| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing the Bill. Although some of what he had to say, and some of what I shall say, may sound a little technical and complex, the actual issue is, as always, the need to help the police to catch criminals and deter crime.
There is no question that, since the national DNA database was introduced in April 1995, it has proved to be a very powerful investigative tool for the police. Indeed, it has been an outstanding success--a success that many other countries are anxious to learn about, because the United Kingdom is leading the world in that technology, which is a tool to help law enforcement.
The Bill will help to build on that success by adding to the database the DNA profiles of up to 7,750 sex, violent and burglary offenders convicted before April 1995, who are still in custody. There are now more than 103,000 profiles of individuals on the database and more than 8,400 crime scene stain profiles. In the 21 months of operation, there have been more than 3,000 matches. Some 1,900 of those have matched a convict to a crime scene and more than 1,100 have matched one crime scene to another. The number of matches is increasing at the rate of 100 per week. For anyone whose DNA profile is held on the database, the risks involved in further crime are very high.
Under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the police have the power to take non-intimate samples from persons convicted of a recordable offence. However, the power applies only to people whose convictions were on or after 10 April 1995. As a result, the database does not contain the DNA profiles of people convicted before that date. It is precisely that anomaly that the Bill will address. Effectively, the Bill backdates the power in respect of those offenders--sex, violent and burglary--who are still in custody. It will also allow DNA samples to be taken
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1234
It would not be practicable or desirable to take a DNA sample from all offenders with a pre-April 1995 conviction for a recordable offence. Clause 1 is therefore targeted at the narrow group of past offenders whom I have just described. As a captive audience, so to speak, those offenders will be easy to identify and locate. Clause 2 allows non-intimate samples to be taken from certain detained mentally disordered offenders dealt with under the criminal insanity legislation.
I have explained that one of the circumstances in which the police may take a non-intimate sample is where a person has been convicted of a recordable offence. The criminally insane may not have been convicted of an offence but may have been found not guilty by reason of that insanity or found unfit to plead. For DNA sampling purposes, clause 2 will ensure that such offenders will be treated as if they had been convicted of an offence.
The power to take a non-intimate sample will apply only when an offender is detained under part III of the Mental Health Act 1983. In the case of mentally disordered offenders dealt with under the criminal insanity legislation on or after the passing of the legislation, the power to take a sample will apply to those who have been detained in respect of a recordable offence. In the case of offenders who have been acquitted on the ground of insanity or who have been found unfit to plead before the passing of the legislation, the power to take a sample will apply to those who have been detained for a sex, violent or burglary offence.
Clause 3 enables the power to take non-intimate body samples from detained mentally disordered or juvenile offenders to be exercised in the place of detention. Clause 4 is a tidying-up provision which corrects an omission in section 63A(5a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Under the provisions of section 63A, a constable may require a person who has been charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence to attend a police station so that a non-intimate sample may be taken. That power is intended to be subject to a time limit as set out in subsection (5a). While the limit of one month is specified in respect of a person who has been charged with a recordable offence, no time limit is imposed in respect of a person who has been informed that he will be reported for such an offence. The clause amends subsection (5a) so that a one-month time limit will apply in both circumstances.
We estimate that about 7,750 offenders who are detained in prison or subject to the Mental Health Act will be caught by the Bill's provisions. As those people will have been convicted before April 1995--some two years or more ago--by definition they will be some of the country's most serious offenders. The entry of their profiles on the DNA database may not deter them from reoffending on release. If they are not, they will lay themselves open to early arrest and conviction as a result of a match between a stain left at the scene of their crime and their DNA profile on the DNA database. Those offenders should beware. They commit further crimes at their peril, and that is the way it should be.
The amendments to PACE by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force on 10 April 1995 at the same time as the national DNA database came into
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1235
Every new profile entered on the database is tried for a match against all others and the search throws up a number of possible outcomes. In the case of a profile derived from a person, the search could show that there were no matches or that there was a match with a profile that had been obtained from a person previously analysed. That would indicate either a duplicate record or the use of an alias, or it could show a match with an unsolved crime stain profile indicating a possible link between that individual and the crime.
Similarly, a search using a crime stain profile could produce one of three outcomes. First, no match would be found; secondly, a match would be found with a profile obtained from a person previously analysed, indicating a possible link between that person and the crime; and thirdly, a match would be found with another unsolved crime stain profile potentially linking the two unsolved crimes.
There are more than 103,000 profiles of individuals on the database and more than 8,400 crime scene stain profiles. There have been more than 3,000 matches: 1,900 of those have matched a suspect to a scene and 1,100 have matched one crime scene to another.
Those statistics represent all too real crimes. DNA has played a major part in solving an increasing number of serious crimes. In Northumbria, a triple murderer was caught following the recovery of DNA from his final victim. In the west midlands, the database helped to solve a rape. A DNA profile of the offender was taken from the victim. The search against the database resulted in a match against a profile taken from a person after a robbery offence in north London. In Devon and in Cornwall, DNA derived from the head hair pulled from the offender by the victim of a burglary and assault resulted in identification on the database.
I have mentioned the importance of the national DNA database. It is a vital aid in the fight against crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers has specifically identified six benefits: early identification of linked cases--serial crimes--the early arrest of offenders, valuable intelligence, early exoneration of innocent suspects, easier identification of bodies, and deterrence. The database is a vital tool to the police. There have been amendments to the definition of intimate and non-intimate samples, to which I have referred, in section 65 of PACE, but the basic approach has continued and has been useful for the police.
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1236
Questions regarding safeguards and the quality of the results obtained have been raised from time to time. Samples and the profiles derived from them, provided by volunteers as part of a mass screen, are not the subject of a speculative search on the database and are not retained unless they volunteer their use for the statistical database, or if another person involved in the mass screen is subsequently convicted, as the samples may be required for further analysis in any later miscarriage of justice proceedings. There is no difference in our approach in relation to prevention of terrorism samples. There is no statutory requirement to destroy samples taken in such cases.
On the safeguarding of the interests of innocent members of the public, frankly, DNA can eliminate the innocent as well as associate the guilty. A databasing unit is essentially secure. Samples submitted incorrectly or where continuity is in doubt will be rejected by the forensic science service before testing takes place. In the event of a match, each sample is tested twice and certain parts of the process are duplicated as a matter of course. In addition, the database is registered under the Data Protection Act 1984.
Of course there are concerns that things could go wrong. It would be wrong to say that mistakes can never happen, but the Forensic Science Service has taken all possible steps to minimise that possibility, including the double testing of samples when a match is reported, followed by a full case work testing of a further sample. On the question that samples might be contaminated during collection and analysis, extensive experimentation with samples of known origin has demonstrated that adequate safeguards and controls are in place to ensure that the sample is not contaminated by DNA from any other source. In the unlikely event of contamination before the sample reaches the laboratory, the results would clearly demonstrate a mixing of the samples, and the results would not be accepted.
I have given quite a number of examples, and, in introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley also gave many examples of the proven value of DNA throughout Britain. One should also note its value internationally as well as the value of the technology that we are able to provide to other countries.
The Bill is excellent and will build on the proven success of DNA screening and the DNA database. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. Nigel Evans.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |