---

Forensic Science

: Yes. Even if we remain with a GovCo, we still have something of a market. Many other aspects—many of which have been aired this afternoon—require the attention of a regulator. Unlike the normal regulation of a market, there are serious issues of scientific quality in this area, and there is no arbiter or authority to keep a check on them. I would go further than the report, and suggest that one role of the regulator—the advisory council, which needs to be a highly qualified body—would be to maintain a high level of scientific quality throughout the criminal justice system. There is an important role for a regulator in any event. I hope it is clear that I do not wish to see the introduction of PPP. I am convinced that, properly supported, the GovCo can work very well. But it must be properly supported. I turn to the national DNA database and other databases. I, too, have been concerned about the ease with which a young person can find themselves DNA tested and put on the database without ever having been cautioned, charged or anything. Such practice approaches the edge of a serious civil liberties issue, and I should like the Minister to address it. There is no control over the police in this matter. Are they simply on a stamp-collecting exercise, whereby any young person who comes to their attention automatically goes on to the database, so that they have lots of reference material when hunting for villains? If so, I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He said that if we want the police to do that, Parliament should be the body that decides, not the police of their own volition. We do not yet have any certainty about the future ownership and control of either the DNA or other databases. Control and ownership will have to be removed from the Forensic Science Service, even with its transition to a GovCo. Will the Minister provide us with some further information about what the Government have in mind for the long-term future of the control and ownership of the databases? That is absolutely fundamental. We have said much about training, and I fully endorse it. The chemistry department under threat of closure at my local university, the university of Sussex, is an excellent department. We may yet save it, but we shall see. Its life would have been made much easier if prospective students who wanted to work in forensic science were aware that their best way in is to do a proper chemistry or physics degree. Do a serious science degree, and then top it up with some postgraduate training—boom! Doing one of the 455 Mickey Mouse degrees that, if one wants to enter forensic science, are on a par with a degree in media studies, is a total waste of time. It defrauds students and it does a disservice to the reputation of universities if they pander to the market in that facile way. It would help if the Government and forensic science associations made it clear to students what were the best career and qualification paths for entering forensic science. It would encourage recruitment into serious science departments. There should be not only accredited degrees, but recognised and accredited qualifications for entering the profession and becoming a registered practitioner. Regulation is needed, and it could form part of the work of the independent regulator, if established. A very useful service would be created. Research and development is not financed clearly, nor is it subject to any clear strategy. It would be most unfortunate if FSS, as a GovCo or in whatever form, were not at the cutting edge because there was not enough research and development in forensic science. Encouraging the ““forensification””—that dreadful word that we heard in evidence to the Committee—of techniques for use in the criminal justice system will require a clear research strategy. We do not have one. We need clearly identified investment; we do not have it. Moreover, we do not have any clearly recognised body that can validate a new technique before its application to the criminal justice service, or assess whether it is fit for evidential purposes in the courts. It is another potential role for the advisory council, and another issue on which I should like some guidance from my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall not stray into the thorny issues of court procedures, the legal profession and so on. Those issues have been fairly well explored, but other related issues in addition to the fundamental question of the status of the Forensic Science Service have been exposed by the inquiry and need answers.