I shall be brief, because we have made our position clear as we have debated the various groups of amendments this evening. The Bill is the usual random collection of measures—very much an omnibus Bill. Some are more unpalatable than others, and there are some good aspects which we have been pleased to support, such as compensation for the victims of overseas terrorism.
The big problem for us—one which, as I understand it from the speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), the Conservatives also have—continues to be the DNA provisions. I have spoken at length about them today so I shall not do so again, except to reiterate that we do not have a unicameral legislature in this country. The other place will scrutinise the Bill.
Once the legal expertise in the other place gets its teeth into the Bill, the chances of its agreeing the DNA provisions tabled by the Government are risibly small, not least because it is clear that there will be another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and another judgment against the Government. I do not know of any serious independent human rights lawyer who believes that the proposals are consistent with the European convention.
There are many good things in the Bill, however, including the provisions on communication devices in prisons, air weapons and compensation for victims of overseas terrorism. For that reason, we do not intend to divide the House tonight, but I repeat the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch: if the Government are to get a long-lasting reform to the DNA database through both Houses, they will have to compromise. At this stage of the electoral cycle, with the Bill heading inexorably for wash-up, it would make sense to have the all-party discussions that the hon. Gentleman suggested in the hope that we can reach some compromise and solution.
My party's proposal is that there should be a clear dividing line between innocence and guilt for those who are on the DNA database. We will compromise, however, and I hope the Government will do so as well. The Scottish system has the enormous benefit of being tried and tested, and the world has not ended north of the border. Indeed, the justice system north of the border seems to be rather effective and, in many ways, in better health than in England and Wales. I therefore commend that solution to Ministers when they are considering what they can realistically get through both Houses.
Crime and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Huhne
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 March 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Crime and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
507 c120-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:06:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627836
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627836
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627836