To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many innocent people are on the police national DNA database; and when they will be removed.

My Lords, as at 24 April 2009 there were some 4.5 million persons on the National DNA Database, of whom some 986,000 had no current conviction or caution record held on the police national computer. This included those convicted but whose police national computer record has been deleted, cases where proceedings are ongoing and those with no convictions.

We are currently considering DNA retention policy in our response to the European Court judgment.

My Lords, are we to understand that close on a million innocent citizens have their data on this database? Do the Government not understand that this is unacceptable in terms of civil liberties, privacy and general good management of society? What time span are the Government working to on the European ruling to ensure that innocent people are taken off this database within, say, at least six months?

My Lords, as I said in my initial response, not all of those people are necessarily innocent; a large number are people whose convictions have been removed from the police national computer. This happened because, prior to 2006, things were weeded out from that computer. The number is therefore less, but I take the overall point.

We must clearly strike a sensible balance between the huge value of DNA and what it has done in protecting our society, and the interests of the individual. There is no doubt whatever that the results of holding DNA have been amazing. Over four and a half years, about 200,000 profiles were retained. Of those, 8,500 matched crime scenes involving 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 other sexual offences, 119 aggravated burglaries and 127 offences involving controlled drugs.

We clearly have a responsibility to protect society and we must have a balance. We have therefore gone out with a consultation and 503 people have responded. We are looking at the results, and will then make a decision on how we should move forward.

My Lords, could my noble friend, a simple sailor, explain to a simple police officer exactly what a totally innocent person has to fear from the retention of their DNA on the database? Also, how many people, having been arrested but not convicted of an offence, have subsequently been proved to be guilty of very serious crimes committed either before or after that arrest as a direct result of the retention of their DNA?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his interjection. It is a very interesting point. I quote the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is not here, when he said in a previous debate:

“However, if the police keep a person’s DNA, what does that matter unless they subsequently commit a crime? If they commit a crime, whether it is a terrorist crime or whatever, the DNA is available to help to find them. If they have not committed a crime, they have nothing to worry about. The idea of the police hanging on to those samples sounds terribly intrusive, but, unless a person commits a crime, the samples will not be of any use”.—[Official Report, 9/10/08; cols. 394-95.]

That is, no one will ever know. I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Earl said on that occasion, but there is a responsibility to the individual. That is why we are looking at this more closely. There is no doubt at all, as my noble friend has said, that there are a very large number of people who have been released and not charged. I do not know the exact number but I can give example after example. One person was arrested for suspected illegal entry because he jumped from the back of a van at a motorway service station. He was released without charge, his DNA was taken and put on the National DNA Database. Some two and a half or three years later it was matched against the crime scene of a gang rape where a woman was held down by a group of people. The victim could not recognise any of them. This man was caught and convicted through his DNA. This has real relevance and we have to take all those factors into account.

My Lords, at the moment an innocent person has a complete right to ask a chief constable to take them off the DNA database, but at the same time that chief constable has discretion whether or not to do so and when to do so. In light of the European Court judgment, will the Government issue new guidance to chief constables to instruct them to do so rapidly?

My Lords, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database, the paper that we put out for consultation, lists our plans. One of the issues is to do with the destruction of profiles. That has been rather complex and difficult, and we will have to lay out very clearly the criteria for destruction and exactly how it is to be done. In the past that has not been as clear and good as it should be; it is something that we will have to rectify.

My Lords, I declare what is probably the view of a very small minority: I would have no objection whatever to having my DNA details on the database for ever, in the hope that it might, in certain circumstances, clear me of a totally false charge.

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point, which I should probably have mentioned. There are a number of cases where people have, I am afraid, been wrongfully imprisoned and the fact that we have their DNA has finally allowed them to be released. That is a very important point.

My Lords, why is it that a disproportionate number of black and Asian minority people are on the DNA list?

My Lords, that is a very interesting point. Looking at those on the DNA database, 77.7 per cent are white, 7 per cent are black, 5.4 per cent are Asian and 3.2 per cent are from other ethnic-appearance groups. We have looked at this in some detail because it is worrying. Our initial look at this makes us feel that this is to do with the fact that in the criminal justice system as a whole there is overrepresentation of black people. It is not because of a problem with the DNA database itself.

My Lords, in December the European Court of Human Rights declared that the retention of innocent people’s profiles was illegal. It is outside the law now to do that. Since then 300,000 profiles have been added to the list. How many of those people are innocent and how many of them have been added since July? We are running at a rate of roughly 40,000 a month. Does the Minister not accept that it is now time to change the system and that the time for consultation should come to an end?

My Lords, the judgment in fact said that it was wrong for us to keep them indefinitely. It did not say that it was wrong to take them. It is an issue of timing and how long these should be held for. I cannot give details of the exact numbers but I shall get back in writing on that. We are looking at this. There is a balance here. We have to weigh up the risk to our people and the very positive results in terms of our safety and justice where horrendous crimes have been committed, which DNA has helped to solve, against safeguarding the rights of the individual. That is what we intend doing. We shall not do it in a great rush. We have now consulted and will shortly come out with our proposals, based roughly around the figures we have given. I know that the Scots have come out with a different figure but all my analysis of that shows that it is not based on any proper analysis at all, so I am quite interested in how they arrived at their figure. However, we have a very clear view of where we are going on this.