Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Alan Johnson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 18 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crime and Security Bill.


Crime and Security Bill

Of course that approach would not have led to any such detriment, and I presume that that research was done two years after it was introduced. That is not the question. If we believe that those who are arrested but not convicted have a greater propensity to be re-arrested, as the hon. Gentleman obviously does given that the Conservative policy is to retain data on the DNA database for those accused of committing serious offences, the question is whether their data should be retained for three years or six years. The quote that he gave does not relate to that matter at all. Other independent, peer-reviewed evidence and research that has come along since suggests the need for a six-year period, and he simply cannot ignore it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c46 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Compensation Data protection Databases Devolved matters Biometrics Crime Anti-social behaviour Bureaucracy Airguns Convictions Fees and charges Evidence Immobilisation of vehicles Licensing Human rights Dogs Genetics Domestic abuse Ethnic groups Private sector Police Powers Prisons Mobile phones Scotland Sentencing Terrorism Stop and search Young people Young offenders Victims Security guards Anti-social behaviour orders Parenting orders
Legislation
Crime and Security Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk