Clause 14
Crime and Security Bill
6:00 pm

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 14, page 28, line 41, leave out ‘arrested for or’.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 37 and 38.

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

The amendments relate to drafting errors in respect of the introduction of regimes for the destruction of fingerprints and DNA materials. Amendment 36 alters the substituted section 64(5)(b) of PACE by removing the mistaken repeated reference to an arrest under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as it is already provided for under the substituted section 64(5)(a).

Amendment 37 alters the substituted section 64ZK(4)(a) of PACE by removing the erroneous reference to samples and impressions of footwear. Amendment 38 corrects an identical drafting error in the Northern Ireland provisions. I am happy to go into detail if hon. Members wish, but, in essence, the purpose of the amendments is to correct drafting errors. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.

James Brokenshire (- Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)

The Minister’s brief explanation has highlighted an interesting point. Government amendment 37 would remove references to samples and impressions of footwear in relation to retention for purposes of national security—the footwear element is not to be included. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how the utilisation of footwear samples is progressing. That was something that was brought in after PACE. Why do the amendments appear to make that distinction? It is interesting to see the utility of fingerprint evidence, particularly how it is used in, for example, the counter-terrorism fingerprint database, and how that is the primary method by which information is  used by the relevant Governments, and how, in this country, we have seen a great increase in the forensic use of DNA material.

The amendment throws up the question about where footwear samples fit into the overall picture. This is a forensic method that has been developed over time. Clearly, the Minister has given some thought to the issues by making the distinction drawn in the amendment, but it would be helpful to understand better how this is now progressing. Is there a footwear database? To what extent has it now grown? How many impressions does it show? I appreciate that impressions of footwear can be an important forensic tool in the context of gang and youth-related violence.

I realise that it is a technical matter, but I would like to understand why the amendment has been drawn up in this way. It may be that there is some disparity in the drafting of the relevant legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister provided further background to how the provisions are expected to be used and why the change is required. Is it simply a legalistic requirement, or is there some greater subtlety or significance that may not immediately be apparent from the amendment and the notes attached to it?

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that there is no subtlety behind the amendments. The amendments are clearly in place to do what they say on the tin which, in the case of amendment 37, is to remove the erroneous reference to samples and impressions of footwear. The section is intended to provide only for the retention, for the purposes of national security, of DNA profiles and fingerprints, and not of samples or impressions of footwear that must be destroyed earlier

I assure the Committee that there is no footwear database in place in the Government and that there is no use of those impressions outside general criminal investigations. Certainly—I have had it reconfirmed by those we cannot mention in Committee and who support me on these matters—that there is no database of crime scene footwear marks at all. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will look at the Hansard record of the points that he has made and see if there are further points that I need to clarify for him. However, I simply seek to ensure that we change the amendments to PACE, as I have tried to openly say to the Committee.

James Brokenshire (- Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 14, page 29, line 14, leave out ‘sooner’ and insert ‘later’.

We now turn to the destruction of samples dealt with in proposed new section 64ZA of PACE. We welcome the Government’s approach in recognising that samples should be kept for a reasonable period only, in order to enable a profile to be derived from them. A wealth of genetic information can found in a sample, so we need to protect it and ensure that it cannot be misused. I appreciate the thinking behind the provisions. They seek to apply certain limits to the period during which DNA samples can be retained, the focus being on creating the DNA profile. It is a sensitive issue.

The amendment is a probing one. There is a desire for profiles to be generated as soon as possible following the taking of the DNA sample. In essence, I understand that it is intended that there should be a six-month long stop. If a profile has not been derived within six months, the police and law enforcement agencies will have missed the chance of doing so.

The provision will obviously have the potential to bring savings on storage costs that might otherwise accrue. At the moment, a significant quantity of DNA material has to be stored as a result of pre-existing searches. In the context of the six-month provision, it would help if the Minister were to say what the cost savings might be if we no longer needed to store the base material, notwithstanding that it would be coded and put on the DNA database as a profile. We need to understand the implications of that. The provision is for a six-month period. Is it intended to have a phased introduction of these procedures? What would be the implication if samples were to be retained beyond six months?

From my reading of the Bill, I assume that there might be limitations on how it could be used. For example, if a sample had not been destroyed within six months, what remedy would there be? If there is a subsequent dispute, outside the six-month period, about whether the profile was derived from the sample, would there be other rights to enable a further sample to be taken to ensure utilisation?

In essence, the amendment is probing. We wish fully to understand the process of the intended six-month long stop and to be sure that it is correctly stated in its current format. I have used this important point to facilitate a small debate on the matter. I welcome the Government’s approach, although there will be differences between us on clause 14. However, it would be useful to know about the guidance on roll-out, and what the cost savings and benefits might be as a consequence of the introduction of any such arrangement.

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the six-month limit is a back-stop provision to ensure that all samples, even those that cannot be satisfactorily, are destroyed within six months. The clause clearly requires that samples be destroyed as soon as the DNA profile has been satisfactorily derived, or in any case no later than six months after the sample is taken. There is a back-stop, it is six months for all samples—partial or otherwise—and that is clear in the Bill.

Inserting the word “later” would mean that the destruction point would move to six months after taking the sample or later, if at that point the DNA profile had not been satisfactorily derived. The amendment would extend rather than limit the six-month period. I would rather stick with the provision in the Bill. I know that it is a probing amendment.

James Brokenshire (- Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)

How does the provision interrelate with some of the provisions that we debated earlier on officers’ ability to go back to someone? Obviously, there would be concerns about abuse of the previous provisions such that if, for example, it was realised very late in the day that there had been a mistake, someone could be constantly going back and, therefore, extending a six-month period by taking a new sample and creating a further  six-month window. I do not believe that that is the intention but it will be helpful if the Minister responds to that point.

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the intention. The intention is clear in the legislation; we have a definitive six-month back-stop on the maintenance of the DNA samples prior to profiling. The amendment would extend that period considerably.

On the potential savings, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the explanatory notes, under “Financial Effects of the Bill”, paragraph 200, it says

“There would also be estimated potential savings of £7.8 million...in each of the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. There will also be potential one-off savings of £5.1 million”

as a result of the provisions, which, in the current financial circumstances, is not an insignificant sum for the Home Office and those in the police service undertaking these activities.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)

I have an anxiety. I know that the general view, which is probably my view at the end of the day, is that the samples must be destroyed as specified in the Bill. I have made the point about what an important detective instrument the DNA database is. Reverting to the case of Mr. X that I described to the Committee, 10 years ago they took a sample that was incapable of being profiled because it was damaged, but in the course of time the low copy technique came into being and it became possible to obtain a profile from the damaged sample.

We are excluding, by our determination on destruction, the ability of future technology to refine further our ability to profile from existing samples, and it may be that that is inevitable and right; or perhaps we have no choice because of public opinion, but that is what we are doing. We cannot accept that our current technology represents the only and optimal stage. It will develop, as low copy techniques came along from the early sampling methods. Somewhere down the track, we will find that we can take DNA samples from the most damaged and tiniest of specimens, but if we have destroyed them, there will be no evidence. I am right in that analysis.

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is indeed correct. A DNA sample might be destroyed, at the end of the six-month period, that could, when technology progresses in five, 10 or 15 years, lead to a profile that leads to conviction that leads to justice and an imprisonment. I fully accept that that is the case. We have to look at these matters in a proportionate way. Again, as with the remainder of the Bill on the length of time that we are keeping the profiles and the scope of young people and others on the profiles, we are trying to be proportionate in relation to judgments that have been made. We have come to the conclusion that a six-month period is proportionate. We can justify it and, crucially, it gives sufficient time to establish on the basis of our current knowledge a profile in the event of a profile being drawn from that sample. However, I fully accept the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes.

James Brokenshire (- Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. This is an important issue and I am interested to hear the potential cost savings that might accrue as a result of the changes envisaged here. There will be increasing changes through the use of technology and the destruction should not relate to crime scene profiles or evidence that may subsequently be used for matching. That will be maintained and reflects no change when we are talking about samples. That must be the case. This debate has helped us to understand the approach and the way in which this would be dealt with. Some samples from a crime scene may be fragmented, but as our technology advances it may lead to convictions in due course as we are more able to extrapolate from them. I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.