Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by Home Office
CRIME AND
SECURITY BILL:
DELETION OF
DNA
I am writing to seek your support at Report
stage of the Crime and Security Bill for an amendment that we
have developed in direct response to your intervention at Second
Reading. You rightly said that some of the concern regarding DNA
retention was the so-called "postcode lottery" of the
removal of DNA profiles under the exceptional case procedure.
I agreed that we need to move away from such regional disparities
and you suggested that one central authority would be a more attractive
model than the decisions of 43 different Chief Constables. I have
considered this suggestion in detail and intend to table an amendment
at Report stage of the Bill to give effect to it.
I have set out below how the proposed amendment
will work in practice. Clause 20 of the Crime and Security Bill
will place the existing National DNA Database Strategy Board on
a statutory basis and make its deliberations more accessible to
parliamentarians. We propose to table an amendment that would
provide the Board with a power to issue mandatory guidance to
chief police officers in connection with the early destruction
of any DNA profiles, fingerprints or impressions of footwear.
As you know, Chief Constables already have the power to remove
such profiles under the "Exceptional Case Procedure",
but these amendments would for the first time require that Chief
Constables follow the statutory guidance underpinning the new
"Early Deletion Procedure". We are renaming the procedure
to underline the point that deletion decisions will no longer
rely on the presence of exceptional circumstances. Failure to
follow the new guidance could be challenged through the Courts.
We would expect the guidance to reflect the
range of circumstances where DNA retention is clearly inappropriate,
such where it is objectively clear that no offence has been committed.
In particular, I am mindful of the case that Diane Abbott MP raised
in Westminster Hall on 9 December of a constituent of hers who
had been arrested for shoplifting when in fact she was merely
returning an item for refund. The Strategy Board will consult
widely on the guidance before issuing it, and the views of Parliamentarians
will of course be sought and welcomed as part of that process.
We considered other bodies that might take on
this central authority role, such as the National Policing Improvement
Agency. However, we thought it would be more appropriate to choose
a more independent body, The DNA Strategy Board, while chaired
by the ACPO DNA lead and including representatives from the Association
of Police Authorities and the Home Office, also includes such
independent members as the Information Commissioner, the Forensic
Science Regulator and the National DNA Database Ethics Group.
The Human Genetics Commission is also considering an invitation
to join and we are awaiting their response. These powerful independent
figures would be responsible, with the police members of the Board,
for the production and oversight of the statutory guidance.
Furthermore, we intend to table amendments at
Report to improve the accountability of the DNA Strategy Board
itself, including a requirement to provide their annual report
to Parliament. This could even provide your Select Committee with
the opportunity to consider the annual reports and hold enquiries
where you have any concerns.
I know that many MPs have sought to assist their
constituents' attempts to remove DNA profiles that have clearly
arisen from cases of mistaken identity or where no crime has occurred.
Some members have felt frustrated by the bureaucracy involved,
so in addition to the amendment on the face of the Bill we will
ensure that there is one point of contact for both members of
the public and constituency MPs. Both parties will be able to
write to the DNA Strategy Board itself, rather than individual
police forces. Once a request has been received by the Board,
the case will be handled by a central team who will collate the
case file, provide advice and a recommendation to the relevant
Chief Constable based on the statutory guidance and then inform
the member of the public of the decision. As I said before, if
a member of the public or their constituency MP still believe
that an error has been made then they it would be open to them
to challenge the decision through the courts.
Finally, I know that you are currently overseeing
the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on DNA retention and
that this issue will be a key part of your considerations. I would
of course place on record in the Commons that this amendment is
in direct response to your helpful inquiry. Furthermore, if your
Committee were to recommend it in its report, I would consider
stating on the floor of the House that the DNA Strategy Board
would publish regular, force-level, statistics on the operation
of the Early Deletion Procedure, including the number of applications
made and how often Chief Constables did not follow the statutory
guidance.
This would ensure that any future discrepancies
were clearly identified and the relevant Chief Constable could
be held to account by their police authority and the wider community.
I hope that you consider that these amendments
deliver on your helpful suggestion and that you can support them
at Report stage of the Bill. I look forward to your response.
February 2010
| 
