Examination of Witnesses (Questions 117-159)
MR ALAN
CAMPBELL MP
5 JANUARY 2010
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.
|
