Crime and Security Bill
Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2010.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I welcome hon. Members to the first sitting of this Public Bill Committee, which I am sure, will be conducted in an orderly and good-humoured manner.
Before we begin, I have some domestic announcements. Ever conscious of Members comfort, I am happy for them to remove their jackets, should they wish to do so. Please ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other electronic gadgets are turned off or switched to silent mode during Committee meetings.
Members are reminded that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room, on the table to my left. I also remind Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given. To be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, Amendments must be tabled by rise of the House on the previous Thursday. For a Thursday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the preceding Monday. As a general rule, my co-chairman, Mr. Cook, and I will not call starred amendments.
Not everyone is familiar with the procedures for taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might be helpful if I explain briefly how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. That debate is limited to half an hour. We will proceed to a motion to report written evidence and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence, which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the second motion is agreed, the Committee will sit in private for a short time, after which witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and we will start to take evidence.
If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, we will hear oral evidence in this weeks sittings, which I shall chair, and revert to the more familiar clause-by-clause, line-by-line scrutiny next week, when Mr. Cook will join us.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I beg to move,
That
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 26 January) meet
(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 26 January;
(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 28 January;
(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 2 February;
(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 4 February;
(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 9 February;
(f) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table
TABLE
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the room.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
We will now take oral evidence from the Police Federation and Jan Berry. For the record, will you both introduce yourselves to the Committee?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Before calling the first member of the Committee to ask a question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has already agreed. I hope that I do not have to interrupt in mid-sentence, but I will not hesitate to do so if need be.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
First, I declare an interest as a practising barrister, practising in the criminal courts.
My questions are for either of our two witnesses and are about clause 1 and searches. I had the advantage, many, many years ago, of being a special constable, so I have carried out searchesnot very competently, but I have done so.
First, the Bill deletes the obligation to obtain the name and address of the person questioned. That rather surprises me. I should have thought that you needed their name and address. Secondly, the ethnicity of person to be searched is to be recorded as they themselves describe it. I would have thought that that gives rise to the possibility of some rather offensive questioning. Might it not be better if Bill provided for ethnicity as perceived by the constable? That would avoid the necessity for questions on the point. May I have your comments on both those matters?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But if it goes badly?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
So you would have no particular objection to my suggestion?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Is that true of Jan Berry as well?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
What about name and address? We seem to be at one so far.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But if you do not have the name and address, if there is a subsequent complaint it is difficult to relate A to B, is it not?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I do not want to keep banging on, Sir Nicholas, but may I follow up that one point? Do either of you have any problem with my suggestion that the record should include name and address?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
You have satisfied Mr. Hogg for the moment. Now that we have broken the ice with the involvement of our most experienced lawyer, I am going to invite you both to make a brief opening statement on your view of the Bills content, which we will start debating after taking evidence from witnesses. Mr. McKeever, would you like to make a brief opening statement about your and the Police Federations view of the Bill?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I hope that, during this mornings questioning, the areas that you are a little concerned about will reveal themselves. Jan Berry, would you like to make an opening statement?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
I have a rather simple question on the back of Pauls comments. How do you deal with young people who stand in front of a police officer and say, Im white Irish, when they are clearly notthey might be black Caribbean or something else? You can just imagine young people sending messages to one other on Twitter saying, This has been introduced; tell the police youre something youre not, just for the hell of it. What does a police officer put in that column?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
But if this is being recorded via electronic means, which tend to be logical and require you to say certain things in certain spaces, that does not give an officer flexibility.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I do not want to labour the ethnicity point, but what advice do officers currently get on establishing peoples ethnicity, if they are doing a stop-and-search and filling in the form themselves?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
One point that I wanted to follow up in what Mr. Hogg said is the matter of name and address not being required. Jan Berry, you said that you would, in any case, expect officers to collect additional information. What is your expectation? Would you assume that, perhaps in the majority of cases, officers would collect names and addresses, even if stop-and-search was changed so that was not required?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Can I pursue that line? We know that the number of stops and searches that do not lead to an arrest is, I believe, 90 per cent. Do you feel that the percentage of stops and searches that do not lead to further action is a problem? To cut that percentage, can more work be done on the training provided to officers on what constitutes reasonable suspicion?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I call Andrew Rosindell, who is the shadow spokesman.
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
All of us want less bureaucracy and to see the police able to do their job more effectively without being bound up in paperwork and red tape, and having to record information that is of no use. Perhaps Mr. McKeever could answer first. Do you believe that the Bill goes far enough to reduce the burdens on the police? Is it necessary for the police to record so much information? Is it better to let them decide what is relevant and what may be useful for intelligence, rather than have such a prescribed way of doing things?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
So putting more trust in the police constable dealing with an incident and letting him or her decide what is relevant in the information they record would be a much simpler, less bureaucratic way of dealing with things?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
To follow Mr. Rosindells line of questioning, we all agree, even from the statements that have been made, that one of the aims of the Bill is to help reduce bureaucracy and allow the police more time to do other things. Have you any hard and fast statistics, so that you can calculate just how much extra time your officers will have? Subsequently, what cultural changes will be required in the force to apply that thinking?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
I have a couple of points following those questions and answers. The first is on officers who are using the powers at the moment and the statistic that 90 per cent. of stops do not yield anything. What work is done with local commanders on the ground to analyse the officers concerned? Has analysis been done and has it been found that officers may have been in the job for a long time and therefore it is a cultural thing that needs changing? Or is it that officers who have only been in the job a short time may be more prone to stops where nothing comes of it? What is your experience of that?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Paul, do you have any comment on that, or does it tie into your earlier comments? You were talking about inspectors not being able to inspect and about superintendents. Is there anything you want to add?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
If I may press you on the name and address issue, I am struggling to fathom why an officer would not automatically record a name and address, or why there would not be a requirement for that with every single stop. If you had stopped an individual a number of times in a particular area and had not recorded the name and address of the individual and a couple of days later there was a serious incident in that area, how would you recognise the possible connection between the individual being found in the area acting suspiciously but not enough to take it forward, and that serious crime? If you are not collecting those data constantly and automatically, how will that be of any use?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
If one theme is coming through, it is about how this will get through to front-line officers. It is a complaint I hear quite a bit. An announcement is made that something will be done and we are now here debating the Bill, but the time delay before the new powers are used is a worry. I want to get some idea about how confident you are that all forces will make sure that these changes are passed on to the front line.
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
Is there anything you can do to deal with that disparity between forces in the way they may use the new powers, if they come into force?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
To follow up that point, Jan Berry, are you in effect saying that it is the fault of senior officers in relation to stop-and-account who have chosen not to go for the streamlined version and are still maintaining the need to collate information beyond what is required under stop-and-account? If that is the case, what can be done to get senior officers to take on board what was supposed to be a more streamlined, effective process?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
But if it is not coming from the top, it is not going to hit the grass roots, is it?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
This is a very brief pointagain, for either of you. As to technology, looking back, the records were always paper-based and I do not know the extent to which it is possible for the constable on the beat to keep an electronic record, so he or she does not have to make a written report. The record would be made either on the scene electronically or subsequently by tape machine or laptop, for example. Could you help us on the technology now available?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Is it coming forward, do you know?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But a lot of written records are still being made, is that the impression that we are to get?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
It is important, as I said earlier, to make the job of the policeman effective, straightforward and less bureaucratic. We all agree on that. Modern technology does not just mean using electronic devices. Surely, the fastest way of dealing with the situation is to radio information through to the police station with someone logging it or the voice of the police constable being directly recorded on some sort of device. Is that not a quicker, simpler way of dealing with it than having to write notes either on an electronic notepad or on paper?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
However, do you not agree that if a system to radio in the information was there, the police on the beat would have more time to deal with other incidents, rather than having to record all this information when there perhaps are more urgent things that they could be getting on with?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Earlier, Mr. McKeever said that the Bill was a step in the right direction in this respect. I think Mrs. Berry said that we have to have the correct framework for the police to deal with this. My question is very simple: if it is a step in the right direction, do you think it is going far enough, or could we do more in the Bill to reduce bureaucracy and increase the effectiveness of the police? Mrs. Berry, what would the framework be if you were deciding?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
There were two questions, one to each of you.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Jan Berry, I think you are just the right person to deal with this matter.
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
When the word framework was used, it was about the framework that the police would have to work by, in terms of what information they recorded. What I am trying to get at is how to absolutely reduce as much of this as possible so that time is not wasted and the police can get on and do their job. But what would the framework be for an average police constable doing the job of stopping and searching? What is the absolute minimum that we could expect, or that it would be reasonable to expect?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Yes.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Jan, may I ask you a question? The Chair does not intervene in these matters, but I wish to ensure that the evidence you are giving is properly understood. You, more than Mr. McKeever, have mentioned the word technology. Are you able to define precisely what you mean by technology? People out there reading your evidence might be interested to know precisely what you mean, and what devices you mean when you use the word technology.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Paul McKeever, do you want to add to that?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
There has been a lot of talk about bureaucracy. Obviously, less bureaucracy for officers enables them to do their job, but at the same time, bureaucracy is necessary from a civil rights point of view. One of the Bills provisions will reduce the time during which an individual can request a copy of the search record from 12 months to three months. Do you know how many people currently request their search record after more than three months? How many people could, therefore, be told that they are out of time?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Right, so normally you are saying that very few requests come in at all.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Are you aware of whether that was something that senior police officers were requesting? Do you have any idea where the request came from? Given that, from what you have said, very few requests are made, do you know why there is the necessity to reduce the time from 12 to three months?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
For clarification, do you think that the changes suggested should apply in a similar way to the stop-and-search of a terrorist?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I thank both the Police Federation and Jan Berry for the help they have given in looking at the bureaucracy issues. Jan has produced a very helpful report on the wider issues that we are looking at. The Bill reflects one particular aspect of stop-and-search.
If I may, I would like to follow up on the point that Jim Dobbin just made. There are, if you choose to call them Sir Nicholas, amendments relating to stop-and-search that call for the complete repeal of section 44, so it would not be operational in the event of the amendments being accepted. Does the Police Federation, rather than Jan, although I welcome views from her, have a view on whether section 44 should be repealed, given its usage by various forces across the country?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Thank you for that, Mr. McKeever, that is very helpful.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Do you want to add anything to that, Jan?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I have two further points to clarify. Do either of you have a view as to the amount of time that clause 1 will ultimately save for police officers across England and Wales?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
We have estimated it at around 200,000 hours per year. How does that figure seem to you?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
In relation to the recording generally, we have estimated that we would save from 12 to seven items being recorded, and of those seven, as Jan mentioned, we think that three could be automatically undertaken when Airwave is rolled out. Would either or both of you agree that that would be practical on the rolling out of Airwave?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
It appears that members of the Committee have no further questions for you. Bearing in mind that we have concentrated almost exclusively on stop-and-search, and taking into account the questions that have been put to you, is there any other matter in relation to stop-and-search that you do not think has been adequately covered? Would you like to expound it further? We have a moment or two in hand.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I intend to call Mr. Hogg in just a moment, but I seek clarification of what Mr. McKeever has just said. He talked about having the correct number of sergeants and the appropriate front-line management. Do we have either, do we have both or do we have one and not the other?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Jan, do you want to add something? You are there to reduce the bureaucracy.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Sir Nicholas, you may not allow me to ask this. We have concentrated on stop-and-search, but if we have time I would also like to know the Police Federations views on DNA. You may take the view that this is not an appropriate time, but on the other hand you may think that it is.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
That is an entirely appropriate question. It is whether or not our witnesses feel that they can reply. But perhaps, as you have put the question on DNA, I will ask both our witnesses for a brief response.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Why do you think that a member of the public would be unhappy if they had been acquitted? What is the reason for that unhappiness?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Where do you think the balance falls between those two competing considerations?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Do you think that the public are unhappy when they hear about previously unsolved crimes being cleared up because of retention of DNA?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
You think that the public would be unhappy
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Your previous answer was that a member of the public who was arrested and subsequently found not guilty but had their DNA retained would be unhappy about that and that the public would be unhappy about that. My question is, are the public also unhappy when they hear that because of that retention of DNA, previously unsolved crimes have been cleared up?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
Briefly, there are also instances where the police have genuine concerns about an individual who is taken to court, perhaps on a lesser charge, and is found not guilty, but is undoubtedly somebody the police have reason to believe may go on to commit further crimes. If that DNA is not retained and a further crime is committed, you are losing a piece of evidence are you not?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
If the person goes on and commits another, more violent, offence but the DNA has not been retained because that person was deemed to be innocent of the previous charge, you are effectively losing a significant piece of evidence.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
Say a person is somebody who the police have genuine concerns about. The police are able to bring a lesser case against the individual, but the lesser case collapsesit falls down. They are innocent, therefore their DNA would not be retained. They then go on to commit a further crime or crimesperhaps more serious crimesand come to court, but you then do not have the DNA evidence from the previous alleged offence to use to help convict them.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
So you will potentially lose pieces of information.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I think Mr. McKeever is being as helpful as possible although he has not come to answer questions on this.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
As the DNA database has been opened, do you not think that perhaps the logical conclusion of some of the arguments that are being put in relation to DNA is that everyone in the country should have their DNA registered? Do any of your colleagues advocate that sort of approach?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
We have now run out of questions. Can I say to Paul McKeever and Jan Berry that the Committee thanks you very much indeed for the thoughtful and helpful information you have provided to this Public Bill Committee. It will certainly assist us in the further debate on this important Bill. On behalf of all the Committee I thank you very much indeed. I now call the next panel of witnesses.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I welcome the second panel of witnesses this morning: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, Association of Chief Police Officers; Sally Ireland, Chairman of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice; Maureen Noble, Head, Manchester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership; and Jim Battle, Deputy Leader of Manchester City Council, just to the north of my constituency and Cheshire. In order to help everybody, could you perhaps introduce yourselves to members of the Committee?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I thank you for coming before us. I ask Shona McIsaac to put the first question to you.
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
Thank you for coming. Obviously we shall be talking about gangs and the proposed injunctions for those under the age of 18. To kick off this evidence session I should like you each to explain how you deal with under-18s under current powers. Do you think that those powers are used consistently across the country?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Shona, could you perhaps indicate to which of the witnesses you are directing your question or whether it is for all of them?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
I want to know whether any of them have a particular view about this, but obviously the most appropriate person to start off would be Sue Akers in her role with the Met.
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
I have a couple of questions. I almost should declare an interest as I have been a fan of the way that Manchester has addressed antisocial behaviour issues and such problems for many years. I just thought I would get that off my chest.
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
A pleasure. My question is addressed to the pair of you from Manchester, so I apologise to you other folks. I shall be coming to you. You may hesitate to answer this, but I should be grateful if you could be as candid as possible. You talked about a toolbox of measures. To what extent do you feel other local authorities up and down the country are either selectively looking in that toolbox, ignoring it completely or perhaps using the tools but tinkering with them? Do you feel there is a possibility that this may be seen as an almost gimmicky power that they use instead of going through the toolbox? I feel that many of them do not do that.
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
It was a very long question, but I will do my best. Basically, are other local authorities around the country using the powers that are in the toolbox, are they not using them at all, are they misusing them, or are they ignoring the full use of some of the powers that already exist? Therefore, I wondered whether this particular injunction could just be used almost in a gimmicky way by a local authority that is not making full use of the powers that it already has.
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
May I follow up on that? I had a long list of points to make, but I will defer to the other Members of the Committee; otherwise, I shall be hogging the whole session.
Regarding the legislation as it is written, do you think that it is tough enough or that it needs to be tougher, in the sense of requiring that wrap-around of other servicesfamily services or whateverand in the sense of requiring not only the injunction and that things should be prohibited but action from a local authority, so that the authority does something specific?
Sally, you might want to kick off the answers to that question.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Could you spell out the services?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
My constituency borders Manchester to the north, so I am very interested in what is happening there at present. Like all Members here, I have estates where there are some serious gang problems. I have one estate where two families run the estate and it is serious stuff. Although the legislation is about injunctions, the message that really should be going out from this evidence session is so important. It is the kind of message that should be inclusive; it should run alongside this legislation.
I am interested in the links within the different agencies at local authority level, particularly the schools and the police. I have two schools where there is a designated police officer based in the school, and that is very comforting for me and the local community. I have another school where a member of the staff will go out with a police patrol on a Friday evening, so they are able to identify some of the youngsters who may be in danger of getting into trouble and they can have some influence on the youngsters the following week. I am interested in that kind of initiative and whether you think that it is the kind of initiative that we should all be pursuing.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Who do you want to answer, Jim? All of them?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
All of them if they have something to contribute.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Maureen, this is very much your area.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Sue Akers, do you have any national overview?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Do you want to come back on that, Maureen?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I have no experience of these injunctions at all, so I would like to ask you a few brief factual questions and then I want to ask you a general question, probably to everybody, but would you reply very concisely please, because colleagues want to get in?
First, I assume that section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 is in force. Can you tell me how many injunctions have been issued in your respective areas? Secondlyagain a factual questionwhat are the resources implications of section 34? In particular, what do you judge to be the resource implications of clause 36 of the Bill, which is the enforcement section? Thirdlythis is the general questionhas anybody really given serious consideration to the civil rights implications of all this? It is clear that an injunction can be issued against a young person where there is insufficient evidence to bring home a criminal charge. Yet it is quite plain that the injunction restricts liberty in a variety of ways and can lead to enforcement action of the kind that is provided for in clause 36. That gives rise to civil rights issues relating to the young person. I have not heard that addressed at all.
So, two factual questions and one general questionand very concise answers, if you would be so good.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
May I suggest that Sue Akers replies first?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But that gives rise to the civil rights questions that need to be addressed, because an injunction, as I understand it, actually restricts peoples ability to do this and that. The injunction can be issued at a lower standard of proof than that required for the conviction of a criminal offence. That is a matter that has to be addressed, whether that is desirable or undesirable.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I should like to hear your opinion.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
That is a very drastic example.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
So your view is that the injunction is going to be sought very infrequently. Is that the common view of the panel?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
We have a disagreement. Sally Ireland?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Could I just pause you? With regard to that Court of Appeal judgment
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Was the court saying that it was for public policy reasons desirable that the standard of proof should be at a criminal level?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Are you suggesting that this is an attempt by the Home Office to go behind the decision of the Court of Appeal?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Even more serious in that case.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Who wants to come in first? Maureen Noble or Jim Battle?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But that is a criminal offence, of course.
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Listening to you speak, Councillor, I had the impression that your authority, or whoever, may seek injunctions quite frequently, unlike the evidence of Sally Ireland.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
May I follow on from your point, yet again? You talk about the numbers involved being small. Do you have a sense at all of the number of young people who would potentially be affected by this type of injunction?
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
In your area or more generally?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
Can we go back to the age issue? You talked about a spectrum from 10 to 24. The Bill introduces a lower limit of 14. We all know from our constituency work, casework and going out with the police that significant numbers of young peopleeight, nine, 10 or 11-year-oldsare being used by and are joining gangs. We also know that they are capable of perpetrating some pretty awful offences, as we have seen in recent weeks. Those young people do not fall within the powers. Within the figures that you have given, how many younger peoplebelow 14would you say could potentially fall into a group and slip through because of how the legislation applies?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
Particularly when we know that these young people are being drawn in, not so much due to peer pressure, but, rightly or wrongly, due to hero worship to a degree, is there also a risk that the injunction will be see as a badge of honour that somebody will strive to achieve?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Councillor Jim Battle wanted to come in again briefly on that point.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Robert, did you want to speak?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Yes, unless another member of the Committee desires to speak on those points.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Andrew will speak first, as we have about 10 minutes left.
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Thank you for your evidence today. I think that the public listening to the debate will want to know how the new law will affect and improve their neighbourhoods and local communities. Some of you represent local government, and the police and local government obviously have a role in enforcing the measures. Will the legislation make a huge difference, and will there be a visible difference in how the police and local authorities are able to tackle the problem of gang-related violence and threats against people? Will it make a difference, or is it yet another piece of legislation that reads well in the national newspapers but will not make a blind bit of difference on the ground? What is your honest opinion on that?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
May I suggest that Sue Akers and Sally Ireland provide a national overview for that question before we come down to deal with Manchester?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Thank you. We have five minutes left. I hope to get Robert Flello in on the final question, but Andrew Rosindells question is very important.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
We are coming towards the end.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Excellent.
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
I have a quick question that is relevant to my particular brief. What do you think needs to be done within gang violence to deal with the use of animals, particularly dangerous dogs, in crime?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Who would like to deal with that? Jim?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Can you ask your question in 30 seconds and can our witnesses answer briefly?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
I will ask it in 30 seconds, but I suspect it will require a five-hour answer.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Robert, may I just say that we have the discretion of going slightly over time, but can you still be brief?
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Thank you. I will keep it as succinct as I can. There is nothing new in gang violence, wherever you look; we have had football violence in the 1980s and the mods and the rockers fighting on Brighton beach. What has changed that means that 10-year-olds are joining gangs? I do not think that that has happened historically. The provisions are tackling the physical signs and outcomes of that, but what do we do, and what are you doing, to get to the underlying issue that is causing this problem to become a greater one? Or is it becoming greater?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
May I suggest that Maureen Noble and Sally Ireland briefly deal with this question?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I have allowed the sitting to go on past 1 oclock because that last question was important and relevant. I am glad that I did so. I thank each of our witnesses for the way that they have expressed their views and the helpful nature of the information that they have provided, which I am sure will be of particular interest to the Minister and shadow Minister. The subject is important. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses very much for the evidence that they have given us. It has been most helpful.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I welcome our witnesses to this afternoons sitting. I welcome in particular Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Police Officers and Gary Pugh, director of forensic services in the Metropolitan Police Service, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Sir Hugh, you and Gary Pugh will have studied the Bill. If in two minutes you could give us your introductory views, that would be helpful. I was going to ask you to introduce yourselves, but as there are just two of you and I have mentioned your names and everybody knows you and, I suspect, Mr. Pugh too, that would be a waste of time. Could you, Sir Hugh, give us your general run-down of the Bill?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Thank you, Sir Hugh. I ask Gary Pugh to give his overview.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Thank you very much, Mr. Pugh. The first question will be put by Alison Seabeck.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
What percentage of the 33,000 crimes detected using the national DNA database were direct detections, as opposed to indirect detections, where somebody subsequently confessed to multiple crimes? That does not link into your comment about volume, but I will come back to that in a minute. Do you have figures to hand to show how convictions and crimes solved are split between the two categories?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
It is just that you can see the potential criticism here. There are 33,000 detections, but only a small minority might have been direct detections, as opposed to people confessing to 15 burglaries. We are trying to work out the value of profiling, so this is quite an important issue.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
Do you have an assessment of the percentages based on what you have just described?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
It is just that to understand your argument, the Committee probably needs to have a look at those figures.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)
I assume that the figures are based on DNA and fingerprints being part of the primary tranche of evidence, rather than anything else.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Can I say to both our witnesses that if you are asked questions and you do not have the detailed answers, we will be very pleased to receive that information later, and of course it can be included in our papers as a memorandum or as a supplement to any evidence that you have already submitted?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
We may get a sense of dĂ(c)jĂ vu with these questions, having gone through a similar set of questions with the Home Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, I want to come back to this question of the cost-effectiveness of DNA, because I think that in both of your statements you have stated that DNA is effective in tackling crime. Clearly it is effective, but we also now know and have received written confirmation that there is no independent assessment of the cost-effectiveness of DNA techniques. Therefore, it may well be that training officers in how to deal with rape cases, such as the Warboys case, is more effective at solving crime than DNA is.
In the Home Affairs Committee, we have had Greg Hands giving evidence in which DNA was taken from him as a Member of Parliament and from his extended family, including his elderly aunts, with police officers travelling the length and breadth of the country to collect that information. I would like some guarantee from you that there is actually something that can demonstrate that DNA is an effective use of taxpayers money, in preference to using that money to recruit more officers, provide more training or in another way, because we do not need the Bill to concentrate on DNA if, in fact, there are more effective ways of tackling crime.
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
Mr. Pugh, you said that DNA does not convict anyone, but of course around the country forces now have cold case review teams and very often the only evidence that the police and, in due course, the CPS will have is the DNA evidence. That is exactly what the cold case review team does: it takes DNA evidence, it compares it and it is making quite sure that people who might have committed rapes or murders 10, 15, 20 years ago actually get caught. That is right, is it not?
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
And DNA is an incredibly useful tool for the police to have in their armoury?
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting that you should have the opportunity of anything other than being able to use DNA. Is not the issue public concern about innocent people having their DNA retained?
I think, Sir Hugh, you put it rather well, really, because it seemed to me as a defence counsel that you got it absolutely right. So far as the police are concerned, there are three kinds of people. There are those who are guilty; there are those who are not guilty; and there are those who the police think, know and feel are guilty but they just have not managed to get enough evidence to convict them.
Is there not a suspicion among large numbers of members of the general public that even though you may not actually have managed to bring a prosecution, sod it, you are jolly well going to keep their DNA, as much as anything to say to them, We think youre guilty; we think theres something untoward about you, and this is a way were going to retain that information. Is not that a concern that many people have?
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
Where in that spectrum do you consider my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to come?
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
Sir Hugh, if you do not know about the individual case, you must be one of very few people in the country who does not know about Damian Greens offices being raided and his being arrested for terrorism. If you are telling this Committee that you do not know about that, I am extremely surprised .
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
I am going to tell you otherwise. Damien Greens DNA has yet to be removed. Can you give any justification or reason why it should be retained?
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
No. You very kindly gave the Committee a spectrum of people, from those who are truly innocent onwards. By what possible justification, using that spectrum, could Damien Greens DNA be retained?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Can I say to Tony Baldry that I think we have taken that specific issue far enough? Can I also say to Sir Hugh I fully understand why you did not appreciate to whom Mr. Baldry was referring when he talked about the hon. Member for Ashford. I am confident that if Mr. Baldry had said Damian Green you would have known immediately of this case.
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend made it clearit is recorded in Hansardthat it has not been removed.
Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)
With respect, my point is this. I hope, Sir Hugh, that you will understand that large numbers of our constituents see no conceivable justification or reason why someone in those circumstances should have their DNA retained on the record. They infer a degree of spitefulness, and thus feel it reflected on them when their DNA is taken by the police. That, it seems to me, is one of the issues that you must consider.
If chief constables act in different ways and consider that they are not acting unreasonably, do we not need to move to the sort of system that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested on Second Readingan independent arbiter to determine what DNA should be retained and what DNA should be deleted?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
May I say to the Committee, and our witnesses, that the Minister has indicated to me that Damian Greens name has been taken off the DNA databaseas far as the Minister is aware. No doubt, Mr. Baldry, you can check that. No doubt, the Minister will himself check and advise us accordingly, if what I have said is inaccurate. I have no doubt that Sir Hugh, in his elevated position, and Gary Pugh, will also make inquiries.
Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)
Are there not two possible issues? The first is the confidence of knowing that if your DNA is taken and recorded, you will not be wrongly accused of something at a later date because of a problem with that DNA evidence. Is that not the underlying reason why many people are a little concerned about having their DNA retained in the circumstances that we have described?
The second issue is the knowledge that ones DNA details are recorded. A person might know that his neighbour had had a visit from the police at a certain time in the morninghe saw the cars pulling up and the officers hammering on the doorbut he will not necessarily know, unless the neighbour decides to tell everyone, that his neighbours DNA had been retained and was on record. May I have your comments on those two possibilities?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
There are people on the database who have been convicted of more minor crimes. That obviously might assist in the future, as you have suggested, in detecting a more serious crime that might be committed, but I would like some idea of how likely it is that someone who commits a minor offence will go on to commit a more serious one, with regard to the population as a whole.
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
If the database is so vital in solving serious crime, should we actually try to get more people on it? Some people have even suggested that the whole population should be on the database. If the whole population was on the database, would there then be a civil liberties issue?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
Many people are worried about false matches and have suggested that if the database grows, there could be more false matches. I would like your comments on that. I have a basic scientific background and I reckon that the more people you have, the less likely it is that there will be false matches.
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
Some countries already use the 15 points of comparison, dont they?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
How long is that likely to take?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Clearly, the issue is finding the right balance between retaining data on peoples DNA and ensuring that we do not go so far that it infringes peoples rights, freedoms and civil liberties. What Parliament clearly has to decide in this legislation is where that balance lies. Will you tell us where you think the balance lies? Is it as proposed in the Bill? Do you think that it goes too far or not far enough? What do you think of the Scottish system? Perhaps you can enlighten us on your own view.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
Can I press you on the answer you gave my colleague, Mr. Rosindell? You both said that you were broadly content, or in agreement, with the provisions in the Bill for six years. That basically means that you concede that DNA should be destroyed or not held after a time period. What I do not understand is that if you have conceded the principle, why six years? Why should it be such a long period? What, in your mind, is so good about six years, apart from the fact that it is in a Bill produced by the Government?
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
Hang on a minute. There are cases in this countryI suspect quite a lot of themwhen people are arrested completely wrongly. They are totally innocent of the crime with which they are charged, they have a blameless life vis-Ă -vis committing crimes before that point and they are found innocent, or it is decided not to proceed with the court case, yet the DNA is on record. Why do you need six years to keep that DNA in order to check, because of other statistics on known criminals who have committed offences, whether they will reoffend?
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
At the moment, in my county of Essex, previous chief constablesI do not know about the current one; there has just been a changerefused every request in every case I have had involving a constituent who made representations to the chief constable. Those people had never in their life committed an offence. One person was never charged with any offence when their DNA was taken. Another was actually the victim of crime. It then transpired that the court case collapsed, and the magistrates expressed amazement that any prosecution was made, as he was the victim of the crime, not the perpetrator. Yet the chief constable would not remove the DNA.
You can argueit is a cop-out in one waythat the Bill will, hopefully, redress such situations and that Parliament should express its view in a uniform way. But it does not get around the original point of the question: why should someone who has no record of committing a crime, who is never charged with or convicted of a crime, have their DNA held for six years?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Can we talk a little about the practicalities of how that retention and deletion will work? Clearly it is quite complicated in terms of who has their DNA retainedwhether they are adults or under-18s, whether the DNA is retained for six, five or three years and whether they are exceptional cases. What prospect is there of that process operating with anything like 90 per cent. effectiveness in all the different police forces that presumably are all using different systems? Perhaps they are not; they may all be using identical systems and so can be calibrated to do this automatically. At a glance, my impression is that whether things happen at the time that anyone expects will be very hit and miss.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Is it one algorithm for each and every police force or will it vary?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
While I understand that an algorithm is the perfect solution, have you already identified circumstances in which the algorithm will not work, based on some of the categories we have listed? Will it require a manual intervention? If not, what solution do you propose to deal with exceptions where the algorithm does not work?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Presumably people will get a letter saying, Congratulations, your details have been deleted from the DNA database.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
That may be something for Ministers to think about.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
On that point, if someone is very unhappy that their DNA is on a database when they have committed no offences, surely they have to be told, if only to reassure them that it has been removed, regardless of the fact that it might cost some money. Given the money that public bodies and Governments spend in other areas that one could question, surely the least one could do is send written confirmation to the individual to put their mind at rest that they are no longer on the database. It seems odd that you think that you should not send out confirmation letters just on cost grounds. What happens if people write to get an assurance? There are some peopleit may seem extraordinarywho are deeply suspicious of the state and want that assurance.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
The Inland Revenue would never make that argument if they wanted money from someone and, I suspect, police officers would not make that argument if they wanted to interview someone. They would find out where that person was.
Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)
On that point, what happens at the moment? Did Damian Green, for example, get a letter or certificate saying that he had been removed? Is there current practice for doing that? There must be, so can we not replicate that practice? I am sure that I read somewhere in all the piles of paper that there was some system for individuals to request and be given a certificate to prove that their DNA had been removed. People are nodding at the back of the room. Clearly someone has thought about it and there is provision in the Bill for it to happen. I am surprised that people do not know about that.
Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)
It is close to working its way from the back to you.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
May I seek, from the Chair, one point of clarification? Are you saying that you believe that the system will guarantee that after six years a name of somebody who has had no further contact with the policewho has committed no further offencewill be automatically removed from the database?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I am grateful, as Chairman, for that clarification.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
For the sake of clarity, at the point where the deletion occurs, is it a complete deletion or is the profile deleted but the name and details retained? Therefore, if someone subsequently approached the police to ask, Was I ever on the database?, would the police be able to confirm, Yes, you were but you have been deleted and we have no records; or would they then not be able to say anything about whether they had or had not at any point been on the database?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
So there would still be a name and you would be able to confirm whether people had or had not been on?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
This questioning has stimulated one of the Ministers to put a question.
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
It is a matter of clarification for me, Sir Nicholas. Going back to Mr. Burns point about what is most contentious about retaining DNAthat is, the issue of innocencelet us say that someone is arrested but found to be innocent and does not go on to offend at a later date, and that someone else is innocent initially but does go on to offend later. Is it not a fact that they are both part of the same group, which, according to research, is more likely than the general population to be arrested again? Is it not the case that the time scale for that is beyond six years, though for the purpose of the Bill the Government have chosen six years as a cautious cut-off point? Is that not the case?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
If that is the evidential base for the system that is being proposed, what is the evidential base for another preferred option for many, which is the Scottish system?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
Okay; and there was not one when it was established.
One final point, if I may, Sir Nicholas, is a question to Sir Hugh. I am not asking you to speak for your colleagues north of the border, but if at some point you had found yourself as a chief police officer north of the borderand if the system that we are proposing was in place, as opposed to the Scottish modelsome 23 serious crimes would have been detected, whereas with the Scottish model they would not. Have I explained that properly?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
So are you telling me that some of your Scottish colleagues would prefer the systems that we are proposing, as opposed to the one that they have?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
A point of fact, as you know, Minister, is that ACPO does not operate in Scotland. We have to get that on the record.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
I think I heard the Minister rightly. He started his questions by saying, On a point of clarification. I think that is correct. Do you find it slightly surprising that a Minister who is taking this Bill through Parliament needs clarification from you on his own Bill, Sir Hugh? Presumably he has been totally briefed on the Bill and does not need clarification
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
You need not answer that question, Sir Hugh.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
Would you then think that the purpose of those questions was not so much clarification, but that the Minister asked because he knows what your organisation thinks and knew that if he asked questions in such a way as to seek clarification he would get answers that confirmed what he wanted to hearwhat the Bill saysthereby suggesting that there was more backing for the Governments Bill?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Sir Hugh Orde, you may, if you wish, answer that question. If you do not wish to
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Sir Hugh, I think it is quite refreshingI can say that as somebody who has been in Parliament for quite a long timethat a Minister is actually prepared to ask a question of a professional police officer. Ministers are not infallible and neither are Members of Parliament, although Ministers are MPs. I found it quite refreshing. I also found Sir Hugh Ordes diplomacy in his response refreshing.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
You do not think, a little naive?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
From the Chair, I would not comment on that matter. The Minister saw fit to ask a question and he has every right to do so, because it is important that during the witness sessions we flush out as much information as possible, including the thoughts and views of the police on this issue, because they are, in some instances, able to convict people who have been found guilty of an offence who otherwise would have been found innocent.
Are there any further questions from Committee members?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Would Sir Hugh or Mr. Pugh tell us what they think is a reasonable periodif any period at allto retain someones DNA, if they are proved innocent having been charged but found not guilty? How long would you consider is reasonable to keep that DNA data?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
How about somebody who is not even charged where their DNA is taken, the case is dropped and they walk away? Damian Green, for example, was arrested but not charged in the end. How long would you say is reasonable to keep DNA in that circumstance?
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
Damian Green?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
So if you go for six years, what difference would seven years make?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
So you think six is about right? Five years or seven years makes no difference; six is about the right balance.
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
Do you think that a number of criminals and even murderers would not have been convicted had the DNA data been deleted after that kind of period?
Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)
How many would you say are in that category?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I think the Minister of State would like to make a comment at this stage.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
If it helps the Committee, in 2008-09 alone, the Association of Chief Police Officers criminal record office found that 79 rape, murder and manslaughter cases in England and Wales matched the DNA database. Of that number, 36 were found to have direct or specific value to the investigation, and 23 victims of serious crime would not have had justice under the Scottish model. Between three and six years is the Bill remit that we are currently talking about and last year alone, 23 individuals were convicted between three and six years for a serious crime.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
May I ask the Minister of State a question? On the figures he has just given us, how many of those cases involved the DNA of an individual who already had a criminal record?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Those 79 individuals had been arrested but not convicted of any crime.
Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)
Before? In their whole lives?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Yes. I would be happy to return to that in my evidence on Thursday.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Sir Hugh and Mr. Pugh, you have been subjected to some fairly aggressive questioning, which is only appropriate on a subject as sensitive and as important as this. In light of those questions, is there any final comment that either or both of you would like to make to the Committee?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Thank you very much. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Gary Pugh and Sir Hugh Orde very much for their transparency and the helpfulness of the information that they provided. I believe that the Committee will go into the debate on the Bill with greater knowledge and more information than would otherwise have been the case. I thank you both very much for your helpful stay with us and for answering the questions so frankly.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I welcome our new witnesses. We can go on if necessary, but perhaps it will not be necessary. Because of the Division that took place earlier, we can go on a little bit beyond 7 oclock, which is normally zero hour. We welcome Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, and Dr. Helen Wallace, the executive director of GeneWatch UK. May I ask you, as I did the previous witnesses, to each make a very brief introductory statement on your viewpositive and, if necessary, negativeof the Bill, the objectives and purpose of which we will debate? Isabella Sankey, may I ask you first to indicate your overview of the Bill?
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Thank you very much indeed. That is very direct and very positive.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
This will help to frame the debate. We have had to wrestle with this issue as Ministers and as parliamentarians, and we will have to wrestle with it during the next few weeks and months. However, I would like to start at the beginning.
Our figures show that, if we adopted the Scottish model as opposed to the model in the Bill, last year alone, there would have been 23 families of victims of rape, murder or manslaughter who would not have seen the individuals who committed those crimes brought to justice. That gives us the nub of our argument and, in a sense, I just want to clear the desk straight away, so I can get your view as to what we should do in that circumstance, when faced with potential evidence that brings 23 individuals to court and is proportionate, but we could not do that if we adopted the Scottish model. I think that ultimately that issue will frame our debate, in terms of the opposition to the Bill.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I will send it to you.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I will happily look at what information we can put into the public domain during the passage of the Bill.
For the purposes of conjecture, however, let me just say something else. If we could prove that there was simply one case that was between three years and six years old and that DNA retention of innocent persons initial DNA led to a conviction in that case, would you still oppose the Bill? If we could prove that, would you still oppose the Bill?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I just wanted to frame the debate, in the sense that this is a debate that we will be having, because all of us want to see people who are guilty being brought to conviction and justice given to families. Our point is what is the maximum period, within European regulations and the judgment that has been made, for which we can retain DNA, which respects rights and has an evidential base but which at the same time maximises the potential for convictions? I simply say that if the debate shows that there is within that period a reasonableness and that there are individuals who are ultimately convicted of crimes between three and six years old under this system, because their DNA has been retained, would you still oppose the Bill, because that system seems to me to be bringing justice to individuals? That is the debateI do not want to frame it. Colleagues will ask questions. But I think that is the nub of our debate.
Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Dr. Wallace, do you wish to come in again, because your colleague responded to a question that was put to you?
Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)
You would accept, though, that our DNA is individual to each of us?