DNA and CCTV (Crime Prevention)

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and I hope that you will pass my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting the debate. It is a welcome opportunity because the debate on the effectiveness of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime has, up to press, been rather sterile. It has been characterised as a debate between those who claim to believe in civil liberties and those who are seen as authoritarian; if one believes in the use of DNA and CCTV, one is automatically regarded as an authoritarian, and if one does not believe in their use, one must believe in civil liberties. I do not accept that rather simplistic premise. Today I want to make the pro-freedom case for CCTV and DNA.

I am a Conservative because I believe in freedom, and I am also proud to be a member of an excellent organisation called the Freedom Association. The last Government were one of the most authoritarian, intolerant and illiberal Governments that the country has ever seen, so I certainly do not support some of the measures they introduced. I consider measures such as identity cards and the ability to lock people up without charge, potentially for 90 days, to be authoritarian

The police asking to see one’s papers is something one would expect to see in an authoritarian state; that would impinge on my individual freedom. However, CCTV cameras being installed on a particular street and forensic laboratories holding my DNA do not in any way impinge on my freedoms, because they do not stop me doing anything that I would otherwise want to do or going about my daily lawful business. We need to distinguish between those measures that impinge on people’s freedoms and those that do not.

The coalition Government have pledged to regulate CCTV and remove from the DNA database the profiles of individuals who are not successfully prosecuted after three years. I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public; it is for that reason that I believe we need, if anything, more CCTV cameras and more people on the DNA database, rather than fewer. Some might argue that that would be an infringement of people’s civil liberties, but I do not know what that term really means. “Civil liberties” is one of those terms bandied about that we are all supposed to believe in because they sound good, such as sustainable development, but no one really knows what they mean. We all believe in social justice, but no one really knows what it means. I am sure that we all believe in civil liberties, but we do not know what the term means. In fact, the definition of civil liberties states:

“They are given to treat all the people equally under the law and make them enjoy rights of speech, protection, enjoyment and liberty.”

It seems to me that the word “protection” is often missed out when people quote about civil liberties. I believe that one of my civil liberties is to walk down the street safely without being the victim of a serious crime. If DNA and CCTV means that more rapists, murderers and muggers are in prison, that enhances my freedoms rather than diminishing them.

I want to be clear from the outset that I am not in favour of the overuse and abuse of CCTV cameras. I do not agree, for example, with local authorities putting cameras into people’s bins to see what kind of rubbish they throw out, which is ludicrous. I am talking about using CCTV as a crime-fighting measure for identifying and prosecuting criminals. There are many reasons for further regulating CCTV; it has been suggested that the images are often of poor quality, that the cameras are costly to install and run and that they can be used for underhand purposes. I want to tackle all those concerns. We should not, however, be provoked into a knee-jerk reaction and, as a result, remove cameras, reduce their numbers or over-regulate their use, which would make them worthless. CCTV images are now often of high quality and have good time frames, and many pictures are now in colour. It is possible to see things from different angles using footage taken from different cameras.

A Scotland Yard study into the effectiveness of surveillance cameras revealed that almost every Scotland Yard murder inquiry uses CCTV footage as evidence. In 90 murder cases over one year, CCTV footage was used in 86 of the investigations, and senior officers said that it helped in of the 65 cases by capturing the murderer on film or the movements of suspects before or after an attack. Scotland Yard’s head of homicide, Simon Foy, said:

“CCTV plays a huge role in helping us investigate serious crime. I hope people can understand how important it is to our success in catching people who commit murder.”

In many areas, CCTV is watched live by monitoring teams who can call the police to the scene of a crime.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that CCTV evidence has had a big impact in reducing the number of contested prosecutions and, therefore, the cost to the criminal justice system?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and has pre-empted what I was about to say. In this age of austerity, we should be trying to find ways of reducing the cost of the criminal justice system, and as she rightly noted, CCTV is a key way of doing that.

Unless millions of police officers are stationed on every street corner, in every park and on every road, without CCTV those crimes would go unreported and often undetected. A prime example is that of the so-called “crossbow cannibal”, who was arrested on suspicion of murdering three prostitutes in my home city of Bradford, but only because he was caught on CCTV. Without CCTV, that arrest would never have been made. We would never have been able to identify the 7 July bombers without the CCTV footage from the tube because the police would have been unable to track their movements on that day.

Let us look at the cost-effectiveness of CCTV. The average running cost of a CCTV system with 150 cameras is about £320,000 a year, and on average 3,000 events are monitored every year by each system, giving an average cost of about £100 per incident. It seems to me that that is good value for money in this age of austerity. It seems even better value when we consider that a 12-month experimental study in Burnley showed a 28% reduction in crime in an area with CCTV, compared to a 10% increase in crime in an area that relied solely on policing. Therefore, CCTV is not only cost-effective, but effective in reducing crime in the real world. An initiative in my constituency in west Yorkshire set up a CCTV camera, which cost only a few thousand pounds, and Crimestoppers has stated that the number of arrests and charges has increased by 40% as a result, so its cost-effectiveness has been proved beyond doubt.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, CCTV is a valuable tool not only for the police, but for the courts. It is an invaluable tool on two levels: for convicting the perpetrators of crimes; and for acquitting those who have not committed a crime. CCTV footage provides conclusive and unbiased evidence, void of anyone’s spin or mistaken recollection. When viewed by defendants and their solicitors, footage often leads to a change of plea, from not guilty to guilty. That invariably happens in cases in which defendants were drunk or on drugs when they committed an offence and could not recall it. That not only saves the courts time and money, as the hon. Lady suggested, but prevents witnesses having to give evidence in court, which is often a stressful and unpleasant experience. CCTV prevented Richard Whelan’s girlfriend from having to testify against his murderer, Anthony Joseph, who brutally stabbed Richard on a bus when he was attempting to defend her. That attack was caught on camera and Joseph, a paranoid schizophrenic, was jailed.

Equally, CCTV can prove that someone has been wrongly accused of committing a crime, as was the case with Edmund Taylor, who was convicted of dangerous driving. His conviction was quashed on appeal, when CCTV footage showed that a white man had committed the offence—Mr Taylor was black. Similarly, Garry Wood was cleared of raping Natalie Jefferson after police studied CCTV footage of his movements on the night of the rape and realised that he had not committed the crime.

I want to touch on the automatic number plate recognition scheme because it was through its use, and that alone, that the murderers of PC Sharon Beshenivsky were caught. Without an ANPR system around Bradford, those people would never have been brought to justice. On 18 November 2005, PC Beshenivsky was shot and killed during a robbery in Bradford. The CCTV network was linked in to an ANPR system and was able to identify the getaway car and track its movements. Because of that system, the police realised that the people responsible were in London, virtually before those people knew it themselves, and six suspects were arrested. At the system’s launch in May, Chief Superintendent Geoff Dodd of West Yorkshire police called it

“a revolutionary tool in detecting crime”.

Many of my constituents are sick to the back teeth of drivers who do not have insurance, and who not only put other people at risk, but cause them unnecessary expense. Many of my constituents think that it is absolutely fantastic that the police can use ANPR to stop people who drive without insurance, and can confiscate the cars. I would not want anybody to try to stop the police doing that.

I am obviously interested to know what the Minister thinks of CCTV. In 2007, he was calling for more CCTV cameras in his then constituency of Hornchurch. On his website he stated:

“I think CCTV would help to make an important difference in supporting the local police. It will also make clear to those intent on causing crime in Elm Park that their images will be recorded, increasing the likelihood that they will be identified, prosecuted and punished for their offences.”

I could not agree more. I absolutely endorse everything that the Minister said then, and hope that he still feels the same.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I do not think that in this debate any Member is likely to say that they are not in favour of CCTV, but I do want to see where the boundaries of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for these systems stop. The ANPR system in Birmingham was installed in a predominantly Muslim area, with a view to tracking vehicles coming in to and going out of the area. Does the hon. Gentleman support that? Does his enthusiasm go that far?

[Philip Davies]

One purpose of this debate was to flush out the fact that people do support CCTV, even though they are always reluctant to say so, and I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he now supports it. On his point, surely the solution is to have more CCTV, because if there is more CCTV and more ANPR systems no community can feel that they are being unduly picked on, or picked on to the exclusion of others. If everybody has the systems, nobody can feel that they are treated unfairly. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument is, therefore, for more rather than fewer of these systems, and I wholly support him in that.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Gentleman, or any Member here, ever had a constituent come to their advice surgery asking for less CCTV, or for CCTV systems to be taken away?

[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.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Would he agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, that before we rush into any hasty decisions, it is at least worth retaining the DNA database until 2012, when for the first time we will have six years of statistics? That would be wise, considering that the Scottish police say that they would rather have our system than their current one.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with the right hon. Lady; she is absolutely right.

There is always the risk that, the day after any cut-off point, someone could, for example, go out and commit a murder. In that instance, such a person’s previous DNA would not be available to the police so that they could detect the crime and prevent further murders, because it would have been destroyed in the name of civil liberties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that carefully before coming up with any reduced time scales for the retention of data, as it is Ministers who will have to live with the consequences of their actions further down the line.

In the fight against crime, effective technology such as DNA and CCTV should be encouraged, not discouraged. Those methods can hugely speed up police detection of crime, which could mean the difference between life and death for someone else. It really is that serious, which is why I am so determined to fight any proposals to restrict the use of those technologies in the name of so-called civil liberties.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—he is very generous.

Is his position the same as that argued by his hon. Friend sitting next to him, the hon. Member for Bury North, that the DNA database should be extended to include everyone?

[Philip Davies]

I think I dealt with that in an earlier intervention. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North was proposing taking people’s DNA at birth, I would agree. However, that is a battle for further down the line. What I am worried about at the moment is that we are removing from the database a limited number of people’s DNA. We have not yet reached the issue of whether to extend the database—I wish we were and that that was the nature of the debate we are having today.

I am trying to stop the Government from making the stupid mistake of removing people from the DNA database. That is why I am so determined to fight the proposals to restrict the use of such technologies in the name of so-called civil liberties. Organisations such as Liberty are not really arguing for civil liberties but for anarchy, which cannot be right. I am sure that they would prefer it if no one was arrested for anything, but I am afraid that in the real world that is not what we are here to do.

All our liberties are at stake—our liberty to walk down the street safely is at stake. Again quoting the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, I totally agree with what he said in a speech last week:

“crime can never be too low; our streets can never be too safe and there can never be excuses for inaction.”

Unfortunately, the Government give the impression that they do not believe in CCTV or DNA. They may not go as far as I would, but I hope that this debate will at least give the Minister the opportunity to make it clear to the House and to the police that he supports the use of CCTV, DNA and automatic number plate recognition as essential tools in fighting crime that keep us safe, enhancing our freedoms, not diminishing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), with her very informative speech, and to serve under you, Mr Chope, for the first time. I was about to describe the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as the Shami Chakrabarti of the Conservative party until he described Liberty as an anarchist organisation, so I shall have to refrain and instead describe him as a kind of male Boadicea from Yorkshire, on his chariot fighting for the civil liberties of this country.

I think that there is no disagreement among Members of the House that we need both DNA on a database and CCTV as tools in our fight against crime. I would be amazed if any hon. Member said that we should stop using either of those two very important techniques in trying to detect crime. The division will be over the extent to which we use DNA and a DNA database and cameras to detect crime.

It would be churlish of me not to welcome what the Government propose, because it is fully in line with two reports by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the previous Parliament. Both were unanimous and both called for changes to be made. To be fair to the former police Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we had the Government moving in the right direction, at least as regards the DNA database.

We have the largest DNA database in the world; 15,000 profiles are added every week. It is much larger than that of any other country in Europe, given the new information put on it on a daily basis. I shall explain the problem for the Select Committee and, I think, for other Members of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley has discussed this with his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). Quite innocently, he was asked to provide DNA to the police for an inquiry, and he waited for months and months to get information about whether the police had that DNA on their database. The issue for members of the Committee and Members of the House was very much one of process. I think that if the process of getting information from the police was a little better, we would not now be talking about trying to control the very large number of names on the database.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for whom I have huge respect, mentioned the black community and their willingness to be protected by the taking of DNA, but she will know that 75% of young black men are on the DNA database. It disproportionately takes DNA from young black people, so there are lots of faults with the current system. I think that all the Government are seeking to do—obviously, it is for the Minister, not me, to make the Government’s case—is control it and to allow innocent people to have the opportunity, if they choose to do so, to apply to one organisation and receive a reply about whether their DNA is on the database.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

If we examine the process, the issue of whether the database should be extended can be dealt with, but I think that if people are innocent and are caught in a situation in which they have absolutely nothing to do with a crime, their DNA should not be on the database. The former Government moved significantly, from 12 years to six, and I hope that the present Government will carefully examine the process as well as the principle of what is proposed.

I understand that there are 4.2 million CCTV cameras. Someone can be caught on average 300 times a day on a CCTV camera. I had no idea that we had more in Orkney than in San Francisco per head of population, but those are very important statistics. We are not saying and the Select Committee, in its unanimous report, did not say, “Stop using CCTV cameras,” simply because every time that I go back to my constituency, local residents are calling for more cameras.

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I want to make the point that the figure of 4.5 million CCTV cameras is derived by Professor Clive Norris for the EU-funded Urbaneye project. It counts the number of cameras in Putney high street and extrapolates that figure across London and then the UK. There are nowhere near 4.5 million CCTV cameras. According to the people who actually use the system, the figure is much nearer 1.5 million.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I knew there would be an EU dimension to this debate somewhere. However, we have reached the stage at which we have too many cameras in the wrong places. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge said, we need more in different areas; they need to be fit for purpose; we need to know what their use is. That is why the Select Committee suggested that we have not reached the stage of being a surveillance society, but we are almost there, so let us stop and pause, which is precisely what the Government are doing in adopting the recommendations of the Select Committee, and examine the current situation. We also proposed that we should ensure that once a year the Information Commissioner lays a report before Parliament on this issue and that we have a proper debate, not in Westminster Hall but on the Floor of the House, where many more hon. Members can participate on these two very important subjects.

The hon. Member for Shipley and other hon. Members have quoted police officers and others in support of their arguments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) served as a police officer for eight years in Lothian and the Borders, so he comes to the House with huge experience on this issue. However, we do not always accept everything that the police have to say. They are very useful in providing us with information. The only time that the Select Committee divided in the previous Parliament was over the 42 days issue. That was the only time we had a vote, and that was because powerful evidence was given by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We take such information, and obviously we have huge respect for those who implement these decisions, but at the end of the day, it is our judgment as politicians.

I shall just put one more expert into the pot, for the purposes of the discussion. I am referring to the views of Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who discovered DNA profiling and who, in evidence to the Select Committee, said that he thought that it had gone too far or at least Governments had gone too far in extending and expanding the database. He suggested that there was a limit. We understand why DNA should be kept on the database if people are convicted, if they are charged, but if they are innocent, a time limit should be the order of the day. If not, they should have the ability to ask at least whether their DNA is being retained on the database.