Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely valid point. It is in a sense an extension of the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—notably, one difficulty was that parts of the community felt that the way in which the stop-and-search powers were used was disproportionate. The concerns were such that they began to bring into disrepute the police’s ability to keep us safe at the same time as we, as a Parliament, maintained our civil liberties.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she confirm that there will be no increase in police paperwork as a result of the changes?

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that he keeps us up to the mark on our commitments on police bureaucracy. It is certainly not my intention that there should be any increase in police paperwork as a result of the changes.

DNA and CCTV (Crime Prevention)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady makes a fantastic point. I certainly have never had anybody in my surgery making such a request—quite the opposite. If I am ever lobbied by any of my constituents regarding CCTV, it is because they want more of it—they would like some of it down their street, for tackling crime.

Of those surveyed for a 2005 Home Office report into public attitudes towards CCTV, 82% either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Overall, the advantages of CCTV outweigh the disadvantages.” I do lots of surveys in my constituency, and fear of crime is always the top issue, whatever else is in the news. It seems, therefore, that the public, once again, are streets ahead of politicians in recognising the importance of these crime-fighting capabilities.

Many opponents of CCTV and ANPR use this “civil liberties” argument, but I fail to understand how footage taken by CCTV cameras on a public street invades anyone’s privacy. If someone chooses to walk down a street, or go shopping in a town centre, they have made a conscious decision to do so in the public domain and their actions are clearly not private. I could understand the concern if it were proposed that CCTV cameras were put into people’s bedrooms or bathrooms, because those are clearly private domains, but the only thing that a public CCTV camera can possibly do is prevent people from committing crime, or from doing something antisocial or something that they should not otherwise be doing. It does not impinge on their freedom to go about their daily, lawful business.

The same civil liberties argument seems to be used against the DNA database, with people claiming that innocents’ profiles should be removed. Again, I do not understand for the life of me why forensic laboratories holding somebody’s DNA infringes that person’s liberty; it does not prevent anybody from going about their daily, lawful business. We all have a national insurance number, which is used for identification purposes, and I am sure that hon. Members know the benefits of national insurance numbers in identifying constituents when corresponding with various parts of the state, for example the Child Support Agency and Revenue and Customs for tax credits. How is a DNA number different from a national insurance number? The use of DNA is heavily restricted by legislation that permits its retention only for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions that at birth everyone is issued with a national insurance number. It seems that if a DNA sample was linked to a child’s national insurance number when they were registered in the national insurance system, the allegation that the retention of DNA profiles is unfair would be eradicated at a stroke.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If he is arguing that we should take people’s DNA at birth, I certainly do not disagree with that. I am afraid, however, that we are in the position of trying to persuade the Government not to take people off the DNA system, rather than to add people to it. I would rather try to win the first battle before fighting for more ambitious targets, but I am sure that if anyone can persuade the Government it is my hon. Friend, and I will happily support him in any way that I can.

The use of DNA is highly regulated. During the application for a judicial review of the retention of DNA in the divisional court, the now Lord Justice Leveson stated:

“the material stored says nothing about the physical makeup, characteristics, or life of the person to whom they belong.”

The whole reason for introducing the legislation that allowed the retention of data was based on two very serious cases. One was the rape of an elderly woman and the other was a murder. In both cases, the DNA matches of the perpetrators had to be ignored, as prior to the rape and the murder the individuals concerned had been arrested for offences but not convicted. In the murder case, there was even a conviction based on the DNA evidence, but it was quashed by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the evidence should not have been admitted in the first place. That means that somebody who was clearly a convicted murdered walked free. It was not the first time that had happened, and it will not be the last, if those calling for fewer people to be on the DNA database get their way. I would like to know how on earth that fits with the Government’s first duty to protect the public.

If we accept the Government’s suggestion of removing the unconvicted people from the DNA database, murderers such as Ronald Castree would be free to roam the streets and to kill again. Castree stabbed 11-year-old Lesley Molseed in 1975, when she was on the way to the shop to buy bread for her mother. Stefan Kiszcko was wrongfully convicted and jailed for 16 years for the murder, until 2005 when Castree’s DNA was taken after he had been arrested, but not charged, over another sexual attack. A cold case of Molseed’s murder provided a match with Castree’s DNA, which would not have been on the database if the Government and those other people had their way.

Figures from the National Policing Improvement Agency state that, in 2008-09, 32,209 crimes were connected in which a DNA match was available or played a part. The latest annual report on the national DNA database concluded that six in 10 crime-scene profiles loaded to the database were matched to a subject’s profile. Many violent criminals have only been jailed because their DNA was taken when they committed a minor offence.

Dennis Fitzgerald was sentenced to eight years in prison for the rape of a woman in November 1987. Nasser Mohammed was jailed in 2008 for raping a woman in 2002, after his DNA was taken when he was picked up for a minor offence. Often, a DNA match is the only thing that brings perpetrators to justice. Harry Musson raped a woman in her own bed while high on horse tranquillisers, and was jailed after 19 years when South Yorkshire police used DNA technology to match his profile to the crime scene. The case was reopened in March 2007, following advances in DNA science. Similarly, Neil Hague was jailed for six years in January 2010 for raping a woman on her way to church in 1987.

I could go on—I have case after case of people who have been convicted simply using DNA matches. I know that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has been prominent with her campaign about anonymity in rape cases, but that, I suggest gently, is to me a sideshow compared with what might happen to rape convictions if we start taking lots of people’s DNA off the database.

The statistics can also speak for themselves about the so-called innocent people on the DNA database. In 2008-09, a research project looked at 639 profile matches in murder, manslaughter and rape cases. The results show that 11% of those matches belonged to individuals who did not have a conviction at the time of the match, but whose DNA had been retained on the database. If the law was changed to stop those people being on there, they would not have been brought to justice—we are talking about 70 serious offenders who would still have been out on the streets.

I am interested to know what my ministerial colleague believes. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), now the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, said in a question-and-answer session in 2007:

“We shouldn't forget that the DNA database has enabled the police to solve a huge number of crimes, including very serious ones. I myself would have no objection to my DNA being put on it.”

I endorse that—I tried to give my DNA to the local police force in my area, because I am such a keen supporter. However, I was told that I was not able to do so because I was not a suspect or involved in a previous crime. I have written to the Home Secretary to ask why people who volunteer their DNA are being refused the right to put it in the database. I await her reply.

The DNA database can also be used to acquit the innocent. The first murder conviction using DNA evidence, in 1988, proved the innocence of another suspect. Richard Buckland was suspected of separately assaulting and murdering two schoolgirls in 1983 and 1986, but subsequent comparison of his DNA sample with DNA found on the bodies of the two victims proved that he was not the killer. Colin Pitchfork was later arrested, having been one of the 5,000 local villagers who volunteered their DNA after which a match was found.

Another famous case is that of Sean Hodgson, who was wrongly imprisoned for 27 years for the rape and murder of Teresa de Simone in 1979. The police ignored a confession at the time by David Lace, and not until his body was exhumed in 2009 and his DNA cross-checked was he found to be the real killer.

Even if the Government disregard what I think about DNA and CCTV, and disregard what the public think, I hope that they will listen to what the professionals think—those professionals who have to deal with the repercussions of any change in policy.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“DNA sample analysis plays an important part in protecting the public, and in the detection and prosecution of serious crime, as well as enabling the proper exculpation of the innocent.”

Interestingly, he also stated that a prosecution would not be brought on the basis of DNA evidence alone, as there must be appropriate supporting evidence. However, he went on to say that

“a suspect's failure to account for the presence of his DNA at the scene of a crime may, in some circumstances, constitute appropriate supporting evidence.”

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, has given his own DNA. He says:

“The larger the better from a policing perspective.”

Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said:

“DNA puts a person in a place and then they have to explain that.”

Lord Justice Selby, one of England's most experienced Appeal Court judges, told the BBC that he thinks—like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) —that the entire UK population and every visitor to Britain should be put on a national DNA database. He thinks that the current system

“means that a great many people who are walking the streets, and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free.”

That seems to accord with the view of the United Arab Emirates, which announced in October 2009 that it will create a national DNA database covering the entire resident population.

We must also be careful making changes to the rules on DNA retention while looking to the Scottish model as the holy grail. First, we are not comparing like with like, as there is a distinctly different judicial system in Scotland. Secondly, the Scottish system for dealing with DNA is not fairer than the UK’s at all. The DNA of adults arrested or charged but not convicted of violent or sexual offences can be held for an initial three-year period—an important point, because if a sheriff believes that there are reasons for keeping such data beyond the three-year period, he can extend it for an additional two years, and so on.

In the cases of the most serious crimes, it could be many years before a further offence is committed by someone cleared or not charged with an earlier criminal act. That concerns me greatly—the proposals to destroy what could be potentially crucial information need to be carefully considered before people who have committed a crime are let off.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the nature of regulation. We are considering its ambit and scope in relation to public versus private areas, and publicly-owned versus privately-owned CCTV. Of course we are conscious of the regulatory burden and the possible regulatory impact. That will be a factor that we shall consider—and are considering—as part of the regulatory framework we shall bring to the House, so that there can be further debate.

Perhaps I should return to the central issue of the debate and the balance between the public’s right to be protected from crime and individuals’ right to live their lives without undue interference. I do not see that there is necessarily a conflict between the two. We are rightly proud in this country of our tradition of policing by consent. Securing the trust and confidence of the public is vital to the police, to enable them to detect and prevent crime effectively. That extends to the techniques and tools used by the police in their role. I was struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart); one of his key points was about the concepts of usefulness and effectiveness. If we ensure that there is trust and confidence, and that the scientific elements are deployed so as to be more effective and so as to secure public trust and confidence in them, that in itself aids policing; it aids confidence, trust and belief in the work that the police do on our behalf to make communities safer. That is an important aspect of the debate and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

We are all aware of cases in which DNA evidence has been important in proving guilt or innocence, and several examples have been given this morning. The fight against crime necessitates the use of modern scientific techniques of investigation and identification. Indeed, this country claims a pioneering role in utilising DNA technology. As we have heard, it has proportionately one of the largest DNA databases in the world, with more than 6.1 million profiles stored on it. It has grown by more than 1 million profiles in the past two years. The use of technology must strike the right balance between the wider interest of public protection and the respecting of private life rights. That sense of proportionality is central to the debate.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will the Minister explain briefly how having a DNA profile put on a database can affect someone’s private rights? How does their profile being on a database impinge on their rights?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that I touched earlier on the fact that it is a question of the way the state may perceive an individual as a criminal, when they are innocent, and the impact of that on a person. As a Home Office Minister I sign many letters to honourable colleagues who have raised that point, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tynemouth used to do so before me.

This morning’s debate is drawing to a conclusion. I look forward to continuing debate and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to engage positively in it as we progress and as further details of our proposals are published. We have reflected on the need for and effectiveness of CCTV systems and the DNA database in helping to prevent and detect those crimes that are of most importance to our constituents, in a way that respects their civil liberties and commands their confidence and thus supports the police in making us all that much safer.