Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Tony Baldry (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crime and Security Bill.


Crime and Security Bill

Since the Bill came out of Committee, I have been reflecting on what stands between us and the Government on this issue. It is not as neat as the question of three or six years' retention; it is to do with the fact that policing has to be policing by consent. During the passage of the Bill, and in the build-up to it, the Government have not succeeded in getting the consent of the people, in the broadest sense, for their proposals. Police officers and police forces have too often given the impression that if they retain DNA it is because they have reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence or may commit an offence. The Government have failed to convince people that they have the public's consent to what they are proposing.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
507 c43 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Criminal investigation Crime Alcoholic drinks Administration of justice Anti-social behaviour Fingerprints Immobilisation of vehicles Licensing Genetics Domestic abuse Licensed premises Identification of criminals Drunkenness Injunctions Protection Organised crime Opening hours Licensing laws Sentencing Young offenders Alcohol disorder zones Domestic violence protection orders Domestic violence protection notices
Legislation
Crime and Security Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk