---

Forensic Science

It has been a far-ranging debate. I congratulate the Committee on its report, ““Forensic Science on Trial””. However, it is not just forensic science on trial, but science. We have heard about the question of higher education in the UK and the future of the Forensic Science Service, which is of some concern to many hon. Members. The FSS has given good service to justice in the UK, and it is not in anyone's interest—certainly not that of Government—for the FSS to be damaged in any way, particularly if that were on the altar of it becoming a GovCo, and possibly a PPP initiative. We have also heard about the question of training for the FSS and forensic medicine in general. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—some might say he is my MP, because that is my original stamping ground—spoke about the chemistry department of Sussex university. I undertook my master of science degree at Sussex, although not in chemistry. It is not just Sussex university that is suffering from a degradation in science studies, but others too. We have heard about the type of degrees that one might do in forensic science. There are 50 courses and 350 combinations of courses. Some examples were given, such as forensic science and music, religious culture and forensics. The phrase ““Mickey Mouse”” courses was used, but perhaps that is a little unfair. The aspirations of students are very important. Do they seriously expect to go straight into forensics with a degree in forensic medicine and media studies, which the Minister gave as an example from a sedentary position? The clear answer has to be no. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, clearer guidance should be given to students regarding what their expectations of going into forensic science might be, given their particular course. Another tremendously important area discussed was the assessment and interpretation of evidence in courts, not only by the lawyers who present the evidence but by the jurors. One contributor spoke about a study being undertaken by the Home Office on how juries make their decisions. It is a dangerous path to tread. However, it is important. The example was given that one juror might have scientific knowledge—or claim to—and persuade the other 11 to give a guilty or not guilty verdict. The real problem in this country—I have argued this for a long time and it does not happen so much in the United States—is that we tend to get either artists or scientists, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Whether it is because of our A-level system, which forces us to study three or four subjects from the age of 16 onwards, I do not know. However, it is a fact that we often end up with inarticulate scientists and innumerate artists. Incidentally, I did a law degree but with double maths, physics and English A-levels, which was most unusual. I think that I was the only person doing a law degree with any sort of science A-level background. I thought that it would help me to be a better lawyer; clearly, it has affected my ability to be articulate, but that is why I became an MP instead. It is important that lawyers are given training in some aspects of forensic science. They are certainly given professional training in the rules of evidence and a subset of evidence is forensics. However, there is no training in that at present, as far as I know. I hope that hon. Members who did their professional exams more recently than me can correct me if I am wrong, but I am convinced that there is no training in that at all. That is why we get the problems that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about, where people who give professional evidence in court in good faith as so-called experts—often they are experts—are vilified by untrained journalists and, I am afraid, politicians. There has been a lot of talk about the DNA database, which is maintained by police forces in the United Kingdom. I speak not for my party, but personally when I say that I have no objection. If Parliament wanted a DNA database for the entire population, and that was Parliament's will, I could see some advantages. It would not only help in the detection of crime, but have huge importance in epidemiology—