---

Policing and Crime Bill

Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42 are very welcome, because they remove the Government's attempt to give themselves a blank cheque to act on such a controversial issue, whereby in light of the European ruling on DNA, they would say, "We'll go away and come up with suggestions in private. We'll write them into law. We'll put them through a Statutory Instrument Committee. There'll be no debate in Parliament. There'll be no primary legislation," and we would have to leave it to the Government to do things on the quiet. That was obviously, from day one, utterly unacceptable on such a major controversial issue as the retention of innocent people's DNA in particular. The haste earlier this year was quite inexplicable. We had a very good Public Bill Committee. Quite unusually for such Committees, we had the time to debate properly nearly everything that we wanted. We had some extra sittings in the evening to ensure that we could cover every issue properly, without feeling at the end of the debates in Committee that important issues had just gone by and not been discussed. It was a really good, constructive Committee. Yet at the very last minute, with no time for serious debate at all, the Government introduced two radical suggestions with big implications—one on gang injunctions, which we have just been discussing, and the other the blank-cheque approach to DNA that says, "Trust us." Well, no, on this issue above all, the public and Parliament do not trust the Government to go away, cook up something in a back room and pass it. It is welcome that at long last, right at the end of the process, the Government are accepting Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42, and are withdrawing the ridiculously badly thought-out and hasty proposal, made earlier in the year, that they should decide the matter on the quiet, without any public or parliamentary scrutiny. We understand that the issue will be back in the Queen's Speech next Wednesday, but at least it will be subject to proper debate, and at least there will be a piece of primary legislation. As for the suggestion that we keep innocent people's DNA for six years, that is still far too long, even if it is an improvement on previous Government practice. A constituent of mine, Tony Hedley, who was on a BBC radio programme yesterday speaking about this, would certainly feel that that was far too long. He had false allegations made against him with regard to a relatively trivial matter. The charges were quickly dropped, but he cannot get his DNA records back; they are still being held by Derbyshire police. Mr. Hedley has contacted Derbyshire police force many times, and I have written to it. He has contacted 10 Downing street twice, and had acknowledgements but no reply. Derbyshire police force says that it cannot get rid of the DNA records of that totally innocent person until the Government change their policies. I hope that the Government will change them dramatically. I do not know why, back in February, when the Government wanted a blank cheque, they did not just introduce amendments or new clauses to the Bill, implementing the Scottish practice, which already works very well in that part of the UK. The European Court of Human Rights has already declared that approach to be absolutely acceptable in terms of human rights legislation. If the Government had introduced such a system, the provisions would now be passing into law. Why they did not do that is impossible to understand. They did not need to go away and think about the matter, they did not need to do their own research, however half-baked that research may or may not, be, and they did not have to come up with their own suggestions. What is the basis for the suggestion, which we have heard, that an innocent person whose DNA is taken will either offend within six years or not at all, so the DNA can be got rid of after six years? What is the basis for such approaches? Why not just put into law the well-tried, successful and fairly widely accepted Scottish practice, which already works in part of the United Kingdom?