---

Forensic Science

I am sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Pope. None the less, I thank you for your inspirational chairmanship at the beginning of our sitting and welcome you to the Chair. I look forward to what should be an interesting debate on the issue of forensic science on trial. I am delighted to open the debate on our predecessor Committee's report, which was published in March 2005. I pay tribute to the Committee, and it is good to see at least three of its members here today. The report is wide ranging and thought provoking and covers an area of science that has an increasing fascination for almost all parts of society. The report was one of the first that I read when I became the Committee's Chairman after the last election, and it brought home to me the enormous contribution that science and technology make to fighting crime. It also emphasised the tremendous benefits to be gained from strengthening the relationship between practitioners in science and the law. Given the report's importance and relevance, the Government's response was, to put it mildly, patchy. Indeed, despite being newcomers to the subject, the new Committee was so disappointed by the Government's response to the recommendations on the use of scientific and expert evidence in courts that we decided to hold a follow-up sitting on it with Ministers in November 2005. It took a little gentle persuasion to get the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister—although he was willing—to come along at the same time to talk to us. However, we were honoured to have the undivided attention of that august triumvirate and we were not disappointed, because our proceedings were very fruitful, and I thank the Minister and his colleagues for engaging so constructively in an absolutely superb sitting. I should also like to think that we did our bit for joined-up government by getting the three of them together to talk about forensic science—apparently for the first time. I have no doubt that they were all up last night preparing for this debate and discussing the merits of how to respond. It was, however, great to see them. My task today is to provide an overview of the key themes in the report, to give a brief update on relevant developments and to highlight some of the issues that remain to be addressed by the Government. I am sure that my colleagues on the former Committee and the present Committee will want to expand on the topics that I raise. The first issue is the changing status of the Forensic Science Service. The Government's decision to develop the service into a Government-owned company, or a GovCo, with a possible progression to a public-private partnership thereafter, has been a source of great controversy. On the one hand, there is enormous and understandable concern about the implications of the possible privatisation of the country's leading provider of forensic science services. On the other hand, competitor providers, such as the Forensic Alliance and LGC, are frustrated at what they see as the lack of a level playing field as regards competition for forensic science services, particularly where police forces are involved. The predecessor Committee took the Government to task over their handling of the transformation process, calling the presentation of the decision ““misleading and confusing”” and highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability. It simply cannot be right for the Government to set the criteria by which the FSS GovCo will be assessed, then, as the sole shareholder, to assess whether those criteria have been met and then to influence the management of the FSS during the transition. That process must be wrong. We welcome the Minister's recent publication of the criteria that are used for that assessment, as requested in the report, but there is still room for greater independent oversight of the process. The report was clear that the GovCo should not be set up to fail. It must be given the chance to succeed in its own right and must not be just a transition step to a public-private partnership. I warmly welcome the Government's recent commitment not to make any firm decisions about the future of the FSS until summer 2007, but I urge them to extend that commitment, if at all possible. The FSS GovCo should be guaranteed a minimum two-year trial period in which to prove itself and to ensure that it has a realistic chance of success. The PPP should not be an inevitability, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that today. I hope also that the Government will do the right thing by FSS staff, who have made a fantastic contribution to the fight against crime. Uncertainty about the organisation's future has hit staff hardest. The Minister gave us a confused picture of the provisions being made for the transferral of FSS staff pensions to the new scheme when the issue came before the Committee last year. As I think he will recall, he first promised the full continuation of the existing arrangements, but later withdrew that commitment. I hope that he has been clearer in his communications with the staff than he has been with us, and I look forward to a clear statement from him today about the pension arrangements for FSS staff who have transferred into the new GovCo. The Government must do their utmost to ensure that the FSS remains an attractive employer, because it is far too important a national asset to be allowed to fall into a state of decay. The report also argued that the need for an independent regulator is becoming ever more critical at a time of transition in the forensic science market. The Committee recommended that the Government establish a forensic science advisory council to oversee the regulation of the forensic science market and to provide independent and impartial advice on forensic science. The Government accepted the broad thrust of that recommendation and promised to consider it in their review of the forensic science services market, but we got the impression that they were not keen on setting up a new body. I think that I speak for the past Committee and the present Committee when I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. We have already seen the merger of two major competitors to the FSS—Forensic Alliance and LGC—and further mergers or takeovers in the forensics market could lead the service into uncharted territory. It is essential that the Government have continued access to independent, impartial advice and that we maintain a strong forensic science base in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister give us an update on those issues? On the challenging issue of the national DNA database, the latest figures indicate that in 2004–05 alone, 40,000 crimes were detected with the aid of DNA intelligence matches. DNA profiling is without doubt a key weapon in the police armoury against crime, but the national DNA database could be described as a double-edged sword. Recent figures published by the Home Office show that police in Britain hold significantly more DNA samples than police in any other country. There are more than 3 million samples on the national DNA database, accounting for more than 5 per cent. of the population. That compares with 1 per cent. in the United States and an average of 0.3 per cent. in other European Union countries. Not surprisingly, there have been accusations from various quarters that profiling represents a dangerous erosion of civil liberties. We know that certain ethnic minorities are over-represented on the database; indeed, some 24 per cent. of people on it are non-white, even though only 8 per cent. of the population as a whole is black or Asian. A recent article in The Guardian suggested that the DNA of 37 per cent. of black men in the UK is now stored on the database, compared with 13 per cent. for Asian men and 9 per cent. for white men. Ministers cannot just repeat the mantra that innocent people have nothing to fear from the database, because evidence clearly shows that there is an ethnic bias in the profiles that are stored. We must counter the perception that the Government and the police are using stealth tactics to secure information without justification. Such perceptions provide a breeding ground for suspicion, and they create the potential for a backlash against the technology. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the Government have done to address the risk that is posed to public perceptions of the criminal justice system.