Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware that her amendment has the indirect support of the European Court of Human Rights. In paragraph 109 of the judgment on the Marper case, the court said: ""The current position of Scotland, as a part of the United Kingdom itself, is of particular significance in this regard. As noted above … the Scottish Parliament voted to allow retention of the DNA of unconvicted persons only in the case of adults charged with violent or sexual offences and even then, for three years only, with the possibility of an extension to keep the DNA sample and data for a further two years with the consent of a sheriff.""This position"—" that is, the Scottish position— ""is notably consistent with Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation … which stresses the need for an approach which discriminates between different kinds of cases and for the application of strictly defined storage periods for data, even in more serious cases … Against this background, England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe"—" which of course comprises 47 countries— ""to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence"." To the extent that Amendment 97 mirrors the Scottish legislation, there is strong indication from the Strasbourg court that something along those lines is required. I am not going to make a long speech. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have drawn attention to our dissatisfaction with the lack of progress. On 29 October, our chairman wrote to the Home Secretary, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord West, has been informed of this by his officials. I expect that, under his jurisdiction, the Home Office will become as efficient as the Queen’s Navy; that is not a joke. We asked four questions in that letter, to be answered by today. I do not believe that there has been any reply. I will now repeat those questions, in the hope that they can at least be answered orally, if not in accordance with the letter. I shall say slowly what Mr Dismore, MP, wrote, to give time. He wrote: ""Given the decision to remove the clauses from the Policing and Crime Bill, we are writing to request an update on the Government’s proposals for implementing this important judgment. In addition to an update on the next steps that the Government proposes to take, we would be grateful if you could respond to the following questions: 1. Does the Government propose to use the Policing, Crime and Security Bill in the next Session to implement the judgment? 2. Within what timescale does it anticipate implementation will take effect?"." Question number 3 is surely important: ""3. In the mean time, what guidance, if any, has the Government provided to police officers about how to exercise their discretion to remove data from police records? 4. Does the Government consider that the data of unconvicted children under the age of 18 should be treated differently to adults during this period? If so, how?"." The last point in the letter is our reference to the fact that, ""The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe are going to consider the UK’s implementation of Marper at the December meeting. Can the Committee please have copies of the Government’s submission of the Committee of Ministers for the meeting to ensure that it is regularly updated? In view of the forthcoming debates on the Policing and Crime Bill, I would be grateful for a response by 5 November, and if you could send a Word version to"—" the email address. That was copied to Mr Wills, but was sent to the Home Secretary on 29 October. It would be fair enough to get an oral explanation of the answers to those questions if it could not be done in writing. I am sure that it has been read by officials, because they are normally courteous and efficient in looking at statements. Given the importance of the issue, I can repeat the questions if necessary, but I would be very glad indeed if the Minister could deal with them now. I sympathise with him. He has the helpless look of a Minister who has not been briefed on it, but the officials ought to be able, if others will speak, to give at least an outline answer to those four questions by the time he replies.