My Lords, I confess that I am puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. I quite understand that if I give my DNA voluntarily to eliminate me because I was in the house, so that no one suspects me, I should be entitled to have it destroyed. As I read it, however, proposed new subsection (2) is an absolute obligation to destroy all DNA unless you give a reason to the contrary. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the amendment states: "““If a request … is refused … the relevant agency shall write to the person setting out why such information will not be destroyed””."
As I understand it, that would apply to any request, including that made by a suspect who had not yet been charged because the police had not concluded their investigations—albeit that they had perhaps had to let them go to sleep until more information came out—and not by any means to the innocent or non-charged person to whom she referred. That seems very worrying.
Counter-Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bledisloe
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c135 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:23:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505507