Proceeding contribution from Guy Opperman (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 27 February 2012. It occurred during Estimates day on Forensic Science Service.
Forensic Science Service
I accept that accreditation is important, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that, but to a certain extent the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Prosecution teams and police teams will go to organisations that have proved their worth in past cases, but that is not to say that such organisations will always get it right. We have all seen, whether in shaken baby cases or in other cases where there is alternative forensic evidence, how the fact that an organisation may have performed perfectly in a previous case does not mean that it cannot make a mistake in the current case. I will move on from the Forensic Science Service itself to give a topical example; I ask you to indulge me for a couple of minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a constituent, Tony Pickering of Haydon Bridge in Northumberland, whose son, Aidan, died in Delhi on approximately 8 March 2010. Aidan was only 24 and had only recently gone to Delhi. If there is an example of a forensic science system that is not working, where private organisations should be brought in, the Indian system is that example. A post mortem and toxicology tests were carried out in India in March 2010, and Aidan's body was subsequently brought home. The coroner cannot carry out an inquest in Newcastle, however, because the toxicology results have not been assessed. I regret to say that it took more than a year for the samples to be sent from the local police station to the Rohini central forensic laboratory in Delhi. Another year has now passed, and the family of young Aidan Pickering still do not know what their fate is. Sadly, this is not an isolated example. The high commission in India tells me that as of November 2011, it had 64 cases awaiting toxicology and forensic analysis. I urge the Indian authorities to look into this matter. In the context of this debate, this is a good example of how the involvement of private organisations could be a good thing, and could have assisted. I shall be visiting India in April to raise that case personally, and I should say that I have been assisted in this by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has been an assiduous Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He has raised the issue of forensic science very successfully, not only here but in other places. He raised this particular case not only with the high commissioner for India but with the Home Minister of India, Mr Chidambaram, and I am grateful for his assistance. I support the decision that has been made on the Forensic Science Service, although I seek certain clarifications that I hope the Minister will be able to provide. I urge him to move forward on this matter. I also urge him to enable the Home Office to assist in any way it can in the case of my constituents who are struggling with the forensic science laboratories in India.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 541 c109-10
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Finance Evidence Forensic science Expenditure Private sector Police Research Forensic Science Service Public private partnerships
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-11-20 16:22:17 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_812118
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_812118
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_812118