UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 222

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

HOME AFFAIRS committee

THE NATIONAL DNA DATABASE

Tuesday 5 January 2010

MS ISABELLA SANKEY and MS DIANE ABBOTT MP

CHIEF CONSTABLE CHRIS SIMS and MR GARY PUGH

MR ALAN CAMPBELL MP

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 159

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
5.	Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, 45 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 3LT Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 5 January 2010

Members present

Keith Vaz, in the Chair

Tom Brake

Mrs Ann Cryer

David T.C. Davies

Gwyn Prosser

Bob Russell

Mr David Winnick

________________

Witnesses: Ms Isabella Sankey, Policy Director, Liberty, and Ms Dianne Abbott MP, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Good morning; this is our first session of the New Year. Could I wish everyone a Happy New Year! This is a new inquiry into the National DNA Database. Could I refer everybody to the Register of Members' Interests. Could I welcome Dianne Abbott MP and Isabella Sankey from Liberty. Could I start with you, Ms Abbott. Thank you for coming to give evidence today to the Committee. We know of your interest in these issues and the fact that you recently held an Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall about these matters. Those who are opposed to the current policy concerning the retention of DNA on the National Database argue that as far as the over-representation of black people, especially black youths, on the Database is concerned this damages community relations. Do you believe that is the case?

Ms Abbott: Yes, I do. Let me just say three things. The first thing is, this DNA Database is a major innovation - it is the largest one in Europe by far - but we have never had a proper parliamentary debate on it. What we have done, in a series of compendium Criminal Justice Bills, is have put permissive clauses in, and the police have taken those permissive clauses and driven ahead building this Database. It is long overdue that we as a Parliament consider the issue; and that is why I appreciate the fact that the Committee is having this very important inquiry. The second thing to say is that it is very important, in discussing this issue, to retain a distinction in your mind between guilty people and innocent people. Nobody queries the fact that guilty people should have their DNA kept on the Database for a period of time; this debate is about what you do about innocent people. In relation to the effect on the community, it is very serious. I have been campaigning with Liberty on this subject for some time, and last year we held a special advice clinic to help young people, people under 16, and innocent people to try and help them get their DNA off the Database. I got a tremendous response, even from people that were not coming to the clinic. They got back to me to say how glad they were to hear that Liberty and I were doing this, and how concerned they were about it. We held the clinic; Liberty's lawyers gave advice; I spoke though to all of the parents that were there - because it was parents that came with children - and I think it is one of a whole set of things, like arresting people on suspicion, which puts a gulf between the police and the community.

Q2 Chairman: Yes, but do you not agree, the communities who are affected by crime - in particular the ethnic minority communities - surely would welcome the fact that information is being retained on the DNA Database, because it would help the police solve more crimes?

Ms Abbott: It is precisely because I represent a community both black and white, Muslim and Christian, which is particularly affected by crime that I am particularly concerned about this issue. The only way you can successfully act against crime in areas like Hackney is if the police have the cooperation of the community. I would contend that the existence of the DNA Database, the fact it has never properly been debated, the random way DNA is collected, the difficulties put in the way of innocent people trying to get their DNA off the Database, actually undermines police/community cooperation and that is a very serious matter. Without that cooperation we cannot fight crime.

Q3 Chairman: In your joint project with Liberty - and you mentioned some of these examples during the debate in Westminster Hall - you came across a number of individuals who had been trying to get their DNA removed from the Database. I think you mentioned in particular a young black woman who had gone into Primark with a receipt for an item of clothing that she had already purchased, who was subsequently arrested and whose DNA remains on the Database. Could you give us other examples of the types of people who have been involved in the project that you and Liberty are jointly conducting?

Ms Abbott: -For instance, we had a young man in Greenwich Park who was having a water-fight - Greenwich Park is quite a large park - in another part of the park an assault took place and the police came and arrested all the young people who had been in the park. Four days later the police came to his house and arrested him; he was taken to the police station; DNA; prints; photographs taken; interviewed; but no further action was taken. Up until now they have not been prepared to take his DNA off the Database. There was a case you mentioned: a young woman aged 24 at the time of arrest; she went to Primark to return some goods she had bought the day before; she was wearing a Primark sweater that she had bought the day before and mindful of that she brought with her the receipt for the sweater that she had on. She was still arrested on suspicion of having stolen the sweater she was wearing, despite the receipt; arrested; taken to the police station; DNA; prints; photographs taken. She was finally released because they looked at the receipt, but they are still holding on to her DNA. That sort of thing does not build confidence in the community.

Q4 Tom Brake: Ms Sankey, could you tell us how many people, for instance, have had their DNA retained in spite of the fact they have committed no offence? Do you happen to know how many people have sought to get their DNA removed, and how many have been successful? Can you give us some hard facts about what this problem looks like in terms of scale?

Ms Sankey: I do not have statistics about the number that have sought to have their DNA removed, I am afraid; but I do know that in 2007-08 there were a total of 162 profiles deleted from the Database and that in 2008-09 there were a total of 283 profiles removed. At Liberty we have sought on several occasions, with many of the people that come to us, to request removal of DNA for innocent people and we have found it extremely difficult; not least because of the ACPO guidance that is currently in place, which sets out this exceptional case procedure for when deletion can happen, which sets the bar extremely high. Deletions are only really taking place when it is found that an offence was not committed at all for the arrest that was made; or where the arrest was made unlawfully; or that the DNA sample was taken unlawfully. We know that chief constables are instructed to reject the deletion request when it is first made and only respond at a second request, so the bar is exceptionally high. We found it very difficult to achieve deletion, but we do know that the more publicity and the higher profile a case is the more likely it is that deletion will take place.

Q5 Tom Brake: Do you maintain a database of cases that you have taken up? In other words, can you tell us how many of the cases that have been raised with you have been deleted, that the individuals have had their DNA deleted?

Ms Sankey: Our litigators would have that information. We are, all the time, asking people to come forward if they have their DNA on the Database, are innocent, and wish to have it removed. We are providing advice and information to those people and seeking to litigate on their behalf as things stand with the current retention regime.

Q6 Tom Brake: It might be useful for the Committee if your litigators were able to provide that information. In other words, how many people in the last year, say, have contacted you seeking to have their DNA removed, and how many have subsequently been successful in doing that.

Ms Sankey: Absolutely; we can provide that information.

Ms Abbott: In relation to the size of the problem, the Committee will be aware that 77% of young black men under the age of 25 have their DNA on the Database

Q7 David Davies: You will be aware that only 5-10% of crimes that are committed end in a conviction, so is it not likely that a large percentage of those arrested but not found guilty of an offence will nevertheless have actually carried it out?

Ms Sankey: I think it is difficult to speculate on people that have not been ---

Q8 David Davies: It is not difficult to speculate that only 5-10% of all crimes end in a conviction. We know there has quite rightly been a huge outcry over the fact that it is about 9% with rape, and that is actually higher than most other crimes; for burglary it is about 5%. That is not speculation; that is a fact.

Ms Sankey: There is nothing that suggests that those innocent people who are on the DNA Database are any more likely to have committed a crime than those who are not on it at all.

Q9 David Davies: Somebody who is arrested because the police believe there is reason to believe they may have committed a crime is no more likely to have done so than somebody who has never been arrested in their life?

Ms Abbott: Can I just make a simple ---

Q10 David Davies: No, I am just interested in Liberty's answer to this.

Ms Abbott: I am going to allow my Liberty colleague to speak, but it is very important in this inquiry that you keep a clear distinction between innocent people and guilty people because that is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

Q11 David Davies: Is it not also important that we differentiate between those who are not taken to court, not prosecuted or found guilty of a crime, but nevertheless may well have committed one? Is it not important to bear that in mind? Ms Abbott, you must be aware of the rape cases and outraged about that?

Ms Sankey: Could I just say, to clarify our position, we have never said that no innocent person can ever be retained on the DNA Database. We understand that in exceptional circumstances you might be able to frame a DNA retention regime which allows for retention for a limited period for those who have not yet been prosecuted, or against whom charges were brought, prosecution began and was not completed. We recognise that there are those exceptional cases where there is a certain amount of suspicion that remains and it would make sense, it would be pragmatic, to allow that DNA to be retained.

Q12 David Davies: So you are not against it in principle. That is very important; thank you for clarifying that. You are not, in principle, against it; it is just the guidance that you want changed for keeping it for people not found guilty?

Ms Sankey: We want the presumption to be different. Could I also say that when it comes to your question that these people might in fact be guilty although they have not been successfully convicted, it always remains possible for the police to retake DNA at the point of arrest. We have never objected to the idea that the police, when there is reasonable suspicion or when new evidence comes to light, can go and retake somebody's DNA. The fact that it is deleted from the Database does not mean that it will never go back on, or the police can never obtain it again, it is the idea of retaining innocent people's DNA indefinitely that we object to.

Q13 Bob Russell: Notwithstanding your answers so far, what are your main objections to the proposals about retention of DNA in the Crime and Security Bill?

Ms Sankey: In light of the Crime and Security Bill I think the first thing to say is that we welcome the fact the Government has finally recognised that this issue needs to be addressed in primary legislation, having dropped, of course, the regulations from the Policing and Crime Bill last year. Our main objection to the current proposals in the Bill is the six-year retention proposal for innocent people. We do not believe the Government is fully accepting of the principles laid out in the S and Marper judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. We think they are grudgingly doing as little as they think is necessary to try and comply with that judgment. We do not believe that a six-year retention period would comply. I think the Council of Ministers, when they met last in September, indicated the same, that proportionality would not be met with a six-year retention period for innocent people.

Q14 Bob Russell: Six years would be an improvement on the current situation. If not six years, what figure would you give, if any?

Ms Sankey: We believe that innocent people as a matter of principle should have their DNA deleted once it is decided that prosecution will not go ahead; and then a fixed period should be put as a cap to ensure that DNA is deleted after that decision has been made.

Q15 Bob Russell: So six years is not the objection, the objection is the retention over any period?

Ms Sankey: Exactly, the principle that you would automatically retain innocent people's DNA, rather than presume that you are going to delete it unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Q16 Bob Russell: I just want to make it clear: it is not the six years you are objecting to; it is the principle of any period?

Ms Sankey: Absolutely.

Q17 Mr Winnick: Ms Abbott, you gave the impression in the debate - a very interesting debate (which I must confess I have read for the first time) in Westminster Hall in which the Chairman of this Committee also participated - that in your view the police were wrong to take DNA samples in the first place.

Ms Abbott: If that is the impression you have had from reading the debate this morning, I apologise. Let me make my position clear: first of all, nobody objects to keeping the DNA of guilty people. The question is what do you do with the DNA of innocent people? Everybody, including Liberty, accepts there are circumstances in which you should keep the DNA of innocent people. The question is that those circumstances have never been codified, and that is partly to do with the fact we have never had a proper debate in Parliament. I would suggest to the Committee there are two possibilities: one is that the courts should be allowed to direct when a case is concluded; that people have been found innocent yet nonetheless the court is directing their DNA should be kept. That would certainly be acceptable to the people I am working with. The other option is to say there are certain categories of crime - violent crime and sexual crime - and in those cases you would keep the DNA. I am not saying, nor is Liberty saying, you should never keep the DNA of innocent people. It should be codified: either the courts should direct; or you should specify the types of crimes for which this is kept. Just to respond to my colleague Bob Russell's point about the Government's proposals: first of all, many lawyers do not believe that the Government's proposals are actually compliant with what the European Court was saying; but, secondly, the Government did invite contributions as to what it should do, and it seems in its proposals to have completely ignored them. That is not unusual, you will tell me, but that is one of the reasons one objects to it.

Q18 Mr Winnick: If I understand you right, Ms Abbott, and you will correct me obviously if this is not your position, if someone has been arrested but not charged with certain offences of violence and has been released you would be in favour of a DNA profile being kept by the police?

Ms Abbott: Yes. I think we should debate it.

Q19 Mr Winnick: Debate it as we like, but at the end of the day a decision has to be reached. Again, if I can just pursue the point: someone has been arrested for some very serious offence, not charged for all kinds of reasons, first and foremost presumably because there is a lack of evidence, but you would not object to that profile being retained by the police?

Ms Abbott: I would not want to make law at a select committee hearing.

Q20 Mr Winnick: You do not want to say yes or no to that?

Ms Abbott: I am going to say this: I would support certain specific circumstances either where the court directed, or where it involved crimes of violence or sexuality, where it was codified that DNA would be kept. What I do not accept is that all innocent people's DNA, whatever their age, can be kept willy-nilly.

Q21 Mr Winnick: Do you accept, Ms Abbott, that retaining DNA profiles by the police does help at the end of it all to substantially reduce criminality?

Ms Abbott: That is an interesting point, Mr Winnick. The problem is, although the police and other people you will get evidence from later this morning will give you certain high profile cases where the DNA of innocent people has enabled them to solve the crime, there is no conclusive research to prove that overall keeping the DNA of innocent people helps you to clear up crime. I would point out that the inventor, if you like, of the DNA technique, Sir Alec Jeffreys, is vehemently opposed to keeping the DNA of innocent people; he says it is too random a weapon.

Chairman: We will in fact be inviting him to come to give evidence next week on this.

Q22 Tom Brake: Could I just ask, Ms Sankey, you said there are exceptional circumstances in which you think the DNA could be retained and is your position the same as Ms Abbott's in terms of a court directing that it should be retained in the case of violent and sexual crimes or is your position different?

Ms Sankey: Liberty, in pursuing our campaign on the DNA Database, has always said we need a much more proportionate framework for DNA retention. We have always said in framing the new DNA retention regime, if you like, you could look at a number of factors. For example, it could be those suspected offences where DNA is particularly relevant, like violent or sexual offences; it could be if somebody is suspected of more than one offence; it could be where there has been shown to be a propensity to re-offend. There are a number of things you could do to frame the keeping of DNA for a limited period in certain special circumstances. It would probably be preferable if that was laid down as criteria and it was not left to be done on a case-by-case basis by a court because that might have the effect of indicating guilt potentially in the person's mind to whom it concerns. Another possible way of squaring the circle would be to look to the Scottish system, where it is that if proceedings have been brought against an individual you can hold on to their DNA but for a limited period of time. So those who are arrested and nothing further is done do not have their DNA retained, but those against whom a prosecution is brought but is dropped for whatever reason do have their DNA retained. These would all be much more proportionate ways of making sure that the right people are kept on the Database and the right people are taken off.

Q23 Bob Russell: I think the most recent answers we have had to questions from Mr Winnick and Mr Brake have caused confusion rather than clarification as to what should or should not be on the DNA Database. Ms Abbott, would you be happy if everyone's DNA was on the Database?

Ms Abbott: That would have the benefit of being intellectually coherent, but in practice you would be talking about a huge, impracticable project. I am sorry that you are confused. I am saying that if you are going to keep innocent people's DNA on the Database it should be in clear, codified circumstances. I think that is clear enough.

Q24 Bob Russell: Liberty's position? Everybody?

Ms Sankey: Absolutely not. As Ms Abbott has said, it would of course lend itself in terms of intellectual coherence. It would also do something to sort out the current discrimination problem that we have with the way the DNA Database is constituted, but it would not be proportionate and it would not be necessary either. With a larger Database, there is, of course, always the risk that the more profiles you unload and keep on there the more likelihood there is of mistakes being made, of bad matches being made, of the Database being corrupted and potentially discredited in the courts which would be something Liberty certainly would not want to see because we believe in the value of DNA evidence in securing convictions.

Q25 Bob Russell: With your international connections, are you aware of any countries where there is total DNA Database of all its citizens?

Ms Sankey: I am not aware of any such country. I do know that we have the largest DNA Database in Europe and the largest DNA Database per capita in the world.

Q26 Chairman: Both of your positions are that although you would understand the logic of having a Database that contained everybody's names you are both against having a Database that has the samples of every single member of the public on it?

Ms Abbott: In principle I can see the logic; in practice it would be entirely wrong.

Q27 Chairman: That is your position as well, is it, Ms Sankey?

Ms Sankey: Absolutely. In principle there are things that lend themselves to that view, but it would be wholly disproportionate and a complete invasion of privacy on a scale we have never seen.

Q28 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Sankey, Ms Abbott has made the point that although there has been quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about some high profile cases where a so-called innocent sample has led to prosecution, especially in rape and murder cases - and also we have been told there is no in-depth research being done - do you have a feel or is there anywhere where we could get access to the number of cases where the use of DNA has been solely or largely responsible for bringing people to justice?

Ms Sankey: That is a very interesting question, and we do not believe that such a statistic exists. We also believe that if it did exist it would be negligible because the statistical test for whether or not you automatically keep innocent people's DNA on the Database would be that someone who is innocent has been retained on there and that has led to their conviction for an offence to which no other evidence could have led the police to them. That would be the test for whether or not statistically it is the right thing to do to keep innocent people on there. We have never been presented with those statistics. Interestingly, the high profile cases that you refer to, all of those such cases that have ever been presented to me, in interviews and otherwise, have always been cases where it is actually the taking of somebody's DNA, ostensibly for another purpose because they are suspected of another offence, that has led the police to see that they are actually linked to the crime scene of an earlier offence. It is not actually the retention of those people's DNA but the taking of it. As I said earlier, we have absolutely no problem with the taking of DNA on arrest.

Q29 Gwyn Prosser: In your answer, Ms Sankey, you made the assertion that the results would be negligible. If the research was done on a rational basis and the results did show a significant link, would you then change your views about limiting and prescribing which records should be kept?

Ms Sankey: Ultimately, decisions about how a DNA Database is constituted need to come down to two things: statistics, but principally principles. It is that where the Government is currently failing in taking a principled approach to DNA retention. In a free society there are always more things we could do to detect a couple more crimes, to secure a couple more convictions, whether it is having curfews for every man, woman and child, whether it is removing, for example, the need for reasonable suspicion before you arrest somebody. There are always more things that you could do. A universal DNA Database might be a way of securing a few more convictions, but you need to come back to this idea of whether it is proportionate and whether that is the kind of society in which we want to live. We say, quite frankly, that retaining the DNA of individuals - which can of course reveal things about their ethnicity, their familial links, their life expectancy, their chance of getting disease - storing that and stockpiling that, which is currently being held by the State, is not the kind of society we do want to live in.

Q30 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Abbott, do you concur with that view?

Ms Abbott: I had a meeting with the officer at the Metropolitan Police who is responsible for these issues and he told me, certainly within the Metropolitan Police area, there is no substantive research which demonstrates a link between keeping the DNA of innocent people and the ability to clear up crime. I would point out as well that we have this sort of catch-all system here in England, very different from Scotland and very different from other European countries. There is no evidence at all to show that our approach to the DNA Database has impacted on our crime levels relative to countries which actually have a DNA Database which is more compliant with the European Human Rights situation.

Q31 Mr Winnick: Being the devil's advocate if you like - that is part of our job obviously on a select committee, as you know very well, Ms Abbott - I am just wondering whether you dismissed too lightly in the Westminster Hall debate when the Minister gave an example of the retention of DNA. He mentioned Steve Wright, who was later convicted of murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich in 2003. His DNA sample, the Minister said, was taken when he was arrested on suspicion of theft - not the most serious offence - however, later, it matched the DNA from the body of one of the five women murdered in Ipswich which all led, fortunately, to this monster being convicted. We are all very pleased that such monsters are convicted of the murder of five innocent women. In those circumstances, I am just wondering if you did not dismiss the Minister, because you intervened immediately after him and said that this was a dramatic matter but what about other issues. Did you really take seriously the point the Minister was making at the time?

Ms Abbott: Mr Winnick, I would never dismiss a Minister. My point is this: you can always point to individual instances where keeping the DNA of an innocent person has helped to clear up a crime. What there is no statistical basis for saying is that keeping the DNA of innocent people overall helps to bring down the levels of crime. Quickly, because I know the Chairman wants to move on, a point I have not been asked on but I think ---

Q32 Mr Winnick: But it helped in the case of Wright, did it not? He was convicted.

Ms Abbott: In an individual case, Mr Winnick. Show me the stats which show that it helps overall. The point I wanted to make very briefly is this issue of innocent people getting their DNA taken off the Database; which brings me back to the first point the Chairman made to me. Nothing causes more upset in a community than how difficult it is for innocent people - maybe they were bystanders; it is often the case we have dealt with people who just happen to be around - and the difficulty and the difference between police districts. If we are going to take a step forward on this issue there should be a clear, transparent, codified and uniform system for people who are undoubtedly innocent, who perhaps have not committed a crime for very many years, to be able to get their DNA off the Database. That would go a long way to restoring police confidence.

Mr Winnick: It does not feel right, but we understand that point.

Q33 Tom Brake: Presumably if there is no research that shows that holding people's DNA on a Database is effective in tackling crime, there is also no research that shows, for instance, that spending money on maintaining records of innocent people and their DNA, and that quite heavy administrative process dealing with complaints that come in about it, is a more effective way of spending money than, for instance, investing in training more specialist police officers dealing with rape cases. Is there any evidence that shows that it has a significant cost-benefit advantage?

Ms Abbott: There is no evidence that it has a cost-benefit advantage and there is ample evidence, as I say, that it undermines community cooperation with the police, which is vital to fighting crime.

Q34 Mrs Cryer: At the moment an innocent person wishing to have their DNA record removed from the National Database apparently has to go through certain procedures which finish up with the chief police officer of that area, and he can determine whether or not it is removed. It has been suggested that this could lead to a certain amount of patchiness from one area to another, because there are different chief police officers for each area. It has been suggested that instead of it going as a final court of appeal to the chief police officer, it could go to an organisation called the National Policing Improvement Agency. Would either of you prefer that route to the existing one?

Ms Sankey: We do not believe that the problem with the current system is down to the fact that the discretion lies with the chief constables; in fact we would not want to put any blame at their doors for the chaos that we are now in with the DNA deletion system. We think that actually it is because Parliament has left a vacuum here saying that the discretion lies with the chief constables, passing the responsibility over to them. This vacuum has, of course, been filled by the ACPO guidance which, as I said earlier, sets the bar so high for deletion as to be almost impossible to reach. For us that is the real problem here.

Q35 Chairman: The point Mrs Cryer is making is should there be one body, like the NPIA, that should deal with these requests; and therefore you avoid the postcode lottery that clearly is in existence? It does not deal with the issue of discretion; but should there be one authority that deals with all requests, rather than 42 chief constables?

Ms Sankey: We have never taken issue with the idea that the chief constables, as with so much of the discretion that they have, have a discretion in this instance; but what we would like to see is much better guidance set out in statute for how they exercise their discretion.

Q36 Chairman: But they still retain the discretion under your system?

Ms Sankey: Of course, accompanied by requirements to delete innocent people's DNA as soon as they have decided not to go ahead with prosecution, but there needs to be a much, much stronger discretion left to them in legislation, along with guidance about how they exercise it.

Ms Abbott: Speaking as a constituency MP and someone who has gone to a lot of trouble mailing people on various databases who are concerned about this issue, I would welcome a single consistent and transparent system for innocent people, however you deem them to be innocent; maybe they have not been involved with the police for ten years or whatever, a single, consistent national coherent system for removing your DNA from the Database. You have just explained to the Committee what the system is, or what the system is supposed to be in theory. In practice, I had a case of a 14-year old girl who happened to be in the back of a car that was stopped by the police; they were just giving her a lift home from a party; she was 14 years of age; she was taken back to a police station with the other older people, put in a cell and had her DNA taken. She had no criminal record whatsoever; no-one in the end was charged as a result of this car being stopped. It took myself and another MP two years to get her DNA removed. What the police told us at every point was they had no choice; they had to keep the DNA. It is because of dealing with cases like that I am actually quite keen on a single national transparent explicit system for getting innocent people's DNA off the database.

Q37 Mrs Cryer: In the case you are talking about, was it the case that the chief police officer said, "No, we're not removing it"; or was it that it never got to him? Was it delays on the route to him?

Ms Abbott: It never got to him. First of all, I wrote to the local police who said they had not stopped the car, it was the special patrol group; and then the special patrol group wrote back to me and said there was nothing they could do. In fact, they brought the parents in and told them, "We can do nothing. Parliament insists we keep all this DNA". I then wrote to the Police Minister, who then was Tony McNulty, who said, "No, no, no. It's at the discretion of the chief constable". It was only at that point, when I put it to the Minister, that they said it was at the discretion of the chief constable. It went back to the Met and they said, "Unless there are exceptional circumstances, we're not willing to take the DNA off". I believe with innocent people, who have no criminal record and so forth, there ought to be some sort of presumption of taking the DNA off rather than the other way around. There should not be the inconsistency

Chairman: Ms Abbott, Ms Sankey, thank you very much for giving evidence this morning, it has been very useful.

Witnesses: Chief Constable Chris Sims, West Midlands Police, and Lead on Forensics, Association of Chief Police Officers, and Mr Gary Pugh, Director of Forensic Services, Metropolitan Police and Chair of the National ACPO DNA Strategy Board, gave evidence.

Q38 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. This is a short inquiry into the DNA Database. We are taking evidence today, and next week we hope to have Sir Alec Jeffreys and perhaps another witness giving evidence to us. Perhaps you could start by telling the Committee how much crime is solved largely or solely because of the existence of the Database?

Chief Constable Sims: Good morning. Let me just put some context around crime. There are about 4.9 million crimes reported every year; something around 1.3 million crimes are detected each year; and of those detections around about 33,000 originate from DNA. Another 45,000 ---

Q39 Chairman: From the Database?

Chief Constable Sims: Yes, from DNA.

Q40 Chairman: Solely or largely from the Database?

Chief Constable Sims: Correct,

Q41 Chairman: 33,000.

Chief Constable Sims: Around another 45,000 from fingerprints.

Q42 Chairman: Could I just get the facts right, since you have started with facts. Of the 4.9 million crimes, 33,000 are solved solely or largely because of the DNA Database?

Chief Constable Sims: Yes,

Q43 Chairman: Do we know what percentage that is by any chance, for those who are not mathematically minded?

Chief Constable Sims: No, I would have to sit down and work that out.

Q44 Chairman: The chief clerk is trying to work it out!

Chief Constable Sims: Chairman, could I put some context around that. Most crimes do not have a "scene" as such. Most crimes involve incidents between people, are minor in variety, dealt with locally and are generally solved because the victim and the offender are known to each other, or police happen upon the incident as it is taking place, but are dealt with broadly speaking by normal policing means.

Q45 Chairman: In fact, what you are telling this Committee is the vast majority of crimes - the vast majority - are solved largely or solely because of samples taken from suspects and witnesses during the course of an investigation, rather than ---

Chief Constable Sims: No, I am not saying that.

Q46 Chairman: How does that compare then, the 33,000?

Chief Constable Sims: I will perhaps ask Gary to comment in a second, but I do not fully understand the second part of that question because we do not take samples generally during the course of investigations. What we generally do is if we find a sample at a scene then that sample will drive the investigation through the application of the Database.

Q47 Chairman: But at the moment you are giving this figure of 33,000?

Chief Constable Sims: I am trying to put the global figure here.

Q48 Chairman: That is very helpful.

Chief Constable Sims: I suppose I am trying to make a point that in the general terms of crime DNA and forensic science statistically is a small part of a bigger picture. However, if you then look at some of the more specific and serious crimes it will be a much, much more significant part.

Q49 Chairman: You yourself, as the ACPO lead, are on record, at least to the BBC, I think you gave them some comments ---

Chief Constable Sims: It must be true then!

Q50 Chairman: --- saying that the current system does need clarity, and that you felt it was not clear in respect of the removal of ---

Chief Constable Sims: I am sorry, are we jumping to the last question?

Q51 Chairman: What is the last question?

Chief Constable Sims: The last question is about the removal process.

Q52 Chairman: Have you had a list of the questions?

Chief Constable Sims: I have, yes; is that wrong?

Q53 Chairman: It is unusual!

Chief Constable Sims: I do apologise.

Q54 Chairman: How did you get them?

Chief Constable Sims: This arrived on my email system.

Q55 Chairman: How extraordinary!

Chief Constable Sims: How extraordinary! Shall I ignore them for the rest of the session?

Q56 Chairman: Not if you have read them. I think it is very difficult to ignore them if you received them on your email system! Do you know who sent them to you?

Chief Constable Sims: I could find that out, I have no doubt; but I only received notification I was coming at all at five o'clock yesterday. We are all a little surprised perhaps by the turn of events.

Chairman: Let us then leave it in the order that you were sent these questions on the email.

Q57 Mrs Cryer: If you have had a list of questions you will already know that you have probably answered the question I was going to ask you! The question I was going to ask you is: do you actually believe that old-fashioned policing in the majority of crimes is the way that we solve them, rather than with a reliance on DNA and other forms of forensic science?

Chief Constable Sims: Of course, but with the proviso that "old-fashioned policing" as you style it can be hugely strengthened by the application of forensic science. One of the things that I think gets hugely underplayed in debates like this is the degree to which innocence can be proved by using forensic science. Old-fashioned policing that might have relied on arrest and interview can actually be supported and supplemented by good use of forensics.

Q58 Mrs Cryer: So proof of innocence or guilt can lie with DNA but there is a great deal of work goes on beforehand?

Chief Constable Sims: Of course. In general, the more serious the offence the bigger part that forensic science plays in its detection and particularly the less contact there is between victim and offender, the more important forensic science becomes.

Q59 Tom Brake: You would not support a view that says, for instance, given there are a large number of teenage boys who have their DNA taken because they are involved in a minor offence, they go on the Database but they never subsequently commit any further offences, that actually you might as well just take a random sample of DNA from the population as a whole and you will probably get just as much use out of that as you would from the samples that you are currently taking?

Chief Constable Sims: Can I ask Gary to respond to that.

Mr Pugh: I think this goes to the heart of the debate of the retention of DNA from those who are arrested and not convicted. You highlight individuals, particularly those 10-18 year-olds who have what I might call a "single arrest event" and no further involvement with the police. I think in answer to your point about a random sample of the population, from where we look at this issue we are hoping that the basis of retention of that group of arrested not convicted needs to be based on some evidence or some basis assessment of risk, if you like, that they will or will possibly commit crime in the future. This is where the Government's recent proposals and their statistical analysis comes up with a six-year retention period based on that analysis which indicates that someone who is the subject of a single arrest event, if they do not come into contact with the police in a six-year period after that, then the level of potential offending is the same as the population at large. Therefore, there is a graph within the Government's consultation documents which demonstrates that. The point is that it is making an assessment of the likely risk, if you like, of future offending rather than just taking a random sample of the population. From an operational perspective clearly we want the Database to be effective and I think a random sampling would not be so.

Q60 Tom Brake: Are you saying also that it is currently not effective because it has far too many young people of the nature that I have described and you have just confirmed?

Mr Pugh: No, and this goes again to the heart of the matter, within that group of people who are arrested not convicted, there are individuals currently, as the law stands, who have a single arrest event and go on and do not come into contact with the police. There are, however, of course a significant proportion of individuals who do come into contact with the police and do commit crime, and a match is generated from the Database because we recover their DNA at a crime scene or on a victim. It is the distinction between those two groups that is clearly at the heart of the debate and the current legislation that is being proposed.

Q61 Tom Brake: You will have heard my earlier question to the other witnesses about cost-benefit analysis. Have you got any cost-benefit analysis that can prove to the Committee that in maintaining a large DNA Database, which contains the records of many, many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, there is a benefit; that there is any advantage; as opposed to spending, if you are able to cost it, and I do not know whether you can tell me how much it costs, to maintain the DNA of one innocent person on a Database for a number of years? If you were to spend that money on something else in policing terms, would that be more effective at tackling crime?

Mr Pugh: In terms of costing I do not have the underlying business case, but the cost of putting an individual on the Database at current rates, if you like, is around �30-�40. That is the cost of a single analysis and the retention of their DNA. What we do know is, and I can give you examples, where individuals who are arrested and not convicted subsequently match with DNA found at crime scenes or on victims and allow us then to detect that crime because their DNA was retained.

Q62 Tom Brake: But you cannot tell us, "We've worked it out. We know that �30 times X number of innocent people equals a sum of money which we've looked at spending on something else in policing terms", and you cannot confirm whether that is more effective or less effective?

Mr Pugh: Not least because we do not have that underlying business case for other methods of police use of informants or covert collection of information.

Q63 David Davies: If I may disagree with the way the question was worded. The question should not be how much it costs to put somebody on, because obviously those people are all going on anyway; the question should be how much it costs to keep people there and to maintain them there. Presumably, as this is essentially an IT operation, the costs of actually keeping somebody there is minimal. If it is costs that are concerning Liberty and the other so-called civil rights groups then actually there is probably quite a high cost in removing people, is there not?

Mr Pugh: Yes, I think it is fair to say DNA profiling generates a string of numbers. Your DNA profile is 20 numbers so it is in fact very simple, in a sense, from a technical point of view to retain that data; compared, to say, a fingerprint, which is an image and therefore more complex and requires more storage. The cost of retaining a DNA profile is very low I would say in comparison to the costs of retaining other data or information.

Q64 Chairman: We have that figure for you: it is 0.67%. So what you are telling this Committee is that 0.67% of the crimes that are solved are solved largely or solely because of the existence of the database?

Chief Constable Sims: It may be as high as 40% on burglaries, say, but the global figure ---

Q65 Chairman: Is 0.67%, which is pretty low, is it not?

Mr Pugh: Can I expand? I think the figure you are using there is the number of detections generated from matches on the database, if you like the result of a "cold" search. Those figures do not take into account cases where, if you like, we have a known suspect, and DNA profiling is used to support the prosecution of that individual. So your focus is on the database rather than the general use of DNA profiling in tackling crime and particular violent crimes. I think it underestimates the contribution.

Chairman: I am sorry; these are the figures that the Chief Constable has given this Committee, and I am just giving you what the percentage is, or was. It is 0.67%, which is quite low.

Q66 Mr Winnick: Given those figures, you make take the view that some people are not persuaded that retaining DNA samples is all that necessary. However, can I put this to you, Chief Constable? In the West Midlands, and you probably know my constituency is in the region, I had a letter from a constituent who has been arrested but not charged - and I emphasise not charged - who strongly complained that she felt stigmatised as her DNA sample was being retained. I wrote to the Minister because if I had written to you you would have referred me to what Parliament has so far decided. Can you understand the feeling of that constituent of mine who, in the eyes of the law, is innocent but, nevertheless, feels that it is quite wrong that she should be stigmatised in the way which she described to me in her letter?

Chief Constable Sims: Of course I can, and running through all of this debate is this much more fundamental question of balancing the rights of the individual against public safety, and that is absolutely at the heart of any discussion of the Database. I suppose we need to go right back to the Criminal Justice Act in 2003, where you, as MPs, decided that it was right to put on to the Database profiles of unconvinced persons. Since that date chief constables have owned that data and exercised the discretion given to them by that Act, and have attempted to interpret what Parliament's will was in exercising that discretion. It is a difficult balance, and, as I am sure we will come on to in a minute, I think there are ways that we could do that in a more transparent manner.

Q67 Mr Winnick: What would you say to the argument, which may well be unfair, that the police, be it on pre-charge detention or, now, on DNA samples, want as much authority as possible regardless of the effect it has on civil liberties?

Chief Constable Sims: Absolutely not. I picked up the debate before that you were listening to and I would utterly agree that the most important issue is maintaining public consent, public support and public understanding of what we do. To go back to that data that I gave you right at the start, the majority of crimes are actually detected by the relationship that forms between victim, offender and police. Nothing that we do should get in the way of that relationship. So the notion that the police want more and more power for power's sake is absolutely a nonsense, but we are uniquely placed to understand the impact of holding the data that we do. I know they were dismissed as anecdotal cases before but these are real cases involving real people and real lives that are solved by judiciously handling and managing data that Parliament has given us a right to hold.

Q68 Mr Winnick: I wonder if the two of you will reflect on the fact that the number involved, such a very, very low percentage, which the Chairman has told you, once it is publicised will inevitably lead further to the view that Government and those who support retaining the samples would lose the argument. It is such a tiny, tiny percentage, which inevitably, as I said, could undermine the argument - at least one would have thought so - about keeping samples for such a long period.

Chief Constable Sims: That is not new data; that data is in the public domain. I wonder, though, if people understood that in the last full year 83 murders were solved, 163 rapes were solved, each of which could have ended in an extended series of major crime that could have cost more lives or ruined other lives.

Q69 Mr Winnick: We put that to the last witness, actually, who argued against your viewpoint.

Chief Constable Sims: It is very tempting, is it not, to just simply call those anecdotes and dismiss them, but actually anecdotes are people and people are what we are in the business of protecting.

Mr Winnick: I understand that.

Q70 David Davies: Finally, on that point, surely the point is that of those 1.3 million crimes, the vast majority are minor offences.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes.

Q71 David Davies: So the really important statistic is what percentage of rapes, murders and serious burglaries are solved. As you have said, it can be up to 40%.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes, 40% for burglary.

Q72 David Davies: I have a question for you. One of the previous witnesses suggested that young black men are over-represented on the database, and I think that is actually a fact, I do not think anyone would argue with that. The elephant in the room here is this (and I would liked to have put this to Ms Abbott but I cannot because she is not here): is that not actually the case because, unfortunately, and for many reasons which we need to look into, young black men between 18 and 25 - or, to be more precise, of Afro-Caribbean descent - are committing more crimes than other members of the population?

Chief Constable Sims: Let me pass the question to Gary because through the Board he has done a lot of work on this important subject.

Mr Pugh: Yes, and I understand this Committee has been looking at, if I could call it, the over-representation of black and ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system. It is a fact that the National DNA Database and the proportions of different ethnic groups mirror, if you like, the way that the criminal justice system operates and those individuals who are arrested. So the Database is not inherently discriminatory; it reflects, if you like, the position that we are in with regard to the number of people who are arrested from different ethnic groups. So, in that sense, it is a wider issue. I certainly do not duck that issue and in the role I have I have met with many who are concerned about this over-representation and, added to that, perhaps, the sensitivity of DNA profiling. We are doing a lot of work on this: we have an equality impact assessment; we are engaging with different communities to explain to them the way DNA profiling works, and, also, the safeguards that are in place in terms of the use of the data, the wider DNA profiling that is used in the criminal justice system and the nature of the records that are held on the database. I think there is general confusion, perhaps, between what I would call the genetic analysis - things like looking at medical conditions and ancestry - which is not something that we look at in the police applications of DNA profiling; we look at what is called "non-coding DNA" which does not look at any of those aspects, but that does heighten the sensitivity. It is certainly important to me, as Chair of the Board (and I know many other members of the Board share the same concerns), that we do explain the basis on which the ethnic mix on the Database is made.

Q73 David Davies: Statistics are a funny thing, but there has been a lot of work done recently that suggests that, actually, some of the most deprived people in this country are white youths who come from what some would call (wrongly, in my view) a working class background. Probably, what they are actually referring to is a sort of severely deprived background. If you did a comparison of young black youths as a percentage of the population and white youths who came from those severely deprived backgrounds, both financially and socially, would you not probably find that the proportion was about the same, or even that the white youths were even more disproportionately on the database than their black counterparts?

Mr Pugh: You might do. I am sorry, I cannot ---

Chief Constable Sims: As far as we know ---

Q74 David Davies: It is quite likely. It might be worth looking at, given that this is reflected in other statistics to do with unemployment and other matters.

Mr Pugh: You mentioned the statistics. On some of the figures that have been used, particularly the three-quarters of young black males on the Database I think there is a need for caution with those statistics. They take the number of young black males on the Database and divide it by the 2001 Census data, which actually collects ethnicity data on a different basis. I am not denying the issue in any respect, but I think there is a need for caution in the way that those statistics are generated and used.

David Davies: Ten years out of date.

Q75 Gwyn Prosser: The previous two witnesses, you might have heard, both made the point that there has been no in-depth research on these matters in terms of the statistics. I think this exchange goes to show that just expressing the raw figures and then using figures like the 0.67% are pretty meaningless.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes.

Q76 Gwyn Prosser: However, you do say that you have figures in the public domain. Are they broken down in terms of very serious violent offences; rape; burglary? Would you be in a position outside of this meeting to provide the Chairman with those statistics?

Chief Constable Sims: The National Database, part of the statutory duty is to publish an annual report which contains extensive data on the actual database composition, the usage of it and the governance arrangements, and that is in the public domain, and we can certainly make the reference available.

Mr Pugh: I am happy to make it available.

Q77 Chairman: If you could write to me with those details.

Chief Constable Sims: Certainly.

Q78 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Sims, in terms of the database itself, in general, would chief constables welcome a larger proportion of people's DNA being retained? Would they welcome the whole of the population's DNA being retained, albeit there would be practical matter, particularly the practical issues and the cost, perhaps? Would your colleagues encourage expansion of the Database?

Chief Constable Sims: It is a good question. It is a question that has been posed many, many times. I start by going back to the answer I gave to Mr Winnick a few minutes ago that we are acutely conscious of the (small "p") political issue around the Database. Therefore, there is no appetite to be expansive about it beyond the use that is kind of provable and current. If you got into the realms of a national database, literally, for everyone, the cost-benefit (that I accept we are unable to articulate particularly strongly at the moment) would tip heavily against its maintenance, and I think the public acceptability of it would tip heavily against it. I think my colleagues would see the current arrangement as being sensible and proportionate and doing the job that we would want it to do.

Q79 Bob Russell: Mr Sims, you come to today's hearing extremely well-briefed in advance and, therefore, you will know that part of the purpose of this session is to inquire why the police think it necessary to obtain samples from those never charged with an offence or subsequently found not guilty of an offence. You have heard Mr Winnick refer to a case in his constituency (I have two in mine), and the simple maths are that if every MP has a similar ratio it is in excess of 1,000 cases with various chief constables. How many cases have you got from Members of Parliament?

Chief Constable Sims: Personally in the West Midlands? I have that data somewhere. A few hundred. We are the second-biggest force in the country.

Q80 Chairman: A few hundred?

Chief Constable Sims: Yes. My colleague will find the data.

Q81 Bob Russell: Raised by Members of Parliament?

Chief Constable Sims: No, sorry, not by Members of Parliament. No, I do not know that number.

Q82 Bob Russell: Would you accept from me, because you are the lead officer on this, there are significant inconsistencies in the willingness of the 43 chief constables to delete samples on request?

Chief Constable Sims: Yes. It is a discretionary power, and I think we would like - and I hope that the current Bill before Parliament will provide - some codification of the way that power is used. We would fully support that process.

Q83 Bob Russell: Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying, then, that you feel this power should be taken away from chief constables and given to some other independent body so that we get uniformity across the country?

Chief Constable Sims: I have no strong views on that. I do think it needs to be exercised in a way that is more transparent.

Q84 Bob Russell: And consistent?

Chief Constable Sims: And consistent, because, again, by giving it as a discretionary power to 43 chief constables you are almost building in a level of inconsistency in its application. I know a previous question was asked about whether it would be useful for the power to be exercised centrally by the National Police Improvement Agency, and my only comment on that is that there would be, probably, some administrative advantages and there would certainly be advantages in consistency. You would be moving to a position, though, where data was owned centrally, and I think one of the strengths of British policing, if you like, is that data is actually owned by 43 chief constables, not by a central authority, be it the Home Office or the NPIA.

Q85 Bob Russell: I suppose if it was an independent organisation, that would be a quango, would it not, like Ofcom?

Chief Constable Sims: It could be.

Q86 Chairman: The point Mr Russell has made is that if you look at the research that was produced by Damien Green only a few days ago, if you happen to live in Nottingham, Dyfed, Powys, Cambridgeshire, the City of London, Humberside and Gloucestershire, you will find that no DNA has been removed as a result of applications. So it is not just a question of codifying and making guidance clear; it is a question of actually having some kind of overall national consistency. What Peter Neyroud was suggesting was that one organisation should do this, and people should apply to that organisation and, therefore, you will get the consistency that is currently lacking. Even if you have guidance it still remains in the hands of the local chief constable to make those decisions, so you would have a situation where this just does not apply in at least half-a-dozen of these police authorities.

Chief Constable Sims: I think, though, having had the experience of actually looking at these cases, there is still a professional judgment that would need to be made.

Q87 Chairman: What professional judgment did you and your predecessor make in the case of our Parliamentary colleague, Greg Hands, who I spoke to this morning, who has been writing to the Chief Constable of the West Midlands for the last two years asking for his DNA to be removed, and who has not had the courtesy of a reply from the Chief Constable informing him, first of all, that his case is being dealt with, and, secondly, that it has been removed? Mr Hands told me this morning that he had to put down a Parliamentary Question in October of last year asking whether or not his DNA was still on the database. Is not part of the worry that we all have that the chief constables are not engaging in simple customer service? When people write and ask for information, no replies are being received.

Chief Constable Sims: Can I very strongly refute that. I do not know the case that you have mentioned ---

Q88 Chairman: Of Greg Hands, the Member of Parliament for Fulham? You do not know of that?

Chief Constable Sims: It is not a case that I know of, no, but I will ---

Q89 Chairman: He has been writing to the West Midlands Police who took his DNA.

Chief Constable Sims: It is not a case that I have seen.

Q90 Chairman: Not at all?

Chief Constable Sims: Not at all.

Q91 Chairman: No notice of it?

Chief Constable Sims: I have not seen that case, but we deal with many hundreds of cases, so I will go from here and research that to find out what the case is and will be replying to your colleague.

Q92 Chairman: Mr Sims, is it not the fact that people are upset about the way in which chief constables are currently dealing with very simple queries (Mr Russell mentioned the case that he wrote about; I, indeed, have written about cases myself)? Replies are not forthcoming; there is a lack of engagement.

Chief Constable Sims: I am sorry, I cannot just accept that comment from a case that I do not know of.

Q93 Chairman: Tell us about your area in the West Midlands. How many letters have you received asking ---

Chief Constable Sims: From MPs?

Q94 Chairman: From anybody, asking for their DNA to be removed?

Chief Constable Sims: I have, in the 12 months in question, received 227, and 55 of them have been removed.

Q95 Chairman: How quickly do you reply to people informing them?

Chief Constable Sims: We would attempt to reply within ten working days, as we would with any other question. I do not think this is a question of customer service; I think there is a fundamental issue about the way discretion has been given in a diffused manner and I think there is an opportunity in the current Bill that is before Parliament to provide a better framework for that discretion, which we would welcome.

Q96 Chairman: So you would accept Mr Green's statement and his article in The Guardian of 31 December that all this demonstrates is that the DNA issue is in a bit of a shambles?

Chief Constable Sims: No. I think it is being perfectly well managed but it would be better managed against the background of some agreed codification of the regulation.

Q97 Tom Brake: Mr Sims, you said that if, say, the NPIA took on the responsibility for it this is something that we would need to think carefully about because this would mean centralised data.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes.

Q98 Tom Brake: Why would that be the case? Presumably, someone who wanted their DNA removed would contact the NPIA and say: "I want it removed", then the NPIA would contact the relevant force and say: "Tell us about the circumstances of this case" and then request that they delete it. So the NPIA would not have to have the data, would it?

Chief Constable Sims: I think you are talking about a slightly different option there. I would support the ability of a central co-ordinating point to manage inquiries. The issue, I think, though, is whose decision is it to make the removal. The strength of the current system, for all the frailties that have been discussed, is that decision sits with the chief constable of the area who owns the data. I think in our response to the consultation on DNA we did suggest a level of national co-ordination of the way that requests come in and of the sort of servicing of the request. That will be absolutely right and proper, but I do think that is one step away from actually making the decision a centralised decision on the back of who owns the data.

Q99 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Sims, you have talked about the Bill having some measures in it to codify these decisions.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes.

Q100 Gwyn Prosser: When we talked to Peter Neyroud we talked about the possibility of him or his agency taking over this responsibility centrally. I got the impression that he said there was no need for legislation; all it needed was for his 43 colleagues to delegate authority for him to make these decisions. If that is the case, and I believe it to be the case, are we talking about individual chief constables who are coveting ---

Chief Constable Sims: No, I do not think so, Mr Prosser, but I do think it is slightly more complicated than that because I think it brings into question the whole question of data ownership. That is probably a more complex question than we have got time for this morning but, at the moment, data is owned by the originating force rather than by one central body. I do take quite seriously actually the notion that we would want to think very carefully before we put all of the data ownership into the hands of a central body that itself is a tripartite organisation governed by the Home Office.

Q101 Chairman: You are using the term "owned" as a legal term, are you?

Chief Constable Sims: Yes, I am.

Q102 Chairman: Rather than "held". It sounds very strange that somebody's DNA, who is innocent, is actually owned by you if they happen to live in the West Midlands. It is a legal term, is it?

Chief Constable Sims: It is a legal term.

Mr Pugh: It is a general governance issue which is covered in the Government's proposed legislation. I chair the DNA Strategy Board, as a member of ACPO, and I am a data controller in common, so in a sense I take decisions about the totality of the data but that decision-making is, in a sense, still kept within ACPO, within the chief police officer community. I think what Peter Neyroud is proposing is taking that decision somewhere else, if you like, and I think Chris is highlighting that would need careful consideration because it is changing the basis on which the police hold and own data under the Data Protection Act.

Q103 Gwyn Prosser: Could I ask you, perhaps, to look at the evidence put before this Committee on 15 December by Mr Neyroud and then, if you think it appropriate, you might want to submit further written evidence to the Chairman.

Mr Pugh: Yes.

Q104 Mr Winnick: You said that you will be looking into the correspondence.

Chief Constable Sims: Yes.

Q105 Mr Winnick: I also said, when I was questioning you about the letter that I received from a constituent, I did not write to you for the reasons I stated, and I wrote to the Minister. However, since you are before us and you are the Chief Constable of the West Midlands, can you just clarify the position about letters from Members of Parliament? There have been occasions, certainly with your predecessors, when I did write (and I am sure this applies to other West Midlands MPs) and did not always get a reply from the Chief Constable himself (it was always himself). Is it your practice to make sure that you sign the letter which goes to Members of Parliament?

Chief Constable Sims: Not necessarily. You might recall that I came down to the House just before Christmas and met with the group of West Midlands MPs and we raised this issue (I know you were there for part of the session, not for all of it). The majority of your colleagues would, I think, quite properly, want the ability to write to the chief constable, but recognise that very often these are local issues that are better dealt with directly through correspondence with the local chief superintendent.

Q106 Mr Winnick: If I write to the chief constable it is because it is a more serious matter than writing to who I would normally write to.

Chief Constable Sims: Quite rightly that escalates the debate very properly but, generally speaking, if it is about a local issue then the local chief superintendent ---

Q107 Mr Winnick: If it is not about a local issue, as such ---

Chief Constable Sims: Then it would be through me, certainly.

Q108 Mr Winnick: And then you would sign the letter?

Chief Constable Sims: I would sign the letter.

Q109 Bob Russell: I do want to put a further question to Mr Sims, but before I do so I hope you did not misinterpret, Chairman, my observations about my pursuing cases with the Chief Constable of Essex as being anything other than successive chief constables gave prompt and very efficient answers to my requests. The problem is the Government have not yet responded positively to the December 2008 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and that is where successive Chief Constables of Essex find themselves. What I am intrigued about, however, is I wonder if Mr Sims could repeat the figures he gave, Chairman, of the number of applications or requests he has had in the last 12 months and how many he granted. That struck me as being a very high figure compared with some ---

Chief Constable Sims: It is about just over 20%.

Q110 Bob Russell: Well, 20% is more than zero, is it not?

Chief Constable Sims: It is. I think the average across the country is 22%, so I think we are roughly on an average figure.

Bob Russell: Chairman, if we have not got those force-by-force statistics, I wonder if we could have them, please?

Q111 Chairman: Absolutely. I think these statistics come from the Freedom of Information requests from Mr Green.

Chief Constable Sims: Indeed.

Q112 Chairman: I think it would be helpful if the Committee had these statistics on a regular basis. Certainly that is a very high figure, and it certainly seems if you live in Birmingham it is better than living in Nottingham.

Chief Constable Sims: At all sorts of levels that might be true! I think it is an average figure, Chairman, actually; it is about an average figure.

Q113 Chairman: What is? Your 20%?

Chief Constable Sims: 24%. 22% is the average.

Q114 Chairman: Yours is 20%?

Chief Constable Sims: Ours is actually, for accuracy, 24%.

Q115 Chairman: What is the Met's figure?

Chief Constable Sims: 23% per cent.

Q116 Chairman: Mr Sims and Mr Pugh, thank you very much. Mr Sims, thank you for coming at such short notice. You have been very helpful. We might write to you again about a number of points but you have been extremely helpful, thank you.

Chief Constable Sims: Thank you very much.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Pugh, for coming as well.

Witness: Mr Alan Campbell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for crime reduction, Home Office, gave evidence.

Q117 Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for coming to give evidence today. It seems that you are before us on a regular basis these days. We have taken evidence from a number of witnesses on our very short inquiry into the DNA Database. In particular, we have just heard from the ACPO lead on this subject, who said to the Committee that he felt that matters concerning the DNA Database ought to be improved. Do you agree that there ought to be an improvement, which kind of accepts that it is not perfect at the moment?

Mr Campbell: Yes, I do. First of all, it is a pleasure to be here. That is why in seeking to address the S and Marper case, which we are obliged to do, we have sought to go more widely than that and have brought forward proposals which are currently in the Crime and Security Bill shortly to be debated before Parliament.

Q118 Chairman: Are you concerned at the over-representation of young black people on the National DNA Database? Ms Abbott, in her evidence to this Committee, along with Liberty, put the figure in terms of some of the age ranges of young black people at 77%, although we were cautioned by one of the other witnesses about those figures. Certainly it is accepted that they are over-represented on the Database. Do you accept that? Are you concerned about that?

Mr Campbell: Yes, I am concerned because, in general, there is over-representation of some groups, and that is what the statistics lead us to conclude.

Q119 Chairman: What are you doing about it?

Mr Campbell: First of all, I would not necessarily accept (though I will look carefully at the figures which Ms Abbott has given to the Committee) that number, but I would make two points: first of all, this is, in a sense, a statistical point, that we have to be careful about what we are comparing here. If you take, for example, the Census, which would give us data on the representation in the general population of people from different ethnic groups, that is based on 16 self-defining groups. So, for example, a mixed race male might put themselves, according to the Census, as a "mixed race male". When it comes to the Database there are far fewer groups; there are only six groups, and they are not self-defining, they are defined by the arresting officer, who may well, for example, describe and write down that individual as a "black male". Therefore, I think we should be careful when we are dealing with statistics. However, I do not believe that gives us the evidence for over-representation. In short, I think if there is over-representation, which I accept on the Database, it is because it reflects issues in the wider criminal justice system.

Q120 Tom Brake: I would just, first of all, like to ask a question about the cost-effectiveness of the DNA Database. Earlier witnesses from the police have made it clear that there has been no assessment of whether maintaining a DNA Database is more cost-effective in tackling crime than any other policing approach. Does the Government carry out cost-effectiveness assessments of different crime-tackling approaches or not?

Mr Campbell: We have not carried out an assessment in the way that you have described, but we do acknowledge - and I am sure I am sharing the view of the police - that we regard the DNA database as absolutely crucial in the fight against crime. To some extent, we are leading the way, both in the technology but, also, in the use of DNA and of the Database, and we regard it as of enormous importance and, therefore, of value when it comes to tackling crime.

Q121 Tom Brake: However, you do not actually have any independent analysis of that which suggests that the DNA Database is more cost-effective at tackling crime than, say, investing in training officers to deal with rape cases, for instance?

Mr Campbell: I will go away and look to see whether any work has been done, but none to my knowledge. What I would say is that DNA is only one part of the fight against crime, but in our view it is a crucial part. There are a number of examples that I could give where DNA has been that vital piece of evidence which has led to detection and, ultimately, the conviction of some of the most serious criminals, not just to, as far as one can, put at rest the concerns of the families but, also, course, to protect the wider public from what those people would have gone on to have done.

Q122 Tom Brake: Can we return to the issue of over-representation of young black people on the DNA Database? Minister, do you believe that this points to a problem in policing in that more young black people are being arrested, or stopped, than people from other minorities or, indeed, the majority community?

Mr Campbell: In saying that I thought that the over-representation on the Database reflects the, if you like, over-representation in the criminal justice system in general, I think that this is an issue for the whole of the criminal justice system, not just for the police. To deal with your point specifically, there are, of course, at least concerns about the issues that you raise which is why we are already seeking to deal with them. We are not waiting for the debate around DNA, we are actually seeking to address those concerns, which are concerns about the criminal justice system, not specifically about DNA. For example, the NPIA Next Steps programme does address issues around community confidence and around perceptions about stop and search, for example. We have also got Public Service Agreement 24, a target, if you like, for every local Criminal Justice Board to make sure that they are using tools to identify ethnicity to see whether or not there is over-representation in their own areas of particular groups of people, and if there is no evidence to back up that over-representation then why it should be so that they take steps to address it. I would like to try to assure the Committee that we were on to this issue long before, if you like, the debate we are having about DNA.

Q123 David Davies: Just putting a previous question, if there is an issue that young black youths are over-represented, surely that may be because they are committing more crime, and that is what we need to be looking at? Why can we not just accept this, instead of having this thought lingering in the back of our minds but nobody wanting to say it in case they are accused of being racist?

Mr Campbell: I am not going to say it because I do not accept that rather, if you will excuse me, simplistic account of why there should be over-representation. There are issues across the criminal justice system of young black men coming into contact with the criminal justice system (and, of course, their first point of contact may well be with the police); there are some crime-types, for example, where it may be that young black men are more likely to be involved - sometimes as the victim as well as the perpetrator - but I think that generalisation that you make I would not accept. I do not think we should say it because I do not think it is true.

Q124 Gwyn Prosser: Minister, given that you accept there is over-representation of some groups, and you went on to say that you share the concern of the Chairman about that, what can you point to us in the current Bill which addresses that or goes some way to addressing that problem?

Mr Campbell: It goes back to my first point really which is about the over-representation in the criminal justice system and this being reflected on the DNA Database. The DNA Database is, for want of a better term, colour blind; it does not record people according to their ethnic background. What the Crime and Security Bill seeks to do is to put on a statutory footing the new rules, if you like, for DNA. It does not specifically deal with this issue of proportionality or, indeed, disproportionality. The effect of the Bill, and indeed the changes that we would make should the Bill be successful, would be broadly neutral; it would not have an adverse effect or, indeed, a positive effect on this issue of disproportionality, the answer to which lies elsewhere, I think.

Q125 Gwyn Prosser: The evidence we received this morning from both sets of witnesses all pointed to the fact that there had been no in-depth research done into the effectiveness of DNA - the number of crimes actually solved - except for some raw figures which we have had from ACPO which do not really paint a picture. Would it not be useful in trying to raise people's confidence and communities' confidence about the effectiveness and the propriety of the DNA Database if the Home Office were to carry out such research work?

Mr Campbell: Again, I agreed to go away and look to see if there is any research that we have done that we can bring forward. To the best of my knowledge other people have done some work on that; it is a case of collecting the best evidence that we have from all sources. I do not think the public are in need of being convinced of the effectiveness of the DNA Database. I am confident that a majority of people in the country actually support the use of DNA and support the use of the Database. Obviously they want a proper debate around who should be on that Database, but I think they recognise it for what it is, which is an absolutely crucial tool in the fight against crime. Just let me say, perhaps, a supplementary to that: we are at the forefront of the development of DNA and of the technology and its application to fighting crime. To some extent we are having to face these issues first; many other countries are playing catch-up with us and, therefore, a lot of the research that you might be looking for just has not been done yet.

Q126 Bob Russell: Minister, that last response shows you to be the most enthusiastic person to come before the Committee in support of DNA. Given your wonderful grandstanding and cheerleading, and the emphasis that the Government has on the importance of DNA in solving crime, would you like the Database to contain DNA from a greater proportion of the population as a whole?

Mr Campbell: Let me balance that by saying that if there was less criminality (which as the Minister for crime reduction I am very much in favour of), and from that there were fewer arrests, then it follows that the Database would, perhaps, over time, shrink. If that was the case I would be one of the first to applaud that. Let me get on to the substance of your question, which is about how big the Database needs to be. It is not a question of size, it is about making sure that the right people are on the Database, and that is what the Crime and Security Bill is all about; getting the right people on and getting that balance between public protection. I am an enthusiast for the DNA Database because I think it is a crucial tool for helping to protect the public. However, I also accept that there are concerns (you will have heard some of them this morning) and that is why we need to have a balanced approach which balances public protection and the right of individuals. I do want to emphasise, I think DNA is a crucial tool in the fight against crime.

Q127 Bob Russell: Why then do we not invite members of the public to volunteer to opt in to have their DNA so that you can widen the Database?

Mr Campbell: I do not think we need to do that. What we are putting forward in the Crime and Security Bill actually is a proportionate measure to defend the public, which is to make sure that we have the right people on and that the right people stay on. I do not think we need to go down the route that you suggest.

Q128 Bob Russell: Just to finalise this: as you know, part of today's session is to inquire why the police think it necessary to retain samples from those never charged with an offence or subsequently found not guilty of an offence. The Chief Constable of West Midlands volunteered the fact that his police force, and indeed the Metropolitan Police Force, have removed 23% and 24% respectively, I believe were the figures, of people who have requested that they come off. Why can the Government not give interim advice to all chief constables to try and match those figures?

Mr Campbell: First of all, with regard to samples, of course, in the Bill we are proposing the deletion of samples after a maximum of six months and keeping only profiles, which I think will reassure the public about what some people might say samples could be used for as opposed to profiles. In terms of deletion, I do not think we should prejudge Parliament in this regard. There has been a strong and robust debate since the S and Marper judgment, and I am sure there will be one during the passage of the Crime and Security Bill. It might be we put forward, for example, a six-year limit for people who are arrested but not convicted to stay on the Database; it might be that Parliament arrives at a different point on that. I would hate to think that we had instructed chief constables to arrive at some arbitrary figure using whatever criteria I cannot quite work out and then find that, actually, some of the people that have been deleted should have stayed on.

Q129 Chairman: We were given a figure by Mr Sims that only 0.67% of the crimes solved were solved solely or largely due to the database. That is a very, very minute figure, is it not, 0.67%?

Mr Campbell: But a crucial figure, because there are a number of cases, for example, Mark Dixie and Sally Anne Bowman, where DNA was an absolutely crucial element in that. I have accepted that DNA only plays a part in the detection of crime; it is not a substitute for all the other good policing that needs to take place, but it is a crucial element, often, in some of the most serious and horrendous crimes.

Q130 Chairman: If prevention is better than cure, surely you should accept the suggestion put forward by Mr Russell that the whole population should go on there, in the pre-emptive hope that at some stage in the future we will be able to catch someone?

Mr Campbell: There are those who might argue that case, but I do not think that that is, generally, the view - we will test the will of Parliament on this, of course - of the public; what they are looking for, and what the European Court demanded in the case of S and Marper was a proportionate response, and that proportionate response has to balance public safety, which is predominant in the argument that you have just outlined there, with personal and individual freedoms, which of course lead some people to argue we should not have a Database in the first place.

Bob Russell: Lest it be used against me, that was a probing question.

Chairman: Of course, as all your questions are, Mr Russell, I am sure. Now David Davies will probe you further.

David Davies: This will not be much of a probing question because my views are fairly close to the Minister's on this.

Mr Winnick: That is surprising!

Chairman: Let us move on and ask the question.

Q131 David Davies: One point that I do want to raise is that, at the moment, it is up to the chief constable to use his or her discretion to get rid of the DNA of innocent people. There is a suggestion that perhaps this should be handed out to somebody like the NPIA or ACPO, or someone else. I can actually see some merit in that, because it removes any blame from a local chief constable. Is that something that the Government might consider?

Mr Campbell: It is something that we are considering and something that we are looking at because we do think that there may be a case for a central authority, and the NPIA might be part of that, to give a greater role in considering applications. Let me just say, however, that the DNA Database, and who is on it, is an operational tool - it is an operational matter - and, therefore, chief constables will, in my view, inevitably have a role to play in that. Again (and I keep using the phrase but it is the best one, I think), we need to come back to a balanced approach on this; we need to make sure that the safeguards are in there and that people who should be coming off the Database are, but, also, that those who should be staying on do too. Of course, in the Crime and Security Bill, Mr Davies, we are also bringing forward proposals for much clearer guidelines for the first time based in statute, so that chief constables are much better aware of whether or not a person should be deleted from the Database. At the minute, it is very much up to their discretion, and we have to leave them some discretion because, of course, on operational matters they should be predominant.

Q132 Chairman: However, it is not acceptable at the moment, is it, that if you live in Nottingham, Dyfed or Cambridgeshire you have no chance of getting your DNA removed, but if you live in the West Midlands, Leicestershire or in the Met area then it will be removed? There are about half-a-dozen forces where you have got no prospect at all of having your profiles taken off.

Mr Campbell: I understand that, which is why I have acknowledged that there is a role, we believe, for a central authority approach to this but, also, crucially, to give much clearer guidelines based in statute really for the first time so that chief constables know what the rules are and what the parameters are, and if you like - following on from that - less discretion than they have at present.

Q133 Chairman: I spoke to Damien Green this morning, your opposite number, about his DNA and asked whether he had received notification that it had been destroyed, and he informed me that it had been, and the explanation was that it had been taken "in exceptional circumstances". That guidance that you have referred to does not have to wait for legislation, does it? We have a Home Secretary.

Mr Campbell: No, there is guidance now, of course, but what we are seeking ---

Q134 Chairman: Why do you not just revise it?

Mr Campbell: What we are seeking to do is to tighten the guidance, but for the first time to put it on a statutory footing, which is why it is in the Bill. I cannot go into detail of what would be in there because we are clearly still working on it, but I believe it will address many of the concerns that people have.

Q135 Mr Winnick: I wonder if I can, Minister, personalise this a little, because there are strong feelings on both sides. If someone (I am sure this would never happen but just for the sake of argument) very close to you, family-wise, was arrested but not charged, would you not feel very strongly that the DNA sample which had been taken should be destroyed?

Mr Campbell: If I may personalise it, my answer to that is no, but I also accept that there are some people who are affronted by that, which is why ---

Q136 Mr Winnick: Which you would not be yourself. I am sorry, if a family member ---

Mr Campbell: Or a member of my family, no, I would not be. I think that would be an effect of having found themselves in those circumstances, unfortunate though they are. My personal response (because you did seek to personalise it) would be I would not, and I would say to them that is something they would have to accept for whatever the time was going to be, if the proposals in the Bill go through, before it will be deleted. However, I do understand the concerns of some people who say that is not acceptable, which is why we need to search for that proportionate and balanced response.

Q137 Mr Winnick: To a previous witness, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands, I referred to a constituent who had been arrested, not for a serious offence, and not charged, and who wrote to me, understandably, in view of the concern of that person that the DNA sample should be deleted. So I wrote to you, and you replied accordingly, but you do accept, therefore, Minister, there are very strong feelings on this issue amongst people who feel that it is simply unjust that they should be stigmatised in this manner.

Mr Campbell: I accept that there is an argument about that. I do not agree with that. I cannot recall the exact details of the case that you refer to but there are circumstances in which people, perhaps, should not have had their DNA taken in the first place. That needs to be addressed particularly through the guidelines that we are looking to strengthen. There is also an argument, of course, about young people, because I believe there is a feeling that if young people, as some do, get involved in some criminal activity and it is a one-off, then that should not be held against them for ever more and, also, should not be held against them in the same way as if an adult was found in those circumstances. So I do think that people accept that there should be a different approach for different groups of people, but the reality is - and this would be my response to my relative that you are talking about that would come to me and complain - unfortunately, he or she is part of a group of people which the research that we have available says there is a greater risk of them offending over the next X-number of years (the figure that we have reached is six for adult), based on the research that we have, and, therefore, to some extent it is a price that they are paying for finding themselves in those circumstances. However, like it or not, they are part of that group.

Q138 Mr Winnick: As part of your argument (which I have already quoted to another witness) in the Westminster Hall debate initiated by Diane Abbott, who gave evidence today, your response to many of her points was to refer to that monster Wright, where, as a result of his DNA being taken for theft, his DNA was later used to help to convict him of the murder of five totally innocent women in Ipswich.

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Q139 Mr Winnick: You would use that, basically?

Mr Campbell: Yes, there are a number of cases and different circumstances. Sometimes DNA has been taken earlier and, therefore, when a more serious crime is committed the crime is detected.

Q140 Mr Winnick: You put great emphasis on the Wright case.

Mr Campbell: Sometimes it is a case, of course, that undetected crimes, very serious crimes, are then detected later because that person comes into contact with the police and has their DNA taken for a less serious offence, or does not find themselves in court and therefore are not convicted. There are a number of different permutations on that, but overall, of course, there is a group of people who are arrested but not convicted, and our research says that for the next six years they are more likely to offend than the rest of the general population. That is not a universal rule for every one of them in that group, but it is a rule for that group of people.

Q141 Chairman: The figures that I have just been shown show that 77% of males re-offend within 24 months. If that is the case, why do we need to retain for six years?

Mr Campbell: Because there is a tail to that, which goes on beyond the 22 months that you have just said. Of course, it is a matter of judgment. There is not a perfect timescale for this, we have to make a judgment, and, to be clear with the Committee, we have erred on the side of caution, which I think we should do on this matter, and that is why we are proposing a six-year retention period. It is a cautious approach but I think the public would expect that from us.

Q142 David Davies: Minister, as a fellow supporter of this, why do you not allow people to opt in, if you like, to go on this Database? We could start with all Members of Parliament, like you and I, who have no problem with this and would fervently support it; let us all put our money where our mouth is, and invite chief constables too, as well, and then all of us can say to our constituents, Liberty and any other so-called civil rights groups: "Look, we have done it, so what's the problem with other people being on it as well?"

Mr Campbell: Can I suggest, from previous experience, your contributions to the committee stages of Bills are invaluable. Either at committee stage or at report stage there is always the opportunity, if the Government was not to bring forward such an amendment, that you could.

Chairman: This is beginning to sound like a love-in. I shall bring in Mrs Cryer.

Q143 Mrs Cryer: Minister, can I just clarify the position? If the Crime and Security Bill goes through Parliament unamended so far as this aspect is concerned about DNA being retained, am I right in saying that the DNA of anyone who is found guilty of a crime will be kept for six years, but anyone who has DNA taken on arrest and is never charged, or anyone who has had their DNA taken and it does not go through to a trial - and therefore we must assume that those categories are innocent - their DNA samples will be destroyed? Am I right in saying that? Will that be the rule from then on?

Mr Campbell: Let me get it clear that if someone is an adult and they are arrested and convicted their DNA will be kept indefinitely.

Q144 Mrs Cryer: Indefinitely?

Mr Campbell: If they are an adult and they are arrested but not convicted then their DNA - these are the "innocents" that people speak of - will be held, in the case of adults, for six years irrespective of the seriousness of the crime that they were arrested for. For children we are proposing that juveniles who are convicted will be treated as adults; juveniles who are arrested but not convicted will be kept for a three-year retention period. That is because of the point I made before: some children come into contact with the criminal justice system as a one-off and we do not believe that they should be held for as long and certainly not indefinitely.

Q145 Mrs Cryer: However, for an adult, once the DNA is taken on arrest, even if they are not charged, that is still going to be kept for six years, or if it does not go to trial because of a lack of evidence, lack of witnesses or whatever. We still must presume them to be innocent, but their samples will still be kept for six years.

Mr Campbell: Yes. I think I am falling into this trap too. We need to be talking about profiles being kept, not samples. Once we have established that, if they are convicted of an offence and they are adults, that will be kept indefinitely. If they are arrested but not convicted then their profile will be kept for six years. That is because they belong to that group where our research says that even though they have not been convicted of that crime, they are more likely to offend during the next six years than the rest of the general population.

Q146 Mrs Cryer: That is for people who are not convicted but it has gone to trial.

Mr Campbell: No, sorry, it is someone who is arrested. I want to say that the threshold that we have, which is being arrested for a recordable offence, we believe is quite a strong threshold. You are talking about serious crimes here; you are talking about crimes that the public take very seriously. I think the initial threshold is, if you like, the first hurdle to get across. Once that has been crossed and the person has been arrested then their DNA profile will be kept. If they are not convicted, however, it will be deleted, if they are adults, after a period of six years.

Q147 Tom Brake: Minister, I am right in saying that you have just said that children who are convicted will be treated as adults and, therefore, their profiles will be retained indefinitely. Is that what you just said?

Mr Campbell: How do we define "children"? 16 to 17-year-olds arrested but not convicted will be treated as adults. For all other juveniles arrested but not convicted there will be a three-year retention.

Q148 Tom Brake: Children who are convicted, what is the position?

Mr Campbell: Children who are convicted will have their profile ---

Q149 Chairman: Do you want to take advice?

Mr Campbell: Yes, can I just check this? It is the same advice as I have in front of me, which has not really helped me greatly! Your point is, Mr Brake? Remind me.

Q150 Tom Brake: Children who are convicted, how are their DNA profiles going to be treated?

Mr Campbell: They are going to be treated as adults.

Q151 Tom Brake: So retained indefinitely.

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Q152 Tom Brake: Minister, are you happy that we are treating children in the same way as adults in relation to crime? Are you comfortable with that?

Mr Campbell: Well, we are not, of course, because we are dealing with them differently if they have been arrested but not convicted, because it is a shorter period that we are retaining their sample, but you are also assuming, perhaps, that there are some children who do not commit some horrendous crimes and, therefore, should be treated differently, according to the seriousness of the offence, from adults. I do not believe that is true.

Q153 Tom Brake: Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying, you are saying that all children, provided they have been convicted, irrespective of whether it is a horrible offence, will be treated in exactly the same way as adults and their DNA profile will be retained.

Mr Campbell: You will appreciate that this is quite a complex set of proposals that we are bringing forward. Let me be absolutely clear in case I have not expressed myself clearly enough on this. If children are convicted of serious offences then they will be treated as adults and kept indefinitely. For those convicted of minor offences the data will be retained for five years from the first offence. If they commit a second offence then it will be retained indefinitely. I apologise for the confusion.

Chairman: Thank you for clearing it up.

Q154 Bob Russell: Minister, the legislation that the Government is planning to put through is a direct response to the December 2008 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, yet on the information we have been given (the source being the European Court of Justice) there does not appear to be a single European country - admittedly there are differences amongst the list we have here - which undertakes what is proposed in the legislation you are putting through. Has there been any consideration as to whether the United Kingdom is going to be the odd one out - in step or out of step?

Mr Campbell: Of course, there is not a United Kingdom approach because there is a different approach taken in Scotland.

Q155 Bob Russell: Can I take an England approach, then?

Mr Campbell: An England and Wales approach, yes. Yes, we have considered what is happening in other countries and there are - I cannot name them off the top of my head and go into the detail that you might demand about the system that they have - others that take as robust an approach as we do and there are others that take a different view.

Q156 Chairman: You are telling this Committee, in conclusion, that the situation at the moment is not satisfactory but the Government hopes to make it satisfactory through the Crime and Security Bill. There is, however, no second reading date that has been confirmed for this Bill, and the worry on the part of Members is that with an election due, of course, this year the statute will not be enacted in time. Do you not feel that some of these issues which the Government wishes to proceed with ought to be proceeded with immediately, for example the issue of guidance, et cetera, so that some of these injustices that clearly exist can be resolved?

Mr Campbell: We are hoping to proceed quickly. There may not be a definite date for second reading but I am anticipating that it will be soon and I am anticipating that the Bill will go into committee and that it will get through.

Q157 Chairman: Do we have a timetable?

Mr Campbell: It is up to the Parliamentary Business Manager to decide.

Q158 Chairman: Is the Bill ready to go to the House?

Mr Campbell: Yes, and my understanding is it will go before the House very soon.

Q159 Chairman: "Very soon" meaning in January?

Mr Campbell: That is very much my hope.

Chairman: Thank you. Minister, thank you so much for coming.