---

Forensic Science

: It is a pleasure to see you in your elevated position, Mr. Pope. I congratulate you on that promotion and on another promotion giving you cause to smile—that of Accrington Stanley to the football league. It is a good time for you, Mr. Pope, with two promotions following hard on one another. I, too, thank the Select Committee for what has been an excellent debate. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, there have been some truly excellent and distinguished contributions, by hon. Members who have a great deal of expertise in the field. The range of contributions shows the level at which the Committee has engaged with the issues. I welcome that indeed. The distinguished Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), referred to English graduates at one point, so I hope that he will not hold it against me when I say that this humble English graduate is being tested to the full today. My solitary O-level in biology is being stretched to its limits by the Committee, but I shall do my best. The Committee is not celebrating its achievements enough. The publication of the report, under the then chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) but since followed up assiduously by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, has led to an unprecedented focus on forensic science, certainly in this place. Mention has been made of the Adjournment debate on 18 October last year and the oral evidence, when three Ministers came before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might not like the fact that we do not meet more often, but that was an unprecedented development and a welcome one. There was the debate on the revocation of the trading fund order that allowed us to establish the GovCo, which was also used for a wide-ranging debate on the Forensic Science Service. There was also a recent debate on the national DNA database, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said. I do not believe that there has ever been so much scrutiny or focus in Parliament on such matters. That focus is to be welcomed, and the Committee's report has played a vital role in stimulating the process. I carefully read an article that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough wrote in The Times this week about the report and the follow-up to it. If I read the article correctly, the tone was one of disappointment and chiding, saying that more should be done. That is why I say that the Committee should celebrate its successes more. The hon. Gentleman finished by saying:"““The case for complacency needs to be proven.””" However, complacency does not at all characterise the Government's attitude. Through the DNA expansion programme, the Home Office has been investing unprecedented resources into expanding the use of DNA and, more generally, the quality of science available to our police forces. To refer to the point that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made, those resources have gone directly into the capacity of police forces. There have been enormous levels of activity, which will ultimately knock on to the courts because, as was said, more evidence will come before the courts involving forensic studies and DNA. Although the Committee might not achieve every recommendation in its report, I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will accept that there is progress on its substantial points. I shall go through the main issues that the hon. Gentleman itemised and draw out some of the observations that other hon. Members made. The hon. Gentleman's main issue was the changed status of the Forensic Science Service. I am well aware of his concern and that of the Committee but, to be clear, there is anything but confusion. I am extremely clear about the process that we have under way and I should like to reassure him and the Committee about that. Two significant developments have taken place since I gave evidence before the Committee. The first was the revocation of the trading fund status and the creation of the GovCo in December 2005. That was a major development, but in the end it happened smoothly and without great uncertainty. I am pleased to say that the FSS has settled down well and has taken to GovCo status quickly. Secondly, I gave the hon. Gentleman my commitment during the Committee sitting that I attended to publish the criteria on which we would judge any further change in status to a PPP. For the avoidance of any doubt whatever—I say this directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—no irrevocable decision has been taken. Indeed, to pick up the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) made too, when I introduced the revocation of the trading fund order in December, I was persuaded that more time needed to be given. I was influenced by the Committee that day. I am sure that my hon. Friend pushed me more than once on the GovCo needing to be given time to bed down, get used to the new status and the new freedoms available to it, and have a chance to succeed in its own right. That is the phrase that we have used and it is a phrase that I will repeat and stick by. I extended the minimum time in which we said that no decision would be taken. We had said that no decision would be taken before December 2006, but in the course of that debate we said that no decision would be taken before the summer of 2007. We did not go for the full two years that my hon. Friend asked me for today, but I hope that he does not feel that we are not listening. We are, and I responded directly to some of the points that he made. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) mentioned limbo. It also would not be right to have a prolonged sense of limbo. We need clarity and an open process and, when the time comes to make a decision, to be clear about it and allow the FSS to have certainty about its future, because a prolonged period of uncertainty is not in the interests of the service. We published the criteria on 29 March. They set out the four key areas by which we will judge the GovCo in due course. To conclude on this point, however, I repeat that no decision has been taken. I have been keen to give the FSS time to adapt to its new GovCo status, and to see what benefits it brings and how the service can use them to improve its operation. To recognise the point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, changes are taking place in the forensic science market. There was recently a major merger of the two other players, which will have an impact on the marketplace as a whole. He mentioned that I had identified the needs of the criminal justice system as the paramount concern in judging the criteria. That has to be at the forefront of any discussion. The second itemised criterion is the state of the UK forensic services marketplace. Of course the issue will be informed by the matters that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised, and we shall want to consider them extremely carefully. At the end of the day, our first consideration should be the quality of the service provided to the police and the criminal justice system. That is what we are about. I am sure that we could all unite behind trying to achieve the highest quality of provision. That should be the key point that determines our discussions. We have laid out a clear way for the FSS in the statement. I hope to assure hon. Members that I will certainly continue to deal with the process openly and with straightforward responses to questions. Where we can give information on performance, we will of course seek to do so. To pick up the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown raised, the process should not be secretive, but nor can we compromise the FSS as it seeks to enhance its position in the marketplace. We need to make that balanced judgment, but I can give the Committee many of the assurances that it wants on such matters. To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made, I do not think that it is wrong for the Home Office to take the balanced, rounded view. We have the broadest possible view, in considering the interests of the police, the criminal justice system and public safety in the round. We are well placed to make that decision. As I tried to outline, we need to balance all the factors and criteria. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned FSS staff pensions. It is true that the staff are now public servants rather than civil servants. As such, they are no longer entitled to accrued benefits within the principal civil service pension scheme. However, the terms and conditions are broadly comparable. I will be visiting the FSS at Chorley tomorrow morning, and I am sure that the trade union representatives and I will be engaged on those matters. I meet them regularly, and I know that they are constantly updated. Several hon. Members spoke about the national DNA database, which is of considerable interest at the moment. I make it plain that Parliament has taken a view on the national database. The extension of police powers to collect information was debated in Parliament, and a positive vote was given on those precise matters. Colleagues will remember that the question originated in a ruling by the House of Lords, when DNA evidence that was deemed inadmissible because there was no legal basis on which it could be retained, could not be introduced in a rape trial, even though it would have provided conclusive proof in that case. It is not true that Parliament has not been consulted.