Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rosser (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 29 November 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.


Protection of Freedoms Bill

I thank the Minister for his response. It throws into sharp contrast the fundamental difference of view between this side and the Government over the length of time that DNA samples should be retained, and the types of cases for which they should be retained. I do not think the Minister has sought to argue that retaining them for the longer period of time, which is what we are advocating, would not lead to more people who have committed serious offences being apprehended. He gets around replying to that argument simply by talking of a so-called balance. On this side we have made it clear that we are in favour of a balance that seeks to apprehend those who have committed serious offences and one that reduces the number of people who are likely to be the victims of serious crime. However, there is obviously a fundamental difference on this view, which was expressed by the Minister during our discussion on the previous amendment. I will withdraw this amendment for the moment, but we will consider whether to bring back a similar amendment on Report. Amendment 6 withdrawn. Amendments 7 to 10 not moved. Amendment 11 Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c158-9 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Data protection Databases Biometrics Crime prevention Crime Arrests Land Fingerprints DNA Evidence Immobilisation of vehicles Footwear Fines Motor vehicles Parking Personal records Privacy Rape Vulnerable adults
Legislation
Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk