My Lords, I would like to be able to answer the noble Lord but I regret that I cannot. I will come back to him in writing.
The statistics and the lack of evidence for the Government’s proposals mean that Amendment 1 is essential.
I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Rosser. Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying serious offence should have their DNA and fingerprints stored for six years. This replicates the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed by Parliament but never brought into force. The six-year limit is based on Home Office analysis and reflects a proportionate response to the ECHR decision. As I mentioned earlier, the three-year figure comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no analysis of risk to public security. That is why Amendments 2 and 3 are essential. They will ensure a six-year rather than a three-year limit for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. I beg to move.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 29 November 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c134 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:44:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789869
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789869
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789869