Did the Home Office ignore the advice of its own advisers over the retention of DNA profiles on the national database?

Today the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson (pictured) announced that the profiles of innocent people who had been arrested but not convicted of any crime would be retained for six years. Originally it had planned a 12-year retention period in the case of those arrested for serious offences, and six years for minor crimes.
 
So this could be seen as a climbdown. But the response to the Home Office’s own consultation into the proposals showed that the “significant majority” of the 384 people and groups who responded were against any retention of profiles from innocent people – many claiming it was against the spirit of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
 
Among those who gave evidence was the National Database Ethics Group, whose task it is to monitor the ethical principles underlying the database. What it actually said is not available on any website, despite a claim that a summary of individual responses is available.
 
But at its meeting in June 2009 the group considered the proposals and, according to the minutes of the meeting, “felt that the rationale for six years was not strong and not sufficiently evidence-based to gain the support of the Ethics Group”.
 
The group was also opposed the indefinite retention of profiles of children convicted of serious crimes. This was not in line with the group’s recommendations on the treatment of children nor the spirit behind the rehabilitation of offenders, the minutes recorded.
 
So what does Alan Johnson recommend?  Six years for innocent adults, and indefinite retention for minors guilty of serious crimes - precisely what the Ethics Group deemed unjustifiable.
 
So this looks like another occasion on which the Home Secretary knows better than his advisers.