Crime and Security Bill

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am always willing to listen to debate in Committee because, ultimately, I must carry the Committee with me, but we have made our position clear, and it is based on our judgment about the protection of the public, risk and preventing the creation of future victims. Our judgment, which is subject to the will of the House tonight and another place in due course, is that convicted adults will have their profiles and fingerprints retained indefinitely; arrested adults will have theirs retained for six years; under-18s will have theirs retained for a range of years, depending on the seriousness of their crime; and in cases involving terrorism and national security, profiles will be retained for life, subject to review by senior police officers. We are doing that because we believe in protecting the public. I should like to draw the House's attention to three examples of how that has been working to date. Mr. Ali Gudaal was arrested on suspicion of robbery on 16 January 2006. DNA was taken and he was released without charge, yet in June 2009, he was convicted of rape and kidnapping at Coventry crown court. The DNA evidence was fundamental in helping to bring about that conviction. That would not have been allowed under the Opposition's proposals. Similarly, Matthew Fagan, who was sacked from a London company in 2006, had his DNA taken when he was given a penalty notice for drunk and disorderly behaviour. Ultimately, he was convicted of the murder of a colleague, Cathy Marlow, in his office, on the basis of that DNA evidence. Finally, Kensley Larrier was arrested in May 2002 for possession of an offensive weapon. The proceedings were discontinued. Ultimately, he was convicted of rape in the north of England on DNA evidence at a later date. To put it simply, we must make a judgment. Our judgment is that six years is within the remit of the court judgment—it pushes the judgment to its boundaries, but this is about ensuring we do all we can to protect the public. Opposition Members say that they will vote against the Bill on the ground of DNA, but let me remind them that they will also be voting against the provisions on mobile phones in prisons, wheel-clamping licensing, domestic violence orders, helping under-18s in gangs, antisocial behaviour orders and tackling bureaucracy in policing. If the Bill does not get a Second Reading, those matters will not be considered in Committee or reach the statute book, and the benefits about which hon. Members have spoken this evening will not be introduced. I say this to all Opposition Members: DNA is important and we have taken a judgment to ensure that we proceed in a fair and appropriate way for the protection of the public, but ultimately, a vote against the Bill is a vote against all the measures in it. Certainly, I will not let hon. Members who vote against the Bill forget that they did so in the run-up to the forthcoming election, and nor will my colleagues. The Bill is about making our streets safer, preventing crime against the vulnerable, ensuring that we stop criminal activity, and bringing justice to victims and potential victims through the use of the DNA database. The debate has been extremely useful and I know we will continue it in Committee. We have heard some positive suggestions, including from the hon. Member for Woking, and we will reflect on them. However, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my colleagues, I commend the Bill to the House and urge hon. Members to support it. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 197.