Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 November 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.


Protection of Freedoms Bill

I will obviously allow the noble Lord to check his facts again in due course, but I stand by what I said. The presumption that he was making—along with, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—that we were taking all these people off and that they were all going to be guilty. I was trying to make clear that simply keeping the details of those people on the database, because of a hypothesis that a tiny proportion of them may go on to commit serious crimes in future, is not actually going to do anything to increase the conviction rate for rape. As I explained in opening this debate, those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, obviously will have their DNA retained for three years. It is then up to the police to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. That is set out in the Bill. For those arrested but not charged with a qualifying offence in cases where the victim is vulnerable, the police may still apply to the independent commissioner to retain their DNA for three years. My noble friend Lady Berridge also raised the very important question of the over-representation on the DNA database of those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. Obviously, the database is not self-populating, because for a person’s DNA to be taken the person must have been suspected of committing a recordable offence and that arrest in law must have been necessary. You cannot, as another noble Lord said, simply arrest so as to get the DNA. That is a significant threshold. However, our proposals will mean that the vast majority of those who are arrested, but not subsequently convicted, will have their DNA profiles destroyed very soon unless they are convicted of a crime in due course. We have very difficult questions to address, again, on the regulation of surveillance and very difficult questions of balance between those who feel that we need further safeguards and those who feel that people always welcome more cameras, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. I have to say he ought to look at Project Champion in Birmingham, which I referred to in my opening remarks, and he will find that that is not always the case. I had better stop mentioning the noble Lord if he is going to rise to his feet on every occasion, but I will give way.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c223-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disability Children Civil liberties Data protection Databases Counter-terrorism Criminal records Biometrics Crime Detainees Convictions Electronic surveillance Freedom of information Homosexuality Fingerprints DNA Evidence Immobilisation of vehicles ICT Fines Internet Ministerial powers Motor vehicles Parking Powers of entry Personal records Protection Police Powers Pupils Scotland Universities Vetting Terrorism Schools Stop and search Vulnerable adults Surveillance Young people Sports Voluntary work Stalking Henry VIII clauses Information Commissioner's Office Interception of Communications Commissioner Office of Surveillance Commissioners Social media
Legislation
Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk