Coalition hails freedoms move

The Government was accused of “going too far” by Labour amid claims the database has helped capture serious criminals, but civil liberties groups welcomed the move.

Home Secretary Theresa May also pledged an end to snooping on families’ bins and security-checking school-run mums as the long-awaited Protection of Freedoms Bill was unveiled.

A vetting scheme that would have targeted more than nine million adults will be scrapped, a new Code of Practice for operating CCTV is to be introduced and wheel-clampers will be outlawed on private land.

Schools will also be banned from fingerprinting children without their parents’ consent and those with historic convictions for consensual gay sex will be able to apply to have their record deleted.

The drive to restore freedoms has been led by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who accused Labour of attacking freedoms.

“This is a landmark Bill which will result in an unprecedented rolling back of the power of the state,” he said. “The Protection of Freedoms Bill brings together a huge range of measures to restore the hard-won British liberties that have been lost in recent years.”

In opposition the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were highly critical of the DNA database which included the details of up to one million innocent people.

Supporters claim it has been responsible for solving serious crimes, but judges in Strasbourg ruled that the rules under which anyone arrested had their profiles stored indefinitely was illegal after a case brought by two men whose DNA was kept by South Yorkshire Police.

Labour put forward its own rules to tighten restrictions on when profiles could be stored, but the coalition Government has gone further.

DNA profiles of those who have not been convicted will only be held if they have been charged with a serious crime, and then only for three years.

The Government said it would lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent people having their details stored, but campaign group Big Brother Watch claimed it did not go far enough and said the details of more than 1.1 million innocent people would remain on the database.

Civil rights group Liberty welcomed the move but Labour claimed that 79 rape, murder or manslaughter cases were solved in 2008/09 thanks to samples from individuals who had not been convicted.

“The Government is at risk of putting political rhetoric above the evidence from experts,” said Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. “They are going too far on DNA retention and are going against the evidence that shows it has a significant impact bringing serious criminals to justice and exonerating innocent people.”

The Bill, which could become law by early next year, sets out plans to regulate CCTV and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems for the first time, requiring operators to obey a Code of Practice that ensures they are only used to deal with serious crimes rather than minor offences like spotting litter droppers.

Schools will no longer be able to keep children’s fingerprints or biometric data without their parents’ consent. As many as 30 per cent of secondary schools are now estimated to use the details, often to regulate entry to the premises.

Town halls will also be stopped from snooping on people suspected of minor offices, meaning they will no longer be able to check bins or use anti-terror powers in school catchment area disputes. Instead they will have to get permission from a magistrate and only be able to use surveillance if investigating a crime with a penalty of more than six months imprisonment, which officials believe will cut use of the powers from 5,500 occasions last year.

Other changes include extending the Freedom of Information Act and allowing people to marry outside the hours of 8am to 6pm.

Mrs May said: “I am bringing common sense back to public protection and freeing people to go about their daily lives without a fear that the state is monitoring them.”

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham warned that the details of the Bill “will need careful consideration” and said he would examine the measures closely.