere. With modern technology a great deal of data can be held on a memory chip of a single small card, and recently a bank has started trials of identification using not signatures, nor even fingerprints, but the iris of the eye. It seems to us that the use and storage of identity data depends not on whether, but on how substantially there is a benefit to the citizen. For example there is a good case when combating fraud but a less obvious one for cards required to satisfy the police beyond perhaps something with name and address. However, recently, on cix, Steve Webb MP raised the matter of a DNA database following discussions with the parents of a victim of a sex offender. A few days ago, a chief constable interviewed on Radio 4 proposed such a database. Earlier one of our members heard of a research trial where DNA samples are being taken from the discarded umbilical cord of new born babies (and from their parents), in an attempt to gain better insight into the inheritance of genetic disorders. DNA information could have direct medical benefits, and more general benefits in detecting and preventing crime. Indeed if it could be established that by increasing the probability of detection, the number of rapes would be reduced, there would be a strong case for such a database. Rape is such a loathsome crime. The simple painless recording of DNA at birth, could probably be justified. We suggest that government be asked to conduct a study to assess the benefits of a DNA database built up over time, and the mechanisms needed to maintain the confidentiality of the data. A similar situation arises in a different form with CCTV surveillance. There is an argument that CCTV merely displaces crime, and there have already been recorded instances of misuse of the tape data. Nevertheless the benefit to the citizen is considerable, and the argument here should be to severely tighten the controls. Electronic tagging does not present quite the same civil liberties problem in that the alternative is usually custody. It is a technology worth exploring. Medical Ethics It is very clear that medical science is expanding the frontiers of knowledge at an accelerating pace, especially into the creation of life itself. In the last generation "test tube" babies, fertility drugs, and surrogate motherhood have become common. Amniocentesis has allowed doctor to identify Down's syndrome in the foetus so that doctors can offer termination. Now genetic testing can detect for diabetes (prevalent in 1+% of the population) inviting the option to terminate in these cases as well. Soon, no doubt, it will be possible to detect for blond or dark hair; for tall and thin or short and dumpy offspring; and so on, opening the possibility of "designer" children. Human ears have already been grown on mice, and, because the demand for transplants exceeds supplies by a factor of about 6 to 1, there is an inviting commercial market for transgenic organs. There are consequent issues with respect to genetic pre-disposition and insurance cover, and with the extended use of transplants to increase average life spans. Clearly there is a need for scientific and commercial regulation, but the real issue is "how do we decide how far we should go?" In our conference debate at Eastbourne on genetics for example there were calls for public debate in this area, but we are not aware of any forum even reaching the fringes of public understanding at present. We understand there is now a H of C select committee looking at genetics, but there is an urgent need for additional, balanced, information in this area. There is a strong case for establishing a Royal Commission on Medical Ethics issuing reports regularly, and for encouraging the BBC to present information on these ethical issues at frequent intervals in a "Horizon" format. Scientists do not want to get too far ahead of public opinion in this area, but they need platforms to present the options in a fair and balanced way, and to listen to the response. Scary reporting simply brings needless anxiety. Recreational Drugs We believe the party's policy with respect to the legal status of "recreational" drugs - to refer to a Royal Commission - is correct. We would only offer one thought. That is "what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?" Are we taking the Puritan line that drugs should never be used simply "to make people happy"? If so, we should be banning tobacco and alcohol. If not should we prohibit - or decriminalise and treat people as adults? A logical line of reasoning is that because the linkage between drugs such as heroin and crack, and crime and costly treatment, is strong, it is appropriate for society to prohibit. Essentially one uses the drinking and driving argument. Driving with excess alcohol in the blood is a crime because it endangers others. However, the linkage between cannabis (and other "soft" drugs) and crime and health is very much weaker - some would say non-existent. If this is the case there is no argument except the much weaker "Puritan" line. At present society, by lumping all drugs into the same basket, is having to twist and turn to defend its position to the young. This is very damaging. There is a good case for the party to lay out the lines of argument more clearly, and press more strongly for the Royal Commission. Contents