Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Counter-Terrorism Bill.
Counter-Terrorism Bill
My Lords, I confess that I am puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. I quite understand that if I give my DNA voluntarily to eliminate me because I was in the house, so that no one suspects me, I should be entitled to have it destroyed. As I read it, however, proposed new subsection (2) is an absolute obligation to destroy all DNA unless you give a reason to the contrary. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the amendment states: "““If a request … is refused … the relevant agency shall write to the person setting out why such information will not be destroyed””." As I understand it, that would apply to any request, including that made by a suspect who had not yet been charged because the police had not concluded their investigations—albeit that they had perhaps had to let them go to sleep until more information came out—and not by any means to the innocent or non-charged person to whom she referred. That seems very worrying.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 705 c135
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Data protection Databases Crime Freedom of information Fingerprints Evidence Genetics Documents Police Powers Proof of identity Terrorism Storage
- Legislation
- Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:23:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507