The call from Lord Justice Sedley for the whole population of the UK – and even foreign tourists on weekend breaks – to have their DNA stored on the national DNA database is a chilling proposal.

His Lordship makes the logical argument that the database we have at the moment – which includes samples from people who have come into contact with the police, but not from those who haven’t – is less useful and defensible than a comprehensive one. But his conclusion – that ‘everybody, guilty or innocent’ should have their DNA stored on it – is heading in the wrong direction. If anything, we should be worrying about the stealth and speed with which the database has grown since its inception.

• In 1995, when it was introduced, only the DNA of convicted criminals could be kept on the database.

• In 2001, Labour changed the law so that the DNA of people who had been acquitted of certain offences could still be kept.

• In 2004, they changed the law again so that anyone arrested and detained at a police station – whether or not they were even charged with a criminal offence – could have a DNA sample taken.

We have arrived at a situation where people detained for even minor offences, like political protests or speeding, have their DNA kept indefinitely. The UK now holds DNA profiles of a higher proportion of its population – 5.2 per cent – than any other country in the world. That’s over four million people. In the USA, the comparable figure is just 0.5 per cent.

When we already have the most draconian laws in the world, and given this Government’s lamentable record on big IT projects (remember the NHS national computer? Or the Passport Service? Or the Child Support Agency? Or the Rural Payments Agency…?), we should take a very deep pause for breath, rather than extend the scheme as dramatically as Lord Justice Sedley proposes.

Thankfully, the Home Office has reacted coolly to today’s suggestion. But Tony McNulty’s comment that ‘no-one ever says never’ is rather ominous. And forgive me if I don’t trust this Government to stand up for civil liberties.

Gordon Brown’s joint article with Nicolas Sarkozy, published today in The Times and Le Monde, on Franco-British efforts in Darfur should, of course, be welcomed.

Last month’s UN resolution authorising the deployment of peace-keeping troops was a triumph for the new leaders. In Sarkozy’s case, it is a particularly pleasing sign of a more active French foreign policy (which is explored and welcomed in this week’s Economist). But Gordon Brown cannot try to portray himself in the same fresh light as M. Sarkozy. The genocidal conflict which Mr. Brown has made a foreign policy priority has been raging since 2003, with up to 400,000 people killed, and a further two million displaced. (If you haven’t already seen it, EyesOnDarfur.com makes stark use of satellite images to illustrate the horror of the conflict.)

Mr. Brown has been at the heart of the British Government since well before the present crisis in Darfur began. It is right that he should redouble his efforts, and the course of action he and President Sarkozy have outlined today is a sensible one. But there are many other things we could, and should, have done long ago. In April, the Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell called for tough, immediate action to hit the Sudanese regime – such as enforcing targeted sanctions against its leaders by freezing their bank accounts and applying travel bans to stop their lavish shopping trips to Paris and London. Similarly, chipping away at the network of businesses and charities that enrich the regime and its members might not have won quick headlines, but would have had a palpable effect.

So before Mr. Brown pens his next update for the international press, it would be good to see some progress on this front.

The Chief Constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, has taken the opportunity of a cruel and senseless death in his county to call for tougher action against young anti-social drinkers. His proposals are partly right.

The one which has attracted the most media attention - his suggestion that the legal age for purchasing alcohol be raised from 18 to 21 – is the least sensible. As anyone who has ever been a teenager will remember, plenty of people already buy alcohol before reaching the legal age.

So raising that age limit – preventing groups like university undergraduates from drinking – will result in a law that is even more widely flouted. (It is all the more ridiculous a suggestion for being made in the same week that some of Chief Const. Fahy’s colleagues have suggested allowing 16-year-olds to serve as Community Support Officers: “You can help catch criminals, sonny, but you’ll have to work for five years before you can enjoy your first after-work pint.”)

More importantly, it is not the act of buying alcohol that is the problem, nor even getting drunk – it is the minority act of behaving in a violent or obnoxious fashion afterwards. Hence the right laws to focus on are those against drunk and disorderly conduct, or anti-social behaviour.

It would be very satisfying if law makers and enforcers could sweep away violent behaviour with something as simple as a higher drinking age. But the task is a tougher one – and, as Chief Const. Fahy has also highlighted, it involves us all.

He is right to criticise those parents who ‘turn a blind eye’ to their children’s loutishness, and who fail to instil a ’sense of social responsibility’ in their young. He is right that ‘those who promote alcohol as glamorous’ should think about the effect of the drinks they are pushing on their customers.

And he is right to say we must act ‘as a nation’ to tackle the problem. As we here at Platform 10 would say, we’re all in this together. There is a reason why other countries which have lower drinking ages, or where children can enjoy a tipple in the company of their parents, have fewer problems with drink-related disorder. Younger though their drinkers are, they have a more mature attitude to alcohol. We should be trying to foster that in British children, not hiding from the problem by raising the drinking age.

On his globe-trotting tour of photo-calls with fellow world leaders, Gordon Brown outlined a Franco-British plan to cut taxes on ‘green goods’. (Seethis story on the Labour Party website.)

Certainly, the idea of tax breaks to encourage ‘good’ behaviour – rather than tax rises to discourage ‘bad’ behaviour – is one which will appeal to fiscal Conservatives and free-marketeers. Whilst even hardened tax-cutters can see the reason for levies on such vices as cigarettes and alcohol, it is hard to understand the rationale by which VAT was added to bicycles and home-improving insulation in the first place – let alone why it persists at a time when political leaders are exhorting us to change our behaviour in the name of the environment.

Whilst welcoming the proposals, however, we should be wary of that very appeal. Judging by his political sleights of hand since he assumed the premiership, Gordon Brown is very keen to ensnare voters of a centre-right disposition. It is a great credit to the way David Cameron has pushed green issues to the top of the political agenda since he became Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Brown feels the need to make green policies one of the centre-pieces of his first weeks in office. Let it not be forgotten that this is the man who, as Chancellor, made precious few speeches about the environment, and even fewer moves to protect it. But his proposals with President Sarkozy are calculated to be gentler and more palatable to floating voters than punitive taxes on ‘non-green’ behaviour.

The announcement is glossy and vague, of course, and there is much scope for us to seize the initiative by answering the many questions that it leaves hanging in the air. (Exactly which products should have their VAT cut? What really constitutes the difference between an ‘environmentally friendly’ fridge and its less desirable alternative? How much revenue will be lost by these cuts, and how can that be afforded?)

But the important point remains: Gordon Brown’s acknowledgement that it is possible to be simultaneously green and Conservative. We should be congratulating him on both counts.