Committee (1st Day)

Part of Protection of Freedoms Bill – in the House of Lords at 5:00 pm on 29 November 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Henley Lord Henley The Minister of State, Home Department 5:00, 29 November 2011

My Lords, I hope to deal with this issue relatively briefly. My noble friend has got it right when she refers to additional bureaucracy. If we move from unconditional indefinite retention to a necessity test, as is suggested in her amendments, this would require the police to keep under continual review some 4.5 million or so convicted individuals whose DNA is retained on the national DNA database, as well as the 3 million or more whose fingerprints are held without a DNA profile. That would be a huge administrative exercise which the police would not be happy to take on.

My noble friend made a point about why we are retaining it definitely for certain people and not for others. Recently published research notes that, at least on average, conviction rates for individuals with no prior convictions will be lower than for individuals who are proven offenders. That is why we believe we are right in retaining material from the unconvicted only in certain specific circumstances, as we discussed earlier, while retaining the material from all those with convictions for recordable offences. Such retention is preventive, not punitive. It is done in respect of a group of individuals who pose a considerably higher risk of future offending-significantly higher than that of the general population-because of their past proven criminality.

I hope that with those assurances-that it is a group more likely to offend in future and that it would be a massive bureaucratic exercise for the police to undertake-my noble friend will accept that her amendments are unnecessary.