Ms Walley: The real point is how we can promote partnership at the local level in consultation with all the groups that should be involved. It would helpful if the Minister could clarify that point further before Committee stage.

Mr. Watts: The consultation phase is important, and when we consider whether to support transport packages, we will want to be convinced that there has been proper, widespread consultation and that there is a consensus of support for the measures proposed--if not, they are less likely to succeed. That is a point that we will discuss further.

I shall now explain how we envisage that the system of reviewing and setting targets will fit into the existing procedures for considering local transport strategies. Given the differing local government structures and financial mechanisms for providing support to local authorities in England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will be necessary to give further thought to how to proceed in each country. Therefore, the Bill should not attempt to set hard and fast rules about the mechanisms to be used to undertake such reviews.

Those mechanisms can and should be agreed in due course outside the legislative terms of the Bill, not least because of the need for consultation with local authorities

24 Jan 1997 : Column 1228

I shall confine myself in my remaining remarks to discussing the situation in England, although I am not suggesting that the Bill is in any way less important in Scotland and Wales. There is no reason why a review of the need for targets should be a free-standing exercise in a vacuum. On the contrary, it would make sense to consider further how local authorities might choose to incorporate it into their existing transport planning systems. That brings me to the question of the package approach and the present arrangements in England for providing capital support to local authorities' transport programmes.

Given the nature of the transport policies and programme--TPP--system, we wish to consider whether it might offer a suitable mechanism for local authorities examining whether targets have a role to play and what those targets should be. I note that the latest edition of the Transport 2000 "Streets Ahead" bulletin accepts the TPP submission as an appropriate vehicle for setting targets to reduce the rate of traffic growth and to stabilise traffic volumes. I should add that my Department has already made it clear to local authorities that the use of targets has a helpful role to play in devising and monitoring transport strategies for their areas.

However, given what I have said about the differing needs of individual parts of the country and the circumstances of separate authorities, I do not believe that it would be right to lay down inflexible conditions in the Bill for the setting of targets, such as the measures to be adopted or the statistical bases against which changes in traffic volume should be measured. That is far better left to the guidance that is issued regularly.

I therefore believe that that part of the Bill needs to be simplified to concentrate on the principles and not the detail of the mechanisms. That detail will flow from our consultation with local authorities, with whom we will work in partnership. That said, the Government clearly have a role to play in assisting local authorities to undertake their reviews, and again our help could be given through guidance.

Clause 2(6) suggests that the measures that local authorities cite in their plans could include areas for which they do not currently have powers. That is flawed. As I have said, we are consulting local authorities on the further powers that they might like, but if the plans to achieve the targets are to be realistic, they must be based on powers that can be exercised and for which funding can be provided.

I wish to bring my remarks rapidly to a close, and I would like to suggest to the hon. Member for Bath what I believe to be a way forward. I have pointed out the key changes that I believe will be necessary to ensure continuing Government support, and I suggest to him that the way to achieve that is to resume the constructive dialogue between my officials and those who have assisted him in drawing up the Bill. I believe that we could then resolve the matter and produce the amendments that are required. I extend to him an offer of

24 Jan 1997 : Column 1229

We will initiate discussions with local authorities on the practical mechanisms for undertaking reviews and setting targets within the TPP process. Those can go in parallel so that, by the time we reach the later legislative stages, we have at least a broad idea of what is acceptable to the local authorities and what is workable. If I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Bath to that basis for proceeding--I believe that I have his agreement, from earlier discussions and from what he has said today--I am content to recommend to the House that the Bill be granted a second reading.

Mr. Don Foster: This has been a useful and constructive debate, and I thank all those who have taken part. Like the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) earlier, I do not want my winding-up speech to delay subsequent business. It was a shame that the only discordant voice we heard came from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who breezed in and out. Perhaps, if he had stayed a little longer, he might not have made the remarks that he did.

Otherwise, there has been a great deal of support, and I am very pleased to accept publicly the Minister's offer--I have made it clear to him privately that I would do so--to work together constructively to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. This debate has done something that has never really happened before in this House--it has put traffic reduction firmly on the political map, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for enabling us to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.3 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the Bill, and I can only hope that I am as successful in the national lottery tomorrow as I was in the ballot for private Member's Bills. I am grateful for the words of support from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on behalf of the Opposition home affairs team and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who wishes me well with the Bill today.

After looking at the Bills that I might have proposed, I decided to do something about law and order because of its importance to the vast majority of my constituents who, for the past five years, have spoken to me about many issues. But one overriding issue has been mentioned time and time again--law and order. I decided to introduce a Bill, therefore, that would be effective and simple, as I believe it is.

The sorts of crimes that the Bill will deal with happen far too often. Far too many of the criminals involved receive a lesser sentence even though they might face a life sentence. In 1994, of the 217 offenders convicted of a second or subsequent serious sexual or violent crime, only 10 received a life sentence. Other research has shown that men convicted of rape, when interviewed under confidential or anonymous conditions, have on average admitted to having carried out six or seven more rapes as well as other less serious offences. The median figure, however, is one or two rapes, which suggests that a small number of offenders may be responsible for a much larger proportion of sexual offences.

It is clear that deterrence fails only because the odds of being caught and imprisoned are not high enough or the sentences not harsh enough. The simple truth is that rapists who are locked up do not commit crimes, and that violent offenders cannot commit violence when they are behind bars. I hope that my Bill will put more of these criminals behind bars.

The development of DNA profiling techniques and the creation and use of a national DNA database--the first of its kind in the world--has gone some way to increasing the number of convictions for serious sexual crime. It can also tell us for sure whether a small number of criminals are responsible for the majority of sex crimes. The database, which is managed and operated by the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, is an investigative tool used to link suspects with a stain found at the scene of a crime or to identify serial offences by linking two or more criminal scenes. It has been an enormous success.

To date, 26 mass screenings have been conducted, identifying 13 suspects. Only this week, the trial began of the alleged killer of 15-year-old schoolgirl Naomi Smith. She was sexually assaulted and murdered in September 1995. A 19-year-old man was betrayed in a mass screen by his DNA, which proved extremely rare.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has identified six benefits that the DNA database brings to society, including the early identification of linked cases, the early

24 Jan 1997 : Column 1231

The establishment of the register was a great leap forward in combating crime and DNA testing will soon be as routine as fingerprinting is today. One significant group of people, however, has eluded being tested even though they are guilty of sex crimes and crimes of violence. These are people who were convicted before the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 became law. The Bill aims to amend this serious anomaly.

As I said, there is evidence to suggest that the majority of offences are committed by a small number of people, some of whom may be included in that group. We should not waste the opportunity presented to us today to test them. We may be saving a life. We could be stopping more rapes. It is chilling to think that, every day that we delay passing this legislation, some people may be released from prison who were convicted before DNA testing came in and who might go on to reoffend. We should waste no time in adding those people to the DNA database.

The technique, which has been used to identify a suspect or exonerate an innocent man, arose from a fairly straightforward genetic concept. We inherit our DNA blueprint from our parents--half from our mother and half from our father. When the egg and sperm cells, with their half complements of DNA, are created in the parents, the genetic material is purposefully jumbled up or reshuffled. The unique make-up of a person is therefore generated by different sequences of DNA on the chromosomes.

Every cell in the human body carries a complete copy of the individual's genetic make-up inside a nucleus, except red blood cells, which have no nucleus. It follows that, as each person, except identical twins, has an individual make-up, one cell should provide a unique genetic profile sufficient to identify the individual.

DNA can be extracted from any sample containing cells with a nucleus, so hair roots, muscle, organs and bones can be used. A swab can be taken from inside the cheek, and saliva may or may not contain enough cells. The technique that the Forensic Science Service uses to get DNA profiles is called the short tandem repeats, and involves the amplification of areas of the DNA molecule that show length variation in short blocks. The test uses the technique known as polymerised chain reaction, although other techniques have been used elsewhere in the world.

PCR amplification is a procedure that is used to reproduce the desired sequence of DNA thousands of times extremely rapidly, rather like a molecular photocopier; it can copy millions of times over in a test tube the minute amounts of DNA found in one cell, until the sample is large enough to be seen in a test tube.

A Scotland Yard detective working on the database project before it became operational said:

"We are on the brink of something like police officers faced a hundred years ago with fingerprints."

I believe that, if the chances of being caught for a further offence increase, criminals will think twice before reoffending. For example, Denis Adams, a convicted rapist, was jailed on the evidence of his DNA sample. He was trapped when police used a computer to search through all unsolved sex attacks from which DNA samples had been collected. He thought that he had got away with the rape, but a blood sample was taken after he was arrested for a second sex attack. His DNA profile showed that the chances of its being anyone else were 200 million to one. He had already served five years for indecent assault, and if my Bill had been law while he was in prison, he would have been charged with the earlier attack much sooner and would not have been at liberty to threaten the public. I am sure that there have been similar cases.

The police know that the database has been a tremendous success, and I believe that they have come to rely on it more than a little. I have received letters of support from Pauline Clare, chief constable of Lancashire, and from Ray White, CBE, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Pauline Clare wrote:

"The National DNA database is already proving to be valuable in respect of providing information with regard to possible offenders. Currently, for Lancashire, the successes relate to burglary offences. 46 offenders have been linked to scenes via the database, 18 of these hits being across forces. Additionally series of undetected burglaries have been linked together providing extremely valuable intelligence for officers to investigate further."

We must ensure that people who have escaped DNA testing to date are put on the record. The DNA database can deal with up to 5 million samples. It began operating in 1995, and it has grown to hold samples from more than 100,000 suspects, and about 8,500 crime scene stain profiles. By April this year, the capacity of the Forensic Science Service to carry out DNA testing will have risen from 8,000 to 300,000 tests per annum. The database has been a victim of its own success, in that there is a backlog; but the service is currently sorting that out.

The total cost when the Bill becomes law will be £326,000, and I believe that that is an extremely cost-effective way of deterring criminals from reoffending again and again. To those who would say that it is an infringement of civil liberties--we hear that from time to

24 Jan 1997 : Column 1233

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has written to me supporting my Bill. It said:

"There is no doubt that this process will offer additional protection to potential victims."

The only people who have something to fear from the passage of this Bill today are those who will be convicted of serious violent and sexual offences, and who were serving sentences prior to the introduction of DNA testing. They are the only people who have anything to fear from the Bill. Those people who will have something to fear if my Bill is not passed will be everybody else.

The Bill will give a push to the police to enhance their detection and improve their deterrence. That alone should help to speed the Bill on its way.