Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-37)
MS ISABELLA
SANKEY AND
MS DIANNE
ABBOTT MP
5 JANUARY 2010
Q1 Chairman: Good morning; this is our
first session of the New Year. Could I wish everyone a Happy New
Year! This is a new inquiry into the National DNA Database. Could
I refer everybody to the Register of Members' Interests. Could
I welcome Dianne Abbott MP and Isabella Sankey from Liberty. Could
I start with you, Ms Abbott. Thank you for coming to give evidence
today to the Committee. We know of your interest in these issues
and the fact that you recently held an Adjournment Debate in Westminster
Hall about these matters. Those who are opposed to the current
policy concerning the retention of DNA on the National Database
argue that as far as the over-representation of black people,
especially black youths, on the Database is concerned this damages
community relations. Do you believe that is the case?
Ms Abbott: Yes,
I do. Let me just say three things. The first thing is, this DNA
Database is a major innovation—it is the largest one in
Europe by far—but we have never had a proper parliamentary
debate on it. What we have done, in a series of compendium Criminal
Justice Bills, is have put permissive clauses in, and the police
have taken those permissive clauses and driven ahead building
this Database. It is long overdue that we as a Parliament consider
the issue; and that is why I appreciate the fact that the Committee
is having this very important inquiry. The second thing to say
is that it is very important, in discussing this issue, to retain
a distinction in your mind between guilty people and innocent
people. Nobody queries the fact that guilty people should have
their DNA kept on the Database for a period of time; this debate
is about what you do about innocent people. In relation to the
effect on the community, it is very serious. I have been campaigning
with Liberty on this subject for some time, and last year we held
a special advice clinic to help young people, people under 16,
and innocent people to try and help them get their DNA off the
Database. I got a tremendous response, even from people that were
not coming to the clinic. They got back to me to say how glad
they were to hear that Liberty and I were doing this, and how
concerned they were about it. We held the clinic; Liberty's lawyers
gave advice; I spoke though to all of the parents that were there—because
it was parents that came with children—and I think it is
one of a whole set of things, like arresting people on suspicion,
which puts a gulf between the police and the community.
Q2 Chairman: Yes, but do you not
agree, the communities who are affected by crime—in particular
the ethnic minority communities—surely would welcome the
fact that information is being retained on the DNA Database, because
it would help the police solve more crimes?
Ms Abbott: It is precisely because
I represent a community both black and white, Muslim and Christian,
which is particularly affected by crime that I am particularly
concerned about this issue. The only way you can successfully
act against crime in areas like Hackney is if the police have
the cooperation of the community. I would contend that the existence
of the DNA Database, the fact it has never properly been debated,
the random way DNA is collected, the difficulties put in the way
of innocent people trying to get their DNA off the Database, actually
undermines police/community cooperation and that is a very serious
matter. Without that cooperation we cannot fight crime.
Q3 Chairman: In your joint project
with Liberty—and you mentioned some of these examples during
the debate in Westminster Hall—you came across a number
of individuals who had been trying to get their DNA removed from
the Database. I think you mentioned in particular a young black
woman who had gone into Primark with a receipt for an item of
clothing that she had already purchased, who was subsequently
arrested and whose DNA remains on the Database. Could you give
us other examples of the types of people who have been involved
in the project that you and Liberty are jointly conducting?
Ms Abbott: For instance, we had
a young man in Greenwich Park who was having a water-fight—Greenwich
Park is quite a large park—in another part of the park an
assault took place and the police came and arrested all the young
people who had been in the park. Four days later the police came
to his house and arrested him; he was taken to the police station;
DNA; prints; photographs taken; interviewed; but no further action
was taken. Up until now they have not been prepared to take his
DNA off the Database. There was a case you mentioned: a young
woman aged 24 at the time of arrest; she went to Primark to return
some goods she had bought the day before; she was wearing a Primark
sweater that she had bought the day before and mindful of that
she brought with her the receipt for the sweater that she had
on. She was still arrested on suspicion of having stolen the sweater
she was wearing, despite the receipt; arrested; taken to the police
station; DNA; prints; photographs taken. She was finally released
because they looked at the receipt, but they are still holding
on to her DNA. That sort of thing does not build confidence in
the community.
Q4 Tom Brake: Ms Sankey, could you
tell us how many people, for instance, have had their DNA retained
in spite of the fact they have committed no offence? Do you happen
to know how many people have sought to get their DNA removed,
and how many have been successful? Can you give us some hard facts
about what this problem looks like in terms of scale?
Ms Sankey: I do not have statistics
about the number that have sought to have their DNA removed, I
am afraid; but I do know that in 2007-08 there were a total of
162 profiles deleted from the Database and that in 2008-09 there
were a total of 283 profiles removed. At Liberty we have sought
on several occasions, with many of the people that come to us,
to request removal of DNA for innocent people and we have found
it extremely difficult; not least because of the ACPO guidance
that is currently in place, which sets out the Exceptional Case
Procedure for when deletion can happen, which sets the bar extremely
high. Deletions are only really taking place when it is found
(1) that an offence was not committed at all for the arrest that
was made; or (2) where the arrest was made unlawfully; or where
the DNA sample was taken unlawfully. We know that chief constables
are instructed to reject the deletion request when it is first
made and only consider a second request, so the bar is exceptionally
high. We found it very difficult to achieve deletion, but we do
know that the more publicity and the higher profile a case is
the more likely it is that deletion will take place.
Q5 Tom Brake: Do you maintain a database
of cases that you have taken up? In other words, can you tell
us how many of the cases that have been raised with you have been
deleted, that the individuals have had their DNA deleted?
Ms Sankey: Our litigators would
have that information. We are, all the time, asking people to
come forward if they have their DNA on the Database, are innocent,
and wish to have it removed. We are providing advice and information
to those people and seeking to litigate on their behalf as things
stand with the current retention regime.
Q6 Tom Brake: It might be useful
for the Committee if your litigators were able to provide that
information. In other words, how many people in the last year,
say, have contacted you seeking to have their DNA removed, and
how many have subsequently been successful in doing that.
Ms Sankey: Absolutely; we can
provide that information.
Ms Abbott: In relation to the
size of the problem, the Committee will be aware that 77% of young
black men under the age of 25 have their DNA on the Database
Q7 David Davies: You will be aware
that only 5-10% of crimes that are committed end in a conviction,
so is it not likely that a large percentage of those arrested
but not found guilty of an offence will nevertheless have actually
carried it out?
Ms Sankey: I think it is difficult
to speculate on people that have not been—
Q8 David Davies: It is not difficult
to speculate that only 5-10% of all crimes end in a conviction.
We know there has quite rightly been a huge outcry over the fact
that it is about 9% with rape, and that is actually higher than
most other crimes; for burglary it is about 5%. That is not speculation;
that is a fact.
Ms Sankey: There is nothing that
suggests that those innocent people who are on the DNA Database
are any more likely to have committed a crime than those who are
not on it at all.
Q9 David Davies: Somebody who is
arrested because the police believe there is reason to believe
they may have committed a crime is no more likely to have done
so than somebody who has never been arrested in their life?
Ms Abbott: Can I just make a simple—
Q10 David Davies: No, I am just interested
in Liberty's answer to this.
Ms Abbott: I am going to allow
my Liberty colleague to speak, but it is very important in this
inquiry that you keep a clear distinction between innocent people
and guilty people because that is the cornerstone of our criminal
justice system.
Q11 David Davies: Is it not also
important that we differentiate between those who are not taken
to court, not prosecuted or found guilty of a crime, but nevertheless
may well have committed one? Is it not important to bear that
in mind? Ms Abbott, you must be aware of the rape cases and outraged
about that?
Ms Sankey: Could I just say, to
clarify our position, we have never said that no innocent person
can ever be retained on the DNA Database. We understand that in
exceptional circumstances you might be able to frame a DNA retention
regime which allows for retention for a limited period for those
who have not yet been prosecuted, or against whom charges were
brought, prosecution began and was not completed. We recognise
that there are those exceptional cases where there is a certain
amount of suspicion that remains and it would make sense, it would
be pragmatic, to allow that DNA to be retained.
Q12 David Davies: So you are not
against it in principle. That is very important; thank you for
clarifying that. You are not, in principle, against it; it is
just the guidance that you want changed for keeping it for people
not found guilty?
Ms Sankey: We want the presumption
to be different. Could I also say that when it comes to your question
that these people might in fact be guilty although they have not
been successfully convicted, it always remains possible for the
police to retake DNA at the point of arrest. We have never objected
to the idea that the police, when there is reasonable suspicion
or when new evidence comes to light, can make an arrest and retake
somebody's DNA. The fact that it is deleted from the Database
does not mean that it will never go back on, or the police can
never obtain it again, it is the idea of retaining innocent people's
DNA indefinitely that we object to.
Q13 Bob Russell: Notwithstanding
your answers so far, what are your main objections to the proposals
about retention of DNA in the Crime and Security Bill?
Ms Sankey: In light of the Crime
and Security Bill I think the first thing to say is that we welcome
the fact the Government has finally recognised that this issue
needs to be addressed in primary legislation, having dropped,
of course, the regulations from the Policing and Crime Bill last
year. Our main objection to the current proposals in the Bill
is the six-year retention proposal for innocent people. We do
not believe the Government is fully accepting of the principles
laid out in the S and Marper judgment by the European Court
of Human Rights. We think they are grudgingly doing as little
as they think is necessary to try and comply with that judgment.
We do not believe that a six-year retention period would comply.
I think the Council of Ministers, when they met last in September,
indicated the same, that proportionality requirements would not
be met with a six-year retention period for innocent people.
Q14 Bob Russell: Six years would
be an improvement on the current situation. If not six years,
what figure would you give, if any?
Ms Sankey: We believe that innocent
people as a matter of principle should have their DNA deleted
once it is decided that prosecution will not go ahead; and then
a fixed period should be put as a cap to ensure that DNA is deleted
after that decision has been made.
Q15 Bob Russell: So six years is
not the objection, the objection is the retention over any period?
Ms Sankey: Exactly, the principle
that you would automatically retain innocent people's DNA, rather
than presume that you are going to delete it unless there are
exceptional circumstances.
Q16 Bob Russell: I just want to make
it clear: it is not the six years you are objecting to; it is
the principle of any period?
Ms Sankey: Absolutely.
Q17 Mr Winnick: Ms Abbott, you gave
the impression in the debate—a very interesting debate (which
I must confess I have read for the first time) in Westminster
Hall in which the Chairman of this Committee also participated—that
in your view the police were wrong to take DNA samples in the
first place.
Ms Abbott: If that is the impression
you have had from reading the debate this morning, I apologise.
Let me make my position clear: first of all, nobody objects to
keeping the DNA of guilty people. The question is what do you
do with the DNA of innocent people? Everybody, including Liberty,
accepts there are circumstances in which you should keep the DNA
of innocent people. The question is that those circumstances have
never been codified, and that is partly to do with the fact we
have never had a proper debate in Parliament. I would suggest
to the Committee there are two possibilities: one is that the
courts should be allowed to direct when a case is concluded; that
people have been found innocent yet nonetheless the court is directing
their DNA should be kept. That would certainly be acceptable to
the people I am working with. The other option is to say there
are certain categories of crime—violent crime and sexual
crime—and in those cases you would keep the DNA. I am not
saying, nor is Liberty saying, you should never keep the DNA of
innocent people. It should be codified: either the courts should
direct; or you should specify the types of crimes for which this
is kept. Just to respond to my colleague Bob Russell's point about
the Government's proposals: first of all, many lawyers do not
believe that the Government's proposals are actually compliant
with what the European Court was saying; but, secondly, the Government
did invite contributions as to what it should do, and it seems
in its proposals to have completely ignored them. That is not
unusual, you will tell me, but that is one of the reasons one
objects to it.
Q18 Mr Winnick: If I understand you
right, Ms Abbott, and you will correct me obviously if this is
not your position, if someone has been arrested but not charged
with certain offences of violence and has been released you would
be in favour of a DNA profile being kept by the police?
Ms Abbott: Yes. I think we should
debate it.
Q19 Mr Winnick: Debate it as we like,
but at the end of the day a decision has to be reached. Again,
if I can just pursue the point: someone has been arrested for
some very serious offence, not charged for all kinds of reasons,
first and foremost presumably because there is a lack of evidence,
but you would not object to that profile being retained by the
police?
Ms Abbott: I would not want to
make law at a select committee hearing.
Q20 Mr Winnick: You do not want to
say yes or no to that?
Ms Abbott: I am going to say this:
I would support certain specific circumstances either where the
court directed, or where it involved crimes of violence or sexuality,
where it was codified that DNA would be kept. What I do not accept
is that all innocent people's DNA, whatever their age, can be
kept willy-nilly.
Q21 Mr Winnick: Do you accept, Ms
Abbott, that retaining DNA profiles by the police does help at
the end of it all to substantially reduce criminality?
Ms Abbott: That is an interesting
point, Mr Winnick. The problem is, although the police and other
people you will get evidence from later this morning will give
you certain high profile cases where the DNA of innocent people
has enabled them to solve the crime, there is no conclusive research
to prove that overall keeping the DNA of innocent people helps
you to clear up crime. I would point out that the inventor, if
you like, of the DNA technique, Sir Alec Jeffreys, is vehemently
opposed to keeping the DNA of innocent people; he says it is too
random a weapon.
Chairman: We will in fact be inviting
him to come to give evidence next week on this.
Q22 Tom Brake: Could I just ask,
Ms Sankey, you said there are exceptional circumstances in which
you think the DNA could be retained and is your position the same
as Ms Abbott's in terms of a court directing that it should be
retained in the case of violent and sexual crimes or is your position
different?
Ms Sankey: Liberty, in pursuing
our campaign on the DNA Database, has always said we need a much
more proportionate framework for DNA retention. We have always
said in framing the new DNA retention regime, you could look at
a number of factors. For example, it could be those suspected
offences where DNA is particularly relevant, like violent or sexual
offences; it could be if somebody is suspected of more than one
offence; it could be where there has been shown to be a propensity
to re-offend. There are a number of things you could do to frame
the keeping of DNA for a limited period in certain special circumstances.
It would be preferable if that was laid down as set criteria and
it was not left to be done on a case-by-case basis by a court
because the latter might have the effect of implying guilt at
least in the mind of the person whom it concerns. Another possible
way of squaring the circle would be to look to the Scottish system,
where it is that if proceedings have been brought against an individual
you can hold on to their DNA but for a limited period of time.
So those who are arrested and nothing further is done do not have
their DNA retained, but those against whom a prosecution is brought
but is dropped for whatever reason do have their DNA retained.
These would all be much more proportionate ways of making sure
that the right people are kept on the Database and the right people
are taken off.
Q23 Bob Russell: I think the most
recent answers we have had to questions from Mr Winnick and Mr
Brake have caused confusion rather than clarification as to what
should or should not be on the DNA Database. Ms Abbott, would
you be happy if everyone's DNA was on the Database?
Ms Abbott: That would have the
benefit of being intellectually coherent, but in practice you
would be talking about a huge, impracticable project. I am sorry
that you are confused. I am saying that if you are going to keep
innocent people's DNA on the Database it should be in clear, codified
circumstances. I think that is clear enough.
Q24 Bob Russell: Liberty's position?
Everybody?
Ms Sankey: Absolutely not. As
Ms Abbott has said, a universal database would of course lend
itself in terms of intellectual coherence. It would also do something
to sort out the current discrimination problem that we have with
the way the DNA Database is constituted, but it would not be proportionate
and it would not be necessary either. There is also, of course,
always the risk that the more profiles you upload and keep on
there the more likelihood there is of mistakes being made, of
bad matches being made, of the Database being corrupted and potentially
discredited in the courts. This is something Liberty certainly
would not want to see because we believe in the value of DNA evidence
in securing convictions.
Q25 Bob Russell: With your international
connections, are you aware of any countries where there is total
DNA Database of all its citizens?
Ms Sankey: I am not aware of any
such country. I do know that we have the largest DNA Database
in Europe and the largest DNA Database per capita in the world.
Q26 Chairman: Both of your positions
are that although you would understand the logic of having a Database
that contained everybody's names you are both against having a
Database that has the samples of every single member of the public
on it?
Ms Abbott: In principle I can
see the logic; in practice it would be entirely wrong.
Q27 Chairman: That is your position
as well, is it, Ms Sankey?
Ms Sankey: Absolutely. In principle
there are things that lend themselves to that view, but it would
be wholly disproportionate and a complete invasion of privacy
on a scale we have never seen.
Q28 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Sankey, Ms Abbott
has made the point that although there has been quite a lot of
anecdotal evidence about some high profile cases where a so-called
innocent sample has led to prosecution, especially in rape and
murder cases—and also we have been told there is no in-depth
research being done—do you have a feel or is there anywhere
where we could get access to the number of cases where the use
of DNA has been solely or largely responsible for bringing people
to justice?
Ms Sankey: That is a very interesting
question, and we do not believe that such a statistic exists.
We also believe that if it did exist it would be negligible because
the statistical test would be (1) that someone who is innocent
has been retained on there (2) that has led to their conviction
for an offence (3) and no other evidence could have led the police
to them. That would be the test for whether or not statistically
it makes sense to automatically keep innocent people on there.
We have never been presented with those statistics. Interestingly,
the high profile cases that you refer to, all of those such cases
that have ever been presented to me, in interviews and otherwise,
have always been cases where it is actually the taking of somebody's
DNA, ostensibly for another purpose because they are suspected
of another offence, that has led the police to see that they are
actually linked to the crime scene of an earlier offence. It is
not actually the retention of those people's DNA but the taking
of it. As I said earlier, we have absolutely no problem with the
taking of DNA on arrest.
Q29 Gwyn Prosser: In your answer,
Ms Sankey, you made the assertion that the results would be negligible.
If the research was done on a rational basis and the results did
show a significant link, would you then change your views about
limiting and prescribing which records should be kept?
Ms Sankey: Ultimately, decisions
about how a DNA Database is constituted need to come down to two
things: statistics, but principally principles; And the Government
is currently failing to take a principled approach to DNA retention.
In a free society there are always more things we could do to
detect a couple more crimes, to secure a couple more convictions,
whether it is having curfews for every man, woman and child, whether
it is removing, for example, the need for reasonable suspicion
before you arrest somebody. There are always more things that
you could do. A universal DNA Database might be a way of securing
a few more convictions, but you need to come back to this idea
of whether it is proportionate and whether that is the kind of
society in which we want to live. We say, quite frankly, that
automatically retaining the DNA of innocent individuals—which
can of course reveal things about their ethnicity, their familial
links, their life expectancy, their chance of getting disease—storing
that and stockpiling that, as is currently done by the State,
is not the kind of society we do want to live in.
Q30 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Abbott, do you
concur with that view?
Ms Abbott: I had a meeting with
the officer at the Metropolitan Police who is responsible for
these issues and he told me, certainly within the Metropolitan
Police area, there is no substantive research which demonstrates
a link between keeping the DNA of innocent people and the ability
to clear up crime. I would point out as well that we have this
sort of catch-all system here in England, very different from
Scotland and very different from other European countries. There
is no evidence at all to show that our approach to the DNA Database
has impacted on our crime levels relative to countries which actually
have a DNA Database which is more compliant with the European
Human Rights situation.
Q31 Mr Winnick: Being the devil's
advocate if you like—that is part of our job obviously on
a select committee, as you know very well, Ms Abbott—I am
just wondering whether you dismissed too lightly in the Westminster
Hall debate when the Minister gave an example of the retention
of DNA. He mentioned Steve Wright, who was later convicted of
murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich in 2003. His DNA sample,
the Minister said, was taken when he was arrested on suspicion
of theft—not the most serious offence—however, later,
it matched the DNA from the body of one of the five women murdered
in Ipswich which all led, fortunately, to this monster being convicted.
We are all very pleased that such monsters are convicted of the
murder of five innocent women. In those circumstances, I am just
wondering if you did not dismiss the Minister, because you intervened
immediately after him and said that this was a dramatic matter
but what about other issues. Did you really take seriously the
point the Minister was making at the time?
Ms Abbott: Mr Winnick, I would
never dismiss a Minister. My point is this: you can always point
to individual instances where keeping the DNA of an innocent person
has helped to clear up a crime. What there is no statistical basis
for saying is that keeping the DNA of innocent people overall
helps to bring down the levels of crime. Quickly, because I know
the Chairman wants to move on, a point I have not been asked on
but I think—
Q32 Mr Winnick: But it helped in
the case of Wright, did it not? He was convicted.
Ms Abbott: In an individual case,
Mr Winnick. Show me the stats which show that it helps overall.
The point I wanted to make very briefly is this issue of innocent
people getting their DNA taken off the Database; which brings
me back to the first point the Chairman made to me. Nothing causes
more upset in a community than how difficult it is for innocent
people—maybe they were bystanders; it is often the case
we have dealt with people who just happen to be around—and
the difficulty and the difference between police districts. If
we are going to take a step forward on this issue there should
be a clear, transparent, codified and uniform system for people
who are undoubtedly innocent, who perhaps have not committed a
crime for very many years, to be able to get their DNA off the
Database. That would go a long way to restoring police confidence.
Mr Winnick: It does not feel right,
but we understand that point.
Q33 Tom Brake: Presumably if there
is no research that shows that holding people's DNA on a Database
is effective in tackling crime, there is also no research that
shows, for instance, that spending money on maintaining records
of innocent people and their DNA, and that quite heavy administrative
process dealing with complaints that come in about it, is a more
effective way of spending money than, for instance, investing
in training more specialist police officers dealing with rape
cases. Is there any evidence that shows that it has a significant
cost-benefit advantage?
Ms Abbott: There is no evidence
that it has a cost-benefit advantage and there is ample evidence,
as I say, that it undermines community cooperation with the police,
which is vital to fighting crime.
Q34 Mrs Cryer: At the moment an innocent
person wishing to have their DNA record removed from the National
Database apparently has to go through certain procedures which
finish up with the chief police officer of that area, and he can
determine whether or not it is removed. It has been suggested
that this could lead to a certain amount of patchiness from one
area to another, because there are different chief police officers
for each area. It has been suggested that instead of it going
as a final court of appeal to the chief police officer, it could
go to an organisation called the National Policing Improvement
Agency. Would either of you prefer that route to the existing
one?
Ms Sankey: We do not believe that
the problem with the current system is down to the fact that the
discretion lies with the chief constables; in fact we would not
want to put any blame at their doors for the chaos that we are
now in with the DNA deletion system. We think that actually it
is because Parliament has left a vacuum here while saying that
the discretion lies with the chief constables, passing the responsibility
over to them. This vacuum has, of course, been filled by the ACPO
guidance which, as I said earlier, sets the bar so high for deletion
as to be almost impossible to reach. For us that is the real problem
here.
Q35 Chairman: The point Mrs Cryer
is making is should there be one body, like the NPIA, that should
deal with these requests; and therefore you avoid the postcode
lottery that clearly is in existence? It does not deal with the
issue of discretion; but should there be one authority that deals
with all requests, rather than 42 chief constables?
Ms Sankey: We have never taken
issue with the idea that the chief constables, as with so much
of the discretion that they have, have a discretion in this instance;
but what we would like to see is much better guidance set out
in statute for how they exercise their discretion.
Q36 Chairman: But they still retain
the discretion under your system?
Ms Sankey: Of course, accompanied
by requirements to delete innocent people's DNA as soon as they
have decided not to go ahead with prosecution, but there needs
to be a much, more robust discretion left to them in legislation,
along with guidance about how they exercise it.
Ms Abbott: Speaking as a constituency
MP and someone who has gone to a lot of trouble mailing people
on various databases who are concerned about this issue, I would
welcome a single consistent and transparent system for innocent
people, however you deem them to be innocent; maybe they have
not been involved with the police for 10 years or whatever, a
single, consistent national coherent system for removing your
DNA from the Database. You have just explained to the Committee
what the system is, or what the system is supposed to be in theory.
In practice, I had a case of a 14-year old girl who happened to
be in the back of a car that was stopped by the police; they were
just giving her a lift home from a party; she was 14 years of
age; she was taken back to a police station with the other older
people, put in a cell and had her DNA taken. She had no criminal
record whatsoever; no-one in the end was charged as a result of
this car being stopped. It took myself and another MP two years
to get her DNA removed. What the police told us at every point
was they had no choice; they had to keep the DNA. It is because
of dealing with cases like that I am actually quite keen on a
single national transparent explicit system for getting innocent
people's DNA off the database.
Q37 Mrs Cryer: In the case you are
talking about, was it the case that the chief police officer said,
"No, we're not removing it"; or was it that it never
got to him? Was it delays on the route to him?
Ms Abbott: It never got to him.
First of all, I wrote to the local police who said they had not
stopped the car, it was the special patrol group; and then the
special patrol group wrote back to me and said there was nothing
they could do. In fact, they brought the parents in and told them,
"We can do nothing. Parliament insists we keep all this DNA".
I then wrote to the Police Minister, who then was Tony McNulty,
who said, "No, no, no. It's at the discretion of the chief
constable". It was only at that point, when I put it to the
Minister, that they said it was at the discretion of the chief
constable. It went back to the Met and they said, "Unless
there are exceptional circumstances, we're not willing to take
the DNA off". I believe with innocent people, who have no
criminal record and so forth, there ought to be some sort of presumption
of taking the DNA off rather than the other way around. There
should not be the inconsistency
Chairman: Ms Abbott, Ms Sankey, thank
you very much for giving evidence this morning, it has been very
useful.
| 
