HC Deb 24 January 1997 vol 288 cc1230-6

Order for Second Reading read.

2.3 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Association of Chief Police Officers has identified six benefits that the DNA database brings to society, including the early identification of linked cases, the early arrest of offenders, valuable intelligence, early exoneration of innocent suspects, easier identification of bodies and, finally, deterrence, because the risk of being caught is so great. The database could also help to clear up hitherto unsolved crimes. A number of people who are serving prison sentences might well, if tested for inclusion on the DNA register, prove to have been involved in other as yet unsolved crimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Scotland Yard detective working on the database project before it became operational said: We are on the brink of something like police officers faced a hundred years ago with fingerprints. A fingerprint could prove that someone had been at the scene of a crime even if it could not prove that he had committed it. The same is broadly true of DNA profiling, except that in some cases, especially sex cases, it can prove guilt or, conversely, innocence. Because there is such a high chance of being caught if one is on the database, it acts as a major incentive not to commit the crime.

In a recent edition of The Sunday Times, Charles Murray wrote: America's experience has been the same as Britain's: risk of imprisonment goes down, crime goes up. For example, in 1954 the number of people sentenced to prison for rape was one in four. In 1994, the figure fell to one in 12—down 69 per cent. That is not because of worse policing, but simply because the number of rapes and serious offences has increased, not only here but throughout the industrialised western world.

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

The police know that the database has been a tremendous success, and I believe that they have come to rely on it more than a little. I have received letters of support from Pauline Clare, chief constable of Lancashire, and from Ray White, CBE, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Pauline Clare wrote: The National DNA database is already proving to be valuable in respect of providing information with regard to possible offenders. Currently, for Lancashire, the successes relate to burglary offences. 46 offenders have been linked to scenes via the database, 18 of these hits being across forces. Additionally series of undetected burglaries have been linked together providing extremely valuable intelligence for officers to investigate further. That is support from someone who has to face criminals and crimes on a daily basis, and I am extremely grateful for it.

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

The total cost when the Bill becomes law will be £326,000, and I believe that that is an extremely cost-effective way of deterring criminals from reoffending again and again. To those who would say that it is an infringement of civil liberties—we hear that from time to time—let me say that the people targeted by the Bill are hardened criminals, guilty of crimes such as rape, violence or child molestation; they are not innocent parties. In some respects, they gave up their civil liberties when they infringed upon the civil liberties of their victims. People have a right to be protected from serial offenders.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has written to me supporting my Bill. It said: There is no doubt that this process will offer additional protection to potential victims. I could not agree more.

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

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

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 from offenders who were not convicted but were either found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to be unfit to plead.

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 being. The database is operated by the Forensic Science Service on behalf of the police, and contains the DNA profiles of persons suspected of, charged with, reported for or convicted of an offence. While the powers exist to take samples in connection with all recordable offences, the Association of Chief Police Officers has agreed that, initially, the police should concentrate on taking samples from sex, violent and burglary offenders. The database also contains the DNA profiles of stains left at scenes of crime.

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.

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.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third tune, and passed.