---

Forensic Science

On 17 February, I visited the scientific support unit of Northamptonshire police force. During the past year, I have had the privilege of completing a 22-day attachment with the force as part of the police parliamentary scheme. My day with the forensic science department was most illuminating. I thank Dr. John Bond, the scientific support manager, David Goodwin, the head of fingerprints, Peter Watson, the head of forensic investigation and Claire Rocks, the investigator to whom I was attached, for a most informative and illuminating day. There are 50 forensic staff in the Northamptonshire police force. They operate on a budget of £2.5 million, and they pick up almost 50 per cent. of the relevant detections for those crimes most easily detected by forensic science. Without those people's good work there would be far more criminals at large in Northamptonshire, committing far more crimes than is currently the case. The important point I want to contribute to this debate is that the Home Office's own data show that scientific support units are most effective when they are engaged in police forces of about 1,500 officers. My worry is that, despite all the improvements in the technical ability of forensic science in terms of fingerprinting and DNA sampling, if the intended police mergers go ahead, we could end up with fewer crimes being detected. The forces will be far larger, and therefore less effective in using fingerprint and DNA technology. The Northamptonshire police scientific support unit was established as a result of the famous Touche Ross report of 1987, which sought to establish such units on the basis of county police forces; there was a move away from regional scientific support units. That is the opposite direction to that in which the proposed police mergers might take us. As a result of that earlier direction, fingerprint and DNA detection increased. The report's recommendation was effective—it worked. As hon. Members know, the crime types where forensic science has the most detection potential are burglary dwellings and theft of motor vehicles. In the 12 months to the end of December 2005, in Northamptonshire, 48 per cent. of all burglary dwellings detections, 47 per cent. of all theft of motor vehicles detections and 30 per cent. of all thefts from motor vehicles detections were a direct result of fingerprint and DNA work by Northamptonshire police's scientific support unit. That clearly demonstrates the success of, and need for, forensic science. The Home Office's own data show that, where the size of a police force is increased, the detection rates for forensic science decrease. I am using not my numbers, but the Home Office's own figures. We all know that most crime remains undetected. However, let us consider some figures relating to recorded residential burglary and theft of motor vehicles detected by DNA and fingerprinting in 2004–05. The best results in the country were achieved by forces of between 1,000 and 2,000 police officers, where some 10.5 per cent. of the overall crime in those categories was detected using DNA and fingerprinting. For the larger forces involving between 6,000 and 8,000 police officers, the figures decrease to about 3 per cent. My worry is that, if we have a similar debate in 10 years' time, the Home Office data, which we assume are right now, might show that we are detecting fewer crimes by forensic science. I am horribly biased in my analysis because Northamptonshire police's scientific support unit is among the best in the country. It takes its work extremely seriously. Let us consider the percentage of domestic burglary crimes that were examined for fingerprints in 2005–06. Northamptonshire police and the British Transport police examined every such crime scene for fingerprints, whereas the national average was just 86 per cent. All four forces with which Northamptonshire's police force is proposed to be merged had a worse record than it did. Let us consider the percentages of stolen vehicles examined for fingerprints and DNA by police forces in 2005–06. Northamptonshire's police managed a figure of 95 per cent., whereas the national average is 46 per cent. The four forces I mentioned again did worse. Let us consider the percentage of recorded burglary dwellings where the use of fingerprints led to the detection of a crime. The Northamptonshire force is in the upper quartile and its performance is well above the national average. Two of the forces with which it is to be merged are in the lower quartile, and so it continues. My conclusion is that Northamptonshire's excellent scientific support unit, led by Dr. John Bond, is imperilled by the proposed police mergers. The Northamptonshire unit has also led the way in the technological development of fingerprint techniques. It played a full role in the first automated fingerprint identification system in the early 1990s. It has made full use of the first national automated fingerprint identification system, or NAFIS, and, most recently, its successor, Ident1. By this summer, Northamptonshire police will have the benefit of Livescan machines that will electronically record arrestees' fingerprints and automatically search them on the national database for proof of identity. The National Fingerprint Board recently published data for the first quarter of this year which showed that in Northamptonshire the scientific support staff handle more cases per fingerprint expert than any other force in the country. In addition, they achieve many more identifications per fingerprint expert than the national average. The Northamptonshire force processes 120 crimes per fingerprint expert. The figures for all the forces with which it is proposed to merge are considerably worse. The figure for the Leicestershire force is 40, which is the second worst in the country. The Northamptonshire force is also developing nano-technology, which is the focus of a research project that it is undertaking to enhance the techniques for revealing fingerprints. Nanotechnology is likely to be one of the biggest steps forward in fingerprint technology in the past 30 years. The Northamptonshire force was also behind the last major step forward: the use of superglue vapour. I do not imagine that many people in this Chamber inhale glue vapour. However, if vapour is produced from superglue, fingerprints can be made to appear from almost nowhere. That was discovered by Northamptonshire police. Northamptonshire's unit recently teamed up with the scientific team at St. Andrews university. Its polymer optoelectronics group is world renowned in the development of nanoparticle semiconductors. Together they are developing new techniques to make fingerprints that cannot currently be detected available for identification. The work will have a tremendous impact on enhancing fingerprints and will therefore increase fingerprint detections. If it is successful in Northamptonshire, I have no doubt that it will be rolled out throughout the country. The Northamptonshire force has led the way in respect of success with DNA. It has been involved in the national DNA database since April 1995, and in recent months the FSS has described Northamptonshire police's DNA performance as ““simply spectacular”” and ““amazing””. Northamptonshire's success rate in obtaining DNA profiles suitable for inclusion on the national database is far higher than that of the rest of the east midlands region, with which it is now proposed that it will merge—65 per cent. in Northamptonshire, compared with 57 per cent. in the east midlands. The national figure is merely 53 per cent. In my brief contribution to this debate, I wanted not only to bring to the House's attention the success of Northamptonshire's scientific support unit and to thank its staff for the day I spent with them, but to give a serious warning that forensic science has been overlooked in the ““Closing the Gap”” report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. That is a serious omission. If this all goes wrong, we could end up with fewer crimes being detected as a result of forensic science because of the police mergers that the Government propose.