Crime and Security Bill

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the special constabulary, and that he will therefore have had a certain amount of legal training, and he is aware that there is a difference between the standard of proof in a civil case and that in a criminal case. The standard of proof in a criminal case is that somebody has to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. As a former journalist, I know that the standard of proof in a civil case, when it comes to libel, is on the balance of probabilities. I salute the campaign that the Daily Mail has run on this issue, but I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is slightly more difficult to bring a successful prosecution on a criminal basis than it is to defend oneself in the libel courts. Let me return to the DNA database. The evidence provided by the Government to support the retention of the DNA of all innocent people for six years is a shambles. The so-called evidence in the consultation paper was based on an extremely small sample of research carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of crime science, which its own director later noted was incomplete and based on data to which the institute was not given direct access. The director stated that it""was probably a mistake with hindsight, we should have just said 'you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number'"." Further criticism came from Professor Sheila Bird, a vice-president of the Royal Statistical Society, who said that the consultation's""use of statistical science does not enhance public trust"" and that""misleading statistical arguments in public consultations should be regarded as a statistical felony"—" the statistical equivalent of "lying to the House". All the Home Office has done is halve the period proposed in the consultation document, as if splitting the difference were a substitute for evidence. The Home Secretary said today at the Dispatch Box that there was tremendously important evidence that would support his evidence and that, as we speak, it is in the process of being peer-reviewed. I have news for him—there is a difference between something appearing in a learned journal once it has been peer-reviewed and something that is going through the process of peer review. If research is going through the process of peer review, it has not yet been accepted for publication in a learned journal. That process can involve a substantial amount of revision on the part of the authors. If, after getting its fingers burned in the case of the consultation paper and the Jill Dando Institute, the Home Office has not learned not to present to the House a load of half-baked evidence, it damn well ought to have done so. The Home Secretary ought to know that he should come here with evidence that is incontrovertible and based on research that is published in a learned journal, not something that he hopes will support his point of view at some time in the future. Our preferred alternative is a strict split between innocence and guilt. If a person is found guilty of a crime, their DNA is retained on the database. If they are not convicted of a crime, their DNA is removed from the database at the end of the investigation. It is as simple as that. The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. I have seen nothing in any of the so-called evidence provided by the Government today to convince me that we should abandon that principle now. To conclude, the inadequate DNA proposals loom so large over the entire Bill that although there are positive elements elsewhere, it is well overdue for the Government to take seriously their obligations towards the European convention on human rights not just in this matter, but in the matter of sections 44 and 45 of the Terrorism Act. They should start with the Bill. The DNA proposals fail to respect the right to private life. They sacrifice the presumption of innocence over guilt on the basis of a cooked consultation. They are an affront to British traditions of hard-won liberty and justice. I am sad to say that for that reason, despite some of the positive provisions in the Bill, we will not support it this evening.