DNA detection has been a phenomenally successful tool for fighting crime, helping to secure identification and confirm guilt in not only thousands of current convictions, but also in previously closed cases, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders and 90 rapes.

It is appropriate for the DNA database to hold samples of all those who are charged or cautioned. What is not appropriate, however, is the retention of DNA if the suspect is not charged or not cautioned. Currently DNA is taken on arrest and retained regardless of guilt or innocence – and this serendipity of DNA retention gives cause for concern.

There are now around 140,000 people on the National DNA database who have never been charged or cautioned with a criminal offence, including nearly 25,000 children. Moreover, nearly a quarter of the people in the National DNA database are from BME communities – although they make up under one in ten of the population as a whole.

In other words, for example, an innocent black man is far more likely to have their DNA stored in the national database than an innocent white man. Having a national crime-fighting database that singles out innocent members of ethnic minorities in this way raises a whole host of problems, including equity, reducing the confidence of people in the fairness of the police and their work and the risk of further discrimination up the line if the records are ever misused – and remember how often in the past big databases have gone wrong, had their security compromised or been misused.

Control and custodianship of the database is key. It is a positive step that the Government is now finally moving control away from the Forensic Science Service, so as to avoid conflicts of interest. However, it is only relatively late in the day that that Government is even starting to properly consider the issues of control and supervision.

And – regrettably – the evidence from Parliament is that Labour is keener to try to play Punch and Judy politics with this issue than to address these real concerns. I say this because Jack Straw has twice had to be corrected in the chamber for falsely claiming that the Liberal Democrats are against all keeping of DNA records. Not impressed, Jack. The keeping of such very personal records by the Government should be a matter of rather more serious debate.

Meanwhile, The Observer revealed that a private firm has been secretly keeping the full DNA samples along with highly personal demographic details of the individuals including their names, ages, skin colour and addresses. And the Government itself has also authorised research projects using the DNA samples for non-police work.

In fact, the police only need the DNA profile, which is extracted from the original DNA sample. This ability to misuse the full sample for non-police purposes means it should be destroyed once the DNA profile has been extracted. It is the only sure protection.

In addition, the DNA records of those charged, but acquitted in court, should be held for a designated period of time – catering, for example, for the possible need to return to the evidence in an appeal.

A person who wrongly arrested and is not charged or cautioned should be able to choose whether their DNA can be retained. This would bring England and Wales closer into line with the position in Scotland where, under the Labour-led Scottish Executive, most DNA samples and records are destroyed if a person is acquitted or given an order of absolute discharge.

Or in brief – data kept is data open to misuse, and so that which is kept should be kept to a minimum.

This article first appeared in The House Magazine.