| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.45 pm
The haste earlier this year was quite inexplicable. We had a very good Public Bill Committee. Quite unusually for such Committees, we had the time to debate properly nearly everything that we wanted. We had some extra sittings in the evening to ensure that we could cover every issue properly, without feeling at the end of the debates in Committee that important issues had just gone by and not been discussed. It was a really good, constructive Committee. Yet at the very last minute, with no time for serious debate at all, the Government introduced two radical suggestions with big implications-one on gang injunctions, which we have just been discussing, and the other the blank-cheque approach to DNA that says, "Trust us."
Well, no, on this issue above all, the public and Parliament do not trust the Government to go away, cook up something in a back room and pass it. It is welcome that at long last, right at the end of the process, the Government are accepting Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42, and are withdrawing the ridiculously badly thought-out and hasty proposal, made earlier in the year, that they should decide the matter on the quiet, without any public or parliamentary scrutiny.
We understand that the issue will be back in the Queen's Speech next Wednesday, but at least it will be subject to proper debate, and at least there will be a piece of primary legislation. As for the suggestion that we keep innocent people's DNA for six years, that is still far too long, even if it is an improvement on previous Government practice. A constituent of mine, Tony Hedley, who was on a BBC radio programme yesterday speaking about this, would certainly feel that that was far too long. He had false allegations made against him with regard to a relatively trivial matter. The charges were quickly dropped, but he cannot get his DNA records back; they are still being held by Derbyshire police.
Mr. Hedley has contacted Derbyshire police force many times, and I have written to it. He has contacted 10 Downing street twice, and had acknowledgments but no reply. Derbyshire police force says that it cannot get rid of the DNA records of that totally innocent person until the Government change their policies. I hope that the Government will change them dramatically.
I do not know why, back in February, when the Government wanted a blank cheque, they did not just introduce amendments or new clauses to the Bill, implementing the Scottish practice, which already works very well in that part of the UK. The European Court of Human Rights has already declared that approach to be absolutely acceptable in terms of human rights legislation. If the Government had introduced such a system, the provisions would now be passing into law. Why they did not do that is impossible to understand. They did not need to go away and think about the matter, they did not need to do their own research, however half-baked that research may or may not be, and they did not have to come up with their own suggestions.
What is the basis for the suggestion, which we have heard, that an innocent person whose DNA is taken will either offend within six years or not at all, so the DNA can be got rid of after six years? What is the basis for such approaches? Why not just put into law the well-tried, successful and fairly widely accepted Scottish practice, which already works in part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Alan Campbell: We have brought forward measures that were not only debated in Parliament, but subject to considerable debate outside Parliament. There has been a long consultation with the public on the measures, and over that time scale additional research has been undertaken, so we cannot be accused of seeking a blank cheque or pushing through measures. Nor can we be accused of proceeding with indecent haste on the issue, particularly when we have addressed the central concern raised in this House and another place, which is that there should have been primary legislation. All those factors have led us to our conclusion.
Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) raised about DNA detections. He is right that the number of DNA detections has fallen in recent years. Over the past five years it has fallen by 11 per cent. That is because recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 22 per cent. in that period. If there are fewer crime scenes and fewer cases in which DNA has to be taken, it is hardly surprising that the amount of DNA available to the police and being used for detection should decrease.
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we were somehow dragging our feet in responding to S and Marper. In Committee, although he disagreed profoundly with what we did, I thought that he agreed with the route that we had chosen. We were trying to respond to S and Marper; the reality is that Parliament disagreed with the route that we chose. I congratulate him, and to some extent the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, on their pre-emptive strike this afternoon on measures that will, I hope, be part of a future Bill that is to be debated very soon.
The points about the validity or otherwise of Home Office research, and the issues to do with terrorist suspects, do not fall within the confines of the amendments that we are discussing, so I will not address them on this occasion. The reality is that we are meeting the challenge of S and Marper: we began to meet it within hours of the judgment, because the two individuals concerned were taken off the database. However, we sought, and
are seeking, to introduce further measures that address the wider issues that the judgment raised. We are working very carefully with the Association of Chief Police Officers on changes to the database, but until the legislation changes, the practice does not need to change. I hope that the hon. Member for Chesterfield appreciates that. Until Parliament decides that the situation has changed, therefore, the process will continue as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, we have taken under-10s off the database.
We are confident that we will continue to meet the S and Marper judgment. It is important that we meet it in a timely fashion, but it is also important, as the Committee of Ministers said, that we consider those matters very carefully indeed. We will have longer than we anticipated to do that. The Committee, through the judgment, gave us a very clear steer: although it upheld the point about individual rights for people who are on the database-S and Marper-it also accepted our right as a Government to decide where the balance lies on public protection. It is important that we get the balance right, and if it takes longer than we anticipated, so be it. However, by removing the measures from this Bill and, I hope, putting them into a future Bill, we will be able to do precisely that.
Lords amendment s 41 and 42 agreed to.
Mr. Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 43.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 44, 45, 87 and 88.
Mr. Hanson: Lords amendments 43 and 45 are proposed changes to section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Government introduced them in another place. They were proposed as a result of late representations from the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency. The proposed changes are simply clarifying measures. They seek to make it absolutely clear that those working for law enforcement agencies with a national jurisdiction, such as the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency, are entitled to obtain search warrants to enter and search premises under section 23(3) of the 1971 Act, when the court is content that the statutory criteria have been satisfied.
Lords amendment 44 is also a small and minor amendment, which would correct a minor error in the commencement powers relating to clause 100. Lords amendment 87 would correct a minor typographical error in relation to section 185(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
As this is almost the final moment of the Bill's passage, I should like to thank the official Opposition Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for their co-operation and discussions over the past year or so, during the Bill's journey through both Houses. I joined in to assist the Bill's passage in June, and the
Minister for Schools and Learners, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), played a significant part in it in his previous incarnation, for which I thank him. I also thank my noble Friends Lord West and Lord Brett, in another place, for their work on these provisions. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, I thank the Bill team and officials from the Home Office, who have spent a long time dealing with the legislation and deserve our respect and thanks.
James Brokenshire: I support Lords amendment 43, which clarifies the rules across the country. It is interesting to note that the provisions of the amendment already apply in Northern Ireland, as one of the subsequent amendments shows, and it therefore seems a sensible proposal to adopt.
I thank the Minister for his kind comments, and in return I thank him and his team, and also the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for their constructive approach. As we have seen this afternoon, we have not always agreed on all issues-one would not expect us to-but we have all listened to what has taken place, and we look forward to continuing the debate and discussions on the key issues as we move forward into the next Session.
I pass on my thanks to my noble Friends for their sterling work, and to the Bill team, the officials and everyone involved in the process. It has provided an opportunity to debate constructively some very important issues that affect many of our constituents, and we look forward to continuing that debate in the time ahead.
Paul Holmes: The amendments are variously technical, minor and consequential, and we support them. I add my thanks to everybody who has taken part in this process over the past year. The only group that we have forgotten is the humble parliamentary researchers, including mine who did all the work earlier in the year, and my new one who has done all the work to prepare for the debate in the past week.
Lords amendments 44 to 88 agreed to.
3.1 pm
Sitting suspended (Order, 9 November).
Message to attend the lords commissioners
4.35 pm
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Speaker, with the House, went up to hear Her Majesty's Commission; on their return, the Speaker sat in the Clerk's place at the Table.
Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009
Driving Instruction (Suspension and Exemption Powers) Act 2009
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
Green Energy (Definition and Promotion) Act 2009
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009
Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
My Government's overriding priority has been to help families and businesses through difficult global economic times. My Government remains committed to delivering a fair and prosperous economy.
The strength of the financial sector is vital to the future vibrancy of the economy. Therefore, legislation has been enacted to ensure fairer and more secure protection for bank depositors and to improve the resilience of the financial sector.
Legislation has been enacted to create Saving Gateway Accounts to encourage people on lower incomes to save more by offering financial incentives.
Legislation has been enacted to promote local economic development and to create greater opportunities for community and individual involvement in local decision-making.
An Act has been passed to increase financial support to industry and to widen the support offered to exporters.
An Act has been passed to reform the welfare system, to increase the requirement for people to move from benefits towards sustained employment and to provide greater support, choice and control for disabled people.
My Government has remained committed to protecting the public and ensuring the nation's safety.
An Act has been passed to increase the effectiveness and public accountability of policing, to reduce crime and disorder and to enhance airport security.
An Act has been passed to deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive justice system for victims, witnesses and the wider public. The Act will improve the coroners service, and the process of death certification, to provide an increased focus on bereaved families, including the families of servicemen and women.
Legislation has been enacted to strengthen border controls, by bringing together customs and immigration powers. The Act will also ensure that newcomers to the United Kingdom earn the right to stay.
My Government has remained committed to ensuring everyone has a fair chance in life. Legislation has been brought forward to promote equality, fight discrimination and introduce transparency in the workplace to help address the difference in pay between men and women.
My Government has brought forward legislation to enshrine in law its commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.
Because the health of the nation is vital to its success and well-being, an Act has been passed to strengthen the National Health Service. The Act creates a duty to take account of the new National Health Service Constitution that sets out the core principles of the Service and the rights and responsibilities of patients and staff. The Act also introduces measures to improve the quality of health care and public health.
An Act has been passed to reform education, training and apprenticeships, to promote excellence in all schools, to improve local services for children and parents and to provide a right for employees to request time for training.
My Government has continued to take forward proposals on constitutional reform, including strengthening the role of Parliament. Legislation has been enacted to strengthen the regulation and enhance the transparency of party finance and expenditure.
An Act has been passed to create an independent authority to regulate and administer the allowances of Members of Parliament.
Legislation has been enacted to manage marine resources and to create a new right of public access to the coastline.
My Government has continued to work closely with the devolved administrations in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom. My Government remains committed to the Northern Ireland political process and has brought forward further measures for sustainable, devolved government.
Members of the House of Commons
I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
My Government has worked towards European action on economic stability, on climate change, on energy, enlargement and security.
My Government has worked for a coordinated international response to the global downturn, including by hosting the G20 Summit on financial markets and the world economy in April. My Government has continued to work as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including at its sixtieth anniversary summit.
My Government has continued to press for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, for continued progress in Iraq and for effective measures to address international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.
My Government has continued to work with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan for security, stability and prosperity.
The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive President Calderón of the United Mexican States and President Patil of the Republic of India.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |