According to Monday’s Guardian: “Home Office climbs down over keeping DNA records on innocent”. On the same day the BBC reported: “The government has dropped plans to give ministers wide powers on holding innocent people's DNA data on record”. Both news outlets reported the Government’s actions to withdraw clauses on DNA retention in terms of a victory for civil liberties.
‘Scuse me – I think these journalists have jumped the gun.
The Policing and Crime Bill had proposed providing Ministers with powers that set time limits on holding DNA and related personal data; innocent individuals could expect their DNA data to be retained for six years or possibly longer is some cases. The Home Office said that this time period had been backed by “evidence” from the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science. Unfortunately the Institute is on the record as saying that its evidence should not have been used to decide the six- to twelve-year time limits because its research was incomplete.
The DNA retention provisions had also received trenchant criticism by scrutiny Committees in Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported that because of the breadth of these powers they “should not be allowed to remain in the Bill in their present form”. A similar message came from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee; it reported that “we are alarmed that the substance of these proposals (on DNA data retention) will not be contained in primary legislation, subject to the usual scrutiny by both Houses. We strongly urge the Government to think again”.
In other words, the Government had a political headache in the Lords. There was no evidential base to support its DNA retention proposals and a great deal of Parliamentary opposition had assembled; in addition, both main opposition parties want DNA data on innocent individuals to be deleted. That is why Lord Brett, bowed to the inevitable and said that the Government “have decided to invite Parliament to remove Clauses 96 to 98” adding that “as soon as parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward appropriate measures which will place the detail of the retention periods in primary legislation”.
In other words, the Government ditched its DNA retention proposals rather than waiting for them to be defeated.
However the removal of these clauses means “DNA business as usual”. Even if the Government were to immediately introduce new primary legislation on DNA retention, if it is not in tune with Opposition demands, such legislation is unlikely to get through as the current Parliamentary session ends in April 2010 (at latest). This in turn could mean that any “DNA Retention Act” will not receive Royal Assent until well after next year’s General Election.
In effect: “no change to the DNA collection and retention rules about the innocent until at least 2011”. Last year, the DNA database expanded by 10%; it now contains 5 million entries, 20% of which relate to the “not convicted”. The delay means another half million entries can be expected to be added in the next year.
This is hardly a victory for civil liberties. That is why some journalists were premature in their judgments.
Comments