We have become an international laughing stock.”Yesterday the former sports minister Kate Hoey claimed the project had been “distorted” in an effort to win the 2006 World Cup and that the backers of the Birmingham bid had been strung along.She said: “All sorts of corners were cut. I don’t have the confidence that this project can deliver public good.”On the other hand, Sport England’s Brigid Simmonds told the select committee: “We have this amazing ability in this country to stab ourselves in the foot and to go on reviewing things until we completely kill them.”The two opposing points of view go right to the heart of the dilemma facing Government and football as they agonise over Wembley’s future. There is little sign of it being resolved as the latest fiasco over a prestigious national project deepens. Nor, it must be stressed, as Japan and South Korea prepare to stage the World Cup, is there any prospect of a similar event taking place in England in the foreseeable future.. Secretly taking DNA samples to settle paternity cases or obtain information about an individual should be made a criminal offence, says Britain’s genetic watchdog, the Human Genetics Commission (HGC).

It would prevent private detectives, journalists, employers or others obtaining genetic information without an individual’s consent, or testing DNA for diseases, genetic conditions or family connections.Last week, clandestinely obtained DNA was cited in what is expected to become the world’s most expensive child support case, involving the American film producer Steve Bing, a former boyfriend of the British actress Liz Hurley.Kirk Kerkorian, 84, the Californian billionaire owner of MGM studios, is fighting a claim from his ex-wife Lisa Bonder for £223,000 a month maintenance for her four-year-old daughter, Kira. He told a Los Angeles court that Mr Bing was the child’s biological father after a DNA test on a piece of dental floss taken from a dustbin by private detectives.Under the new legislation proposed by the commission, obtaining a DNA sample in this way would be outlawed.Ms Hurley also claims Mr Bing fathered her child, Damian. The High Court could order DNA tests on her son if the two parties fail to reach an amicable agreement.The only exception to the commission’s proposed rules would be when collecting or testing DNA was for legally authorised forensic or medical purposes. But the commission called for checks on the police and other law enforcement bodies, saying they should not have access to genetic databases containing information on individuals for medical research.Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, chairwoman of the commission, said unauthorised taking of DNA was “a gross intrusion into another’s privacy” but noted that there was no legal protection against it at present.The plans were attacked as “pulling punches” by an independent watchdog, which said the commission’s rules would be too weak.

Dr David King, of Human Genetics Alert, which is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, said: “There’s a need for something that establishes the principle that genetic data is private, and that violating that privacy is an offence. The HGC’s proposed legislation only covers a narrow set of circumstances, and fails to establish that basic right of privacy.”. Steve Bing might not appreciate the irony, but the first use of DNA fingerprinting was also to solve a paternity case. Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented the process, was called upon to use it in April 1985, when a Ghanaian boy was stopped at Heathrow airport with an altered passport. He claimed citizenship through his mother, a British citizen. DNA samples were taken from him and from the British woman and her children living in this country The samples matched: the boy was allowed to stay. The samples matched: the boy was allowed to stay.
But, says Professor Jeffreys, of the genetics department at the University of Leicester, the whole sphere of the use of DNA is “a minefield” where ethical problems lie in wait all the time.