---

Policing and Crime Bill

We have brought forward measures that were not only debated in Parliament, but subject to considerable debate outside Parliament. There has been a long consultation with the public on the measures, and over that time scale additional research has been undertaken, so we cannot be accused of seeking a blank cheque or pushing through measures. Nor can we be accused of proceeding with indecent haste on the issue, particularly when we have addressed the central concern raised in this House and another place, which is that there should have been primary legislation. All those factors have led us to our conclusion. Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) raised about DNA detections. He is right that the number of DNA detections has fallen in recent years. Over the past five years it has fallen by 11 per cent. That is because recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 22 per cent. in that period. If there are fewer crime scenes and fewer cases in which DNA has to be taken, it is hardly surprising that the amount of DNA available to the police and being used for detection should decrease. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we were somehow dragging our feet in responding to S and Marper. In Committee, although he disagreed profoundly with what we did, I thought that he agreed with the route that we had chosen. We were trying to respond to S and Marper; the reality is that Parliament disagreed with the route that we chose. I congratulate him, and to some extent the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, on their pre-emptive strike this afternoon on measures that will, I hope, be part of a future Bill that is to be debated very soon. The points about the validity or otherwise of Home Office research, and the issues to do with terrorist suspects, do not fall within the confines of the amendments that we are discussing, so I will not address them on this occasion. The reality is that we are meeting the challenge of S and Marper: we began to meet it within hours of the judgment, because the two individuals concerned were taken off the database. However, we sought, and are seeking, to introduce further measures that address the wider issues that the judgment raised. We are working very carefully with the Association of Chief Police Officers on changes to the database, but until the legislation changes, the practice does not need to change. I hope that the hon. Member for Chesterfield appreciates that. Until Parliament decides that the situation has changed, therefore, the process will continue as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, we have taken under-10s off the database. We are confident that we will continue to meet the S and Marper judgment. It is important that we meet it in a timely fashion, but it is also important, as the Committee of Ministers said, that we consider those matters very carefully indeed. We will have longer than we anticipated to do that. The Committee, through the judgment, gave us a very clear steer: although it upheld the point about individual rights for people who are on the database—S and Marper—it also accepted our right as a Government to decide where the balance lies on public protection. It is important that we get the balance right, and if it takes longer than we anticipated, so be it. However, by removing the measures from this Bill and, I hope, putting them into a future Bill, we will be able to do precisely that. Lords amendment 40 agreed to. Lords amendments 41and 42 agreed to.