UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 96-v
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
FORENSIC
SCIENCE
Wednesday 9 February 2005
CAROLINE FLINT MP, DR LYN FEREDAY
and MR TIM WILSON
Evidence heard in Public Questions 531 - 633
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
|
1.
|
This is an uncorrected and unpublished
transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House
|
|
2.
|
The transcript is not yet an approved
formal record of these proceedings. Any public use of, or reference to the
contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the
opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using
the transcript, please contact the Clerk to the Committee.
|
|
3.
|
Members
who receive this for the purpose of correcting
questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the
Committee Assistant.
|
|
4.
|
Prospective
witnesses may receive this in preparation for any
written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
Oral Evidence
Taken
before the Science and Technology Committee
on
Wednesday 9 February 2005
Members present
Dr Ian Gibson, in the Chair
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Mr Tony McWalter
Dr Desmond Turner
________________
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Caroline Flint, a Member of the
House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Reducing Organised and
International Crime, Anti-Drugs Co-Ordination and International and European
Unit, Dr Lyn Fereday, DNA Expansion
Programme Manager, and Mr Tim Wilson,
Head, Science Policy Unit, the Home Office, examined.
Q531 Chairman: Welcome, Minister. Nice to see you again, Tim, and welcome, Lyn, to the Committee
this morning. I think you know we have
been looking into forensic science and it has been quite absorbing and
interesting. I am finding out about
things I never knew went on in courts, so I must go some time and see how it is
used, the evidence. There is some
confusion, Minister, about the statement that has been made on 11 January of
this year about the future of the Service.
Is it a change of policy, for example, or is it just a statement of
previous policy? What is the situation,
please? Is PPP still an option?
Caroline Flint: PPP is still an option, but
what we said in the statement, and I took over this portfolio around June of
last year, is that it was the intention originally, as you are probably aware,
that going to a government-owned company was part of the transition stage
towards a PPP and that was always open and transparent. What we have said, and this was in
discussion with the previous Home Secretary and endorsed by this Home
Secretary, is that we are making that move, but what we have said is that if
the FSS can compete, given what we know from McFarland and what I have actually
seen in the last six months of the problems facing FSS, then if it did succeed,
it would not necessarily be a move to a PPP.
At the moment we do think that even though a government-owned company
does give some benefits, certainly in terms of FSS and its contractual
arrangements with its customers, we are still worried about the problems about
getting investment and equity to develop the Service, so we have been clear
about that. Having said that, I think
in the statement that was issued just before Christmas we were prepared to see
if the GovCo could make a go of it and we have given a sort of two-year cycle
for that to happen, so we are not going necessarily to move straightaway, but
we would have to be convinced that it could not succeed in order to move, but
we still think that has to be an option at the end of the day.
Q532 Chairman: It still feels like it has been a change in
policy. Is that because there is a new
Home Secretary, the charming chap that we all know?
Caroline Flint: It is not a change in policy
because actually the statement was agreed with the previous Home Secretary
before Christmas, so it is part of the discussions about this areaome Ho Ho and we have met with
obviously MPs and others in their concerns.
At the end of the day, when I took over in June, I said to people,
"What's going on here? Why are we doing
this? Why is this happening?", and I
have seen the evidence you have already received and read other people's
testimonies and it seems clear that the world is changing around FSS and,
therefore, I have always been clear that actually the status quo was not an
option. If the GovCo can deliver, then
that is fine, but I still have doubts about particularly the injection of
sufficient funding for it to develop and for it to innovate in the future. I have to say, I think there are two sites I
have not been to so far and, for example, the accommodation that people are
working in is an issue, I think, for the future and there will be significant
capital investment for that.
Q533 Chairman: So if I said to you that really it was a stay
of execution, do you think I would be over-egging it a bit?
Caroline Flint: I think what we are saying
really is that we are willing to see if the GovCo can work, but it has to prove
it can work and it can deliver. What we
have said also is that if we did think we should move to a PPP, we would be
absolutely clear about the reasons for that and what the benefits would be in
terms of FSS, but would not be delivered by a GovCo. I think really the GovCo does give an opportunity for both the
management, the staff and, for that matter, the unions to see if that can
work. It will provide some benefits
that we cannot currently provide under the trading status, particularly in
terms of its contractual relationship with its customers, but it still has
limitations in terms of, for example, the threshold that is placed on it in
terms of the contracts it can carry out independently.
Q534 Chairman: But you will understand the nervousness of
people who work within it given that there is a general election, who knows,
perhaps new ministers and a change of direction again, so can you allay any
fears that might appertain to those events?
Caroline Flint: I cannot foresee the outcome
of a general election, but I have to say I think there has been both before I
took over this role, but also since, considerable discussion about the problems
facing FSS. Now, I do believe that
whoever has this responsibility after the general election, when they see the information,
they will realise that actually the status quo is not an option and, therefore,
we have to make some changes, and I think that is in the best interests of FSS,
but also in terms of our criminal justice system as well. I think for someone to have to change the
pattern of direction, they would have to have access to something I have not
had access to in order to suggest that things should stay as they are at the
moment, which I do not think is practical and I actually do not think that even
serves staff in terms of their future service and stability either.
Q535 Chairman: Has the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home
Office been involved in these decisions and been consulted?
Mr Wilson: Yes, Paul Wiles, as Chief
Scientific Adviser, is clearly aware of the way in which corporate policy is
being directed and will have been copied into quite a lot of material. The overall direction is reflected in the
Police Scientific and Technology Strategy which Paul was very much involved in,
and we have a strategic group that pulls together the Home Office's own
scientific and IT experts with some outside participants, the police and a wide
range of stakeholders, including the Police Federation and the Chief
Superintendents Association, so this is all taking place reasonably openly
within the broader corporate Home Office.
Q536 Chairman: Are negotiations taking place with the trade
unions, for example?
Mr Wilson: He has not been involved in
negotiations taking place with the trade unions.
Q537 Chairman: Is that planned?
Mr Wilson: That is primarily a matter
for the Chief Executive of the Forensic Science Service because he is
responsible for those people. I have
had a limited involvement with the trade union side in discussing the outline
business case and trying to explain that without breaching commercial
confidentiality and also listening to their own alternative proposals where we
established some common ground, recognising that there has to be some way of
bringing development capital into the FSS.
There are issues about its vulnerability in that because it is at the
moment without a broader revenue base, it is highly dependent on expenditure by
the police and a quite narrow range of criminal justice participants.
Q538 Dr Harris: You just said I think, Minister, that the statement
of 11 January was not a change of policy, as I think was the implication, that
the new Home Secretary changed the policy, but I got the impression from
reading the newspapers that it was a change in policy and indeed some people
have interpreted it as such. Can you
just clarify exactly what the difference is between the plan post-11 January
and before?
Caroline Flint: The McFarland Report, as you
will be aware, when it looked at FSS, did think that the end result should be a
PPP, but it did say within that that the organisation would have to go to a
government-owned company as part of that step-by-step process, so that was
always, always there.
Q539 Dr Harris: Government policy is not the McFarland
Report.
Caroline Flint: No, he accepted that and
accepted the recommendation of McFarland on this issue. Obviously there have been a number of
discussions about how we would go forward on that. In terms of what we have said in relation to declaring that we
are going to move now to a government-owned company, what we have said is that
the only difference is that if a government-owned company can provide the sort
of stability and the opportunity for FSS to compete in this changing market,
then, all things being equal, we do not necessarily move to a PPP, but what I
have said is I do think still, and we have been open enough about this and how
the media interpret it is entirely up to them, what people say and voices off,
but we have said and I think it is clear in the written statement, which I do
have here before me, that, "The timing of the next stage will depend on
reaching agreement with key stakeholders that conditions are favourable and the
move would be advantageous to the business".
What it also, I think, says is that if the government-owned company can
succeed and succeed in terms of the problems we have identified, then we would
not necessarily move, but, as I said to the Chairman before, I think one of the
problems that I see and understand in terms of a government-owned company is
that there is still this problem about injecting sufficient capital and private
investment for the organisation.
Dr Harris: There may be other questions
on that. I am sure we are going to
explore the GovCo issue. That is
interesting because my next question is: who decides? Your answer, and I would like to quote you, Minister, your answer
suggested that it would "depend upon reaching agreement", this is what the
statement said, "with the key stakeholders that conditions are favourable [for
the development of a PPP] and the move would be advantageous to the business",
so that seems to suggest there is going to be agreement with the key
stakeholders that the GovCo does not deliver everything that you need it to
deliver. Then in answer to a further
question we put to you in a written sense, this is question 10 of our further
questions, we raised that quote and you say that, "The views of stakeholders
will be taken into account", that is, FSS, ACPO, APA and TUs representing the
FSS staff, "when determining the next steps, but the main focus will be on the
interests of business, the cost ----
Chairman: Can you make a question out
of this, please?
Q540 Dr Harris: The question is that that looks as if it does
not depend on key stakeholder agreement because you say that the main focus
will be on blah, blah, blah.
Caroline Flint: The problem is that I did
not want to read out the whole of the written ministerial statement, but
perhaps I can refer to another paragraph in the written statement. It says: "This will be a transitional structure. In the light of FSS performance as a GovCo
the Government will consider what next steps are necessary to facilitate the
growth of the business, ensure the future of the FSS, maintain its position at
the forefront of forensic science, and maximise its contribution to reducing
crime and the fear of crime". That has
to underpin everything that we do, but of course, as Tim just said before about
our engagement with stakeholders on a number of issues, procurement issues, the
development, innovation and science, of course we connect with stakeholders,
but underpinning all of that has to be about how the Service will deliver
primarily in helping to reduce crime and obviously detect crime and get people
in court and prosecute them.
Mr Wilson: Can I come back on the
previous question just to clarify that.
There is no change of policy, but there is a distinctive change of
pace. Normally when the Government
seize the majority control of an entity, the government-owned company
corporatised stage takes place a minute before midnight and a minute after
midnight, it sells 51 per cent or so of its stake. What we are trying to do is expand that window of opportunity to
work with the FSS to see how it can transform itself, running under a corporate
structure, not an accounting officer's structure, with people with the right
kind of commercial discipline and experience in order to see what can be
achieved from the revenue that the organisation itself can earn as it develops
to face a competitive market. We think
the time is propitious for that because ACPO and the APA, as the main funders
of services purchased from the FSS, are working very hard to adopt a strategic
approach to procurement which is not about getting people to rush to
procurement willy-nilly, but it is about trying to have a controlled approach
to tenders coming into the market.
That provides a window of opportunity for the FSS to adjust to changes
that are being driven by value for money, in its broadest sense, including
changes in the criminal justice system that require a staged approach, as the
CPS were explaining last week, which would put great demand on all forensic
providers to actually begin to report in on a whole case basis in a much more
structured and timely manner than we are seeing on the whole now. Therefore, we have two important windows of
opportunity and we are seeking to maximise the benefits that can be obtained
for the FSS and forensic science in general by managing it in this period.
Q541 Dr Turner: Minister, you have set a target date for
transforming the FSS to a GovCo of 1 July of this year. Is this a realistic target date? What else do you have to do to get it
there? Why has it taken so long to set
this date when you said two years ago that you were moving to change the status
of the FSS?
Caroline Flint: Well, perhaps Tim can talk
about before I took on this role in June 2003, but I think you are right. I think it is an ambitious target in terms
of reaching that by 1 July of this year, but, having said that, obviously there
has been considerable discussion going on for the last couple of years. One of the things I felt that I had to
address, as the Minister, was to make some progress because I think the longer
we just left it and did not make a decision about the move to a GovCo, the more
uncertainty I felt there was for the FSS at the end of the day. I really felt that both from obviously
official submissions I get, but also when I went out to some of the service
providers themselves and having meetings with staff and talking to staff as
well, so I thought that was important.
I think also, linked to what Tim has just said, is that parallel to this
is the work that is going on with ACPO and the APA in relation to procurement
because one of the things that really struck me in taking over this role was
the very sort of laissez-faire
attitude from sometimes the customer towards the Forensic Science Service and
the ability of the Forensic Science Service to have far tighter procurement and
contracting arrangements that did not put them in, I think, a weak position and
a bad place. I really felt that that
was something that they were suffering from in the position they were in in
terms of a trading fund status. As I
said, having come into this in June, most of my discussions over the last six
months have been about trying to establish for myself what the problems are and
trying to make progress on discussions which have already happened, on work
that had already been done on the outline business case in July of last year
when the workshop was had with the trade unions on the outline business case,
and I think some of those activities have just fallen into place in the last
six months which I think allowed us to make this decision. I felt really there was not a lot more that
needed to be said in making that decision.
I think making the decision itself is helpful because I think it
galvanises people to get on with it and helps the FSS and, I think, the Home
Office, the police and others to work towards what I hope will be some successful
benefits of the GovCo.
Mr Wilson: It is an ambitious target
and not everything within the process is under the control of the FSS or the
Home Office. There will be contracts to
be reassigned, licences and property to be adjusted, so there are issues that
we cannot control, but unlike many such commercial processes between government
and the private sector, we have not got to bear in mind that people bidding, as
it were, to deliver something need the certainty of the programme because they
are committing resources in the same way, and most of this is controllable in
terms of Home Office, and FSS implications will affect Home Office and FSS
business performance, but not external third parties. I think it is important, given the window of opportunity was very
narrow, to move to a restructured FSS as quickly as possible and for that
reason we are being quite ambitious in setting our target.
Q542 Dr Turner: Can I just explore the commercial prospects
of GovCo in the market. You are sending
it out there with a remit to compete, but are you going to expect it to
continue to offer the full and complete range of forensic services or will it
be able to choose what it offers because some of its competitors today
obviously have the ability to cherry-pick the most profitable bits if they
choose to?
Caroline Flint: I think the short answer is
yes, the full range, but I think what is important here is that the GovCo gives
an opportunity for the FSS to have far clearer and tighter contractual
arrangements with their customers and I think that also puts a duty actually
and a responsibility on the customers to recognise that FSS has to operate in
an environment where it is competing and, in the same way as they have
contractual relationships with other providers, they should provide the same
sort of, if you like, tightness and professionalism to the way they deal with
the FSS. As I say, in the past, I think
some of that has not been as tight as it should have been. However, I think there have been
improvements though I do think sometimes that the FSS has been taken for
granted in the way it has been used but the FSS needs to look clearly at what
services it is offering and make sure it can identify the best way in which it
can provide that service and the price for that service. Also, there have been discussions about
looking at contracts where, for example, a police force gives, if you like, a
sole contract to FSS and what they would provide for having that advantage. Then I think there are other issues around,
if something breaks down in a police force with another provider, if they then
come to the FSS as, if you like, a last resort because the capacity was not
there, then I think it is quite fair for the FSS to say in that situation that
they should look at a realistic price for providing that back-up service if
there was no original contract with them.
It seems to me - and Tim can probably elaborate on this further - that
that has been missing to a great extent from the engagement between the FSS
with its main customer, the police and the police forces. Hopefully GovCo can give that a greater
professionalism in the way they carry out their contracts on both parts, both
the customer and also the provider as well.
Mr Wilson: What we are working with in terms of developing the market
requirement with the police and the CPS is an offence-based approach to
services being sold, so that, quite properly, the forensic provider is
concentrating on the offence in question, the offender in question and the
judicial timescale and has to offer the full range of forensic services that
may be required in that particular case.
So, they are competing to provide a service based on meeting your
requirements for the case rather than being able to cherry pick in terms of
disciplines although clearly, in a highly complex case, any provider, even the
FSS, may need to bring in specialists such as, for example, forensic
anthropologists and you would normally look to people like Professor Black for
that kind of assistance. In terms of
provider of last resort, there is a very strong perception that the FSS is
having to carry that burden. Any such
burden has a cost. It is quite right,
if the FSS has to carry that burden, that the FSS receives fair remuneration
for the cost rather than distorting prices that it has to charge to its
customers who kind of put all their demand with the FSS in order that the FSS
can provide them with an efficient service.
So, we are trying in effect to reduce cross-subsidisation and for
individual forces or groups of forces to recognise the consequences of their
procurement decisions.
Q543 Dr Turner: Obviously charging mechanisms are quite a
crucial issue but who is going to actually determine these charging
mechanisms? Will GovCo be free, as
would a normal business, to set its own price structures?
Caroline Flint: Yes.
Q544 Dr Turner: And likewise the implications for pay and
conditions of the staff. At the moment,
I take it that they are getting Civil Service pay scales and obviously a
company would not necessarily do that.
What would happen to these issues?
Caroline Flint: It would be the FSS that
could determine its own prices and they would have to look at that in terms of
obviously what the competition is out there but also the quality of what they
are providing as well because I think that is an issue here and the quality is
also linked to the people at the end of the day. These are issues that to a certain extent the FSS has had to deal
with in the last few years, that is not something new, and the problems about having
the flexibility to respond to some of these areas does raise some challenging
questions but it is also about their ability to be flexible to provide the sort
of services at the right price and at the same time having the qualified people
to do that sort of work. It is
interesting that, when I have visited some of the different establishments, the
range of different skills is quite enormous and I am not a forensic scientist
and I am not claiming to be by any stretch of the imagination. If I look at, for example, a presentation I
had up in the North West - I think it might have been the Chorley establishment
- on the sort of service the Forensic Science Service was offering to deal
with, for example, sexual crimes, rapes, a holistic service to police forces
and all that that involved in terms of analysis and in terms of the evidence
collection and everything else, that sort of service, a sort of bespoke
service, that they could provide compared to the work that at one time was
incredibly labour intensive but is changing in terms of sampling, that is the
range of different services that is on offer in FSS and some of them elsewhere
that do require a much more defined pricing and what came across to me was that
sometimes what was happening was that you could have a rather lower price than
I would expect for a bespoke service and a rather higher price than I would
expect compared to some of the other providers for some of the testing of
samples and it is not for me, it is for the FSS to, if you like, grapple with
those issues and find a better way in which they can get a good return for what
I think are highly skilled and qualified services as well as recognising that,
in some of the other services, the competition is out there and maybe their
prices have to reflect the marketplace better and then decide how it will
provide those different services in the round
as a corporate body.
Mr Wilson: On the second point of your
question, we are seeking to maintain maximum flexibility for how the FSS manage
their business including the pay and conditions for their staff. These issues have yet to be discussed with
the trade union side, so I do not think it would be proper to go into any
detail, but it is important given that the key assets of the organisation are
the staff themselves in terms of the quality they provide and their ability to
adapt to new working practices in the more demanding world and the skills that
they have acquired over time. That is a
very important investment which the organisation has made. It is central to the future prosperity of
the business. However, they will need
to adapt to change and demands in the business as time limits begin to change
as far as their customers are concerned.
So, there is a lot of work for FSS management to do there with their
staff.
Caroline Flint: May I just add a note to
that because I think running alongside that, as well as the work we are doing
with the police in the APA on procurement issues, the other area of discussion
is about issues around quality assurance as well and I think that is an
important part of this too which should apply to whether it is the FSS or any
other provider out there, but where do we go in terms of a regulator, if that
is the right term, and you might have some questions on that later.
Chairman: We will come back to that.
Q545 Dr Turner: If a GovCo is judged to be successful, you
are saying that it would be able to continue its future life as a GovCo, but of
course that depends very much, does it not, on your criteria for success and it
is also not irrelevant that the Government are the sole shareholder, so the
Government have considerable influence over the direction of the company in any
event. So, it is actually a controlling
factor in its success or otherwise, is it not?
How has this worked out with other GovCos? How many other GovCos do we have left?
Mr Wilson: It has been a declining
number in recent years and I think the approach to GovCos has changed in recent
years; it used to be very much one minute to midnight, all seen very much as a
second-best solution. We have been
working very hard with the Treasury and the Shareholder Executive and continue
to work in terms of what this generation of GovCos will achieve. As you are probably aware, it is a vehicle
that the Treasury has selected for the modernisation of the Royal Mint and the
Shareholder Executive, with whom we work very closely, has been created to seek
to ensure that there is a common approach across Government to maximise value
and I think that there the interests of the organisation, its employees and
Government come together because we wish to see a strong organisation that
increases in value under Government ownership and that value will be generated
by its ability to convince its customers that it is the supplier of their
choice.
Q546 Dr Turner: The big point that has always been advanced
about PPP was the access to capital. It
was that which was a supposedly great advantage. It has not always been a great success. I do remember Air Traffic Control - I have that t-shirt as
well. Why is it that this difference
has to persist? Is there any reason why
GovCo should not be able to borrow, prudentially of course, to invest as
needed? After all, just as Air Traffic
Control did, it has a sufficient revenue to deal with borrowings and I am sure
that GovCo FSS will likewise have a sufficient revenue stream to be able to
handle capital borrowings where necessary.
Is the Treasury putting barriers to this?
Mr Wilson: As a Government-owned
company, any borrowings are classified to the public sector and therefore
access to capital for future development will be determined by fiscal policy
rather than necessarily the needs of the business. The Minister has been extremely frank about that in saying that
we are determined to seek to make a success of GovCo, but ultimately it may not
be achievable. It may not be achievable
because of quite proper fiscal stability that the Government are determined to
achieve which may not create the opportunities for the level of investment that
the FSS may require.
Q547 Dr Turner: I appreciate that argument but it always
seemed to be a slightly false one and I would like your view because it is
public money anyway, it is public money that is paying for the service, so
whether capital is being borrowed by a now privatised company or by a GovCo, it
is still being serviced by public money.
Mr Wilson: It is the value that we
extract from that investment that is key to the issue and I think that many of
the reports by the NAO have indicated, in PFI delivery of projects on time
without cost overrun in a way that is extracting better money in many cases
from that capital investment than Government PFII has tended to achieve for its
direct capital investment. I think that
the Air Traffic Control situation was a highly geared undertaking that faced
circumstances that perhaps understandably people had not put into the model
when they were looking at the sensitivities of the deal and I think they were
stuck with an arrangement where they could only adjust the income from the
people funding the service once a year.
So, I think Air Traffic Control had particular circumstances applied to
their project.
Q548 Dr Turner: Would it be fair to say that, at the end of
it, it comes down very simply to Treasury rules?
Mr Wilson: I think the rules are there
as an important framework for fiscal stability. This Government are in a very strong position compared with many
of our fellow EU States but, within the fiscal stability rules, I think it
actually comes down to making the right decisions by identifying potential
risks and taking early realistic steps to think from the financial consequences
of those and how you best manage and mitigate and how you best structure the
financial arrangement in a bespoke manner for the risks that the task you are
seeking to achieve through capital investment is best managed because
ultimately the risks will drive up market capital and the value of the
(inaudible).
Q549 Mr McWalter: Where is the definitive argument for the
extraordinary claims you have just made about PFI to be found? What evidence do you have that those
advantages will be secured long term?
What evidence do you have that the extraordinarily low rate of investment
in private companies in Britain compared, say, to private companies in Japan
and America will not continue to vitiate any investment gains that you think
you might make in the immediate to longer term?
Caroline Flint: In terms of a move to PPP
and private investment, one of the issues will be, is there the sort of private
investment interest out there? What
sort of private investment interest are we talking about? We are not looking for people who come in,
sort of venture capitalists, and take what they can and move out. We will be setting conditions about any move
to PPP that would involve that sort of private investment in the service.
Q550 Mr McWalter: It was explicitly a claim made about the
advantages of PFI made by Mr Wilson that I would like him to answer.
Mr Wilson: I was referring to a report
that I read I think about 18 months ago or it may have been longer.
Q551 Mr McWalter: Could it be read into the record, please?
Mr Wilson: I will provide a reference published by the NAO and no doubt
examined by the PAC and I will seek to provide a reference. It is something that I read without studying
it.
Q552 Chairman: We will need a lot of convincing, I think.
Mr Wilson: In terms of investment in
areas like forensic science, one witness at a previous hearing indicated that
his company on average was investing about 12 per cent of their turnover in
R&D but felt that within the forensic science area it was near to about 15
per cent but, in terms of coming to general levels of investment in areas such
as R&D within the economy, I think there are much broader issues than the
Home Office can claim to be responsible for.
Q553 Mr McWalter: I think it is interesting that the actual
source of those claims is in fact obscure and indeed they are highly contested
by, for instance, people like Alison Pollock in her recent book called NHS
plc who tears those arguments to pieces.
I do just want to indicate that if that rather folk wisdom lies behind
this decision and if in fact in unmasking that folk wisdom you arrive at a very
different view about the benefits of moving to privatised or semi-privatised companies,
would that, as a result, make the Government think again about the arrangements
they were making to potentially dismember our excellent Forensic Science
Service?
Caroline Flint: We are not trying to
dismember the Forensic Science Service, we are trying to make sure that we put
it in the best place it can be to deal with what are the constraints. I suppose, in discussing this issue, one of
the areas is actually whether you do believe that there are problems in the way
the Forensic Science Service is currently operating. You might have a different view to that. You may think it is all right out there.
Q554 Mr McWalter: It needs investment.
Caroline Flint: When I look at the issue
that, for example, it depends on six police forces, albeit they are big ones
like the Metropolitan Police Service and some others, for the bulk of its
revenue, when I know that people like the MPS in Thames Valley have altered
their contractual arrangements with the FSS and when we know that there are
people out there who can provide and are already providing in terms of evidence
in court the product of their businesses towards forensic science and the
evidence that is used in court, that is already happening out there, and we
know, for example, that of the police spend, over 50 per cent of it on forensic
science is in force, then you have to address those issues. One of the questions is about the way in
which the FSS runs itself, its relationship with its client and what-have-you
but also at the end of the day there are issues about just what level of
investment is needed, not just for the next two years but for the next 20
years. I do not think that is something
that is an easy question to answer because technology is rapidly changing out
there, innovation is happening all the time, the needs of the service are
changing as well, the way they want the service provided is changing too and
competition is in-growing. I think I am
right in saying - and Tim can correct me on this - that in the last two to
three years that FSS has lost ten per cent of its market share to other
providers. That might seem relatively
small but I think that is potentially a growing area. What we do know though on the positive side is that some of the
ways in which the FSS has been addressing how it runs its business and, where
it has lost some services in certain areas, it has won it back in other areas,
I think Avon and Somerset Police Force areas is one of those examples. So, it is trying to change. The problem is, just how much can the
Government at the end of the day, given all that, just have, if you like, a
blank cheque for whatever might be needed?
That is not to say that we do not feel that the FSS is important, there
is a public service ethos that is important and also a Government commitment to
be engaged with the FSS in the future and that is why we are not privatising it
but we are looking for a model that will allow that sort of engagement and
access to the private funds whilst making sure, not just in the FSS but also in
all the other providers, how we can improve the quality assurance across both
the private and public sectors in this field.
Q555 Mr McWalter: I would like to place on the record that the
12 per cent figure which was mentioned by Mr Wilson is itself under intensive
scrutiny by this Committee and some have suggested that it is not 12 per cent
but 1.8, so we are going to get ourselves into the analysis of exactly how you
arrive at a figure of private investment.
Mr Wilson: The 12 per cent was the FSS
figure. The comparable figure for the
FSS with the figures provided by the other suppliers I understand was 1.8 per
cent. I think it is three per cent for
Forensic Alliance and, if my memory serves me right but it is in the record, I
think it is 13/14 per cent for NGC(?) but this goes up to 15 per cent for their
forensic science areas.
Q556 Dr Iddon: Minister, it seems to me that the success of
any business, whether it is a GovCo or a PPP, will be determined by the
potential for expansion of the market.
How do you square that with an increasing use by all the police forces
of miniaturised and handheld devices?
In other words, there seems to be a tension between developing the FSS
in any form or shape and the police acquiring on-the-spot instruments and
chemical techniques which means they can do the job themselves without going to
the Forensic Science Service.
Caroline Flint: That is part of the nub of
the situation we face ourselves. As I
said before, I think it is 52 per cent of police spend on forensic science is
done in-house and, as the Minister also responsible for PITO and looking at
issues around the use of technology for policing, as you say, the handheld
equipment but also if you look at things like Lifescan and other equipment that
is helping the police to do their job, the reality is that that is the
direction in which the police are going.
I think that one of the issues there has been - and I know that the FSS
is addressing this - is how best the FSS could help provide services more
locally to the police and also back-up support for the range of equipment that
the police might use at the end of the day because I think again there is an
important issue here around how the police make sure it also has quality
standards in terms of, if it is going to do work in house, which is fair
enough, what are the quality standards for the people carrying out those jobs
where forensic science is involved and may therefore be used in court at the
end of the day and that again is something we are trying to work on. You are right that one of the issues around
DNA is the use of miniaturised units - and Dr Lyn Fereday is here and she can
talk more about this as she is an expert in this area - which is another
example of where people could do sampling much closer to where the police are
rather than sending work away and to take these samples at, if you like, the
source rather than sending them away.
So, yes, I think that illustrates part of the issue we are dealing with
here.
Mr Wilson: I think that is a very good
example of why the FSS needs to be able to operate differently. It needs to anticipate the very big changes
that will come from miniaturising in a way that a Government accounting officer
organised trading funds are not. As
miniaturisation DNA begins to become robust and acceptable, perhaps some of its
service will change from rather being commodity laboratory testing to the
provision, maintenance and collaboration of instruments in police stations or,
as they are developing already, mobile resources to crime scenes. There are new areas. The Tsunami has drawn to our attention the
growing importance of being able to identify dead bodies in mass
disasters. A number of UK forensic
people are involved in that. We are
very much in a position where the UK-needed forensics across the board is
recognised internationally. I was in
The Hague before Christmas at a conference and they talked about (?) - they
have created a noun out of the name we use in the UK for our national
fingerprint bank. This, I think, is an
indication of the regard with which British forensic science is held as a
practical service supporting the police.
It is very difficult to compete with the US in terms of high levels of
investment for pioneering R&D but I think we have been very good as
exploiting R&D developed in the States and the DNA techniques that they use
in the States.
Chairman: It would be nice to hear the
dulcet tones of the Minister somewhat more, if you feel you can help!
Q557 Dr Iddon: You have half-answered my next question which
is, do you see a growth of British companies, including the FSS as a business,
in the international market? Have you
measured that at all? It sounds as if
you have.
Caroline Flint: I would hope we could see
that sort of innovation, yes. The
Government are very committed overall - true, the Committee has looked at this
as well - in terms of science and technology and how we can stimulate the
interest in this area and ensure that companies in the UK are at the
forefront. We think actually there
could be some real opportunities for the FSS - and Tim might want to add to
this - in the future to do partnerships more with industry and others and look
at how it can develop new techniques and new innovations in the same way as on
DNA. Clearly, we are a world leader in
that area and we continue to be and one would hope in the future that will be
continuing.
Q558 Dr Iddon: What are the barriers to growth on the
international market, Minister? Do you
see any?
Caroline Flint: In terms of the FSS?
Q559 Dr Iddon: In terms of any of our British companies
because they will be in competition, obviously.
Caroline Flint: In terms of barriers to
growth, I am not completely sure about the answer but what I would say is that
it is in terms of, is there the connection between those providers like FSS and
others to engage with companies and engage with academia to come up with the
ideas that are going to take us forward in this area? I know that, in terms of looking at what the service wants, I
think that is really important.
Sometimes, in terms of law enforcement, one of the issues has been, and
continues to be sometimes, that what we do not look at is, what is it that the
customer wants? What is it that the
police want to be able to do?
Therefore, they define what outputs they want at the end of the day and
then go to those people who can provide the solutions and answers. I think that is the sort of engagement that
is really important in this area rather than people just working away and
developing something they think the client might want at the end of the
day. I think it is really important
that there is that engagement because I think that would (a) save a great deal
of time and (b) certainly would provide outcomes, if you like, of product that
the police would ultimately use at the end of the day and I think sometimes in
the past a great deal of work has been done and then the police have not said
what they want and the police have not used it.
Q560 Dr Iddon: It sounds as if we are going for an
international market and, if we are, we cannot prevent international companies,
US companies for example, penetrating our market more and, if that is beginning
to happen and we have a full international market here, have you considered the
security risks involved in that?
Caroline Flint: Tim might want to add to
that but I would just say that there is already international collaboration in
terms of forensic science in the UK particularly from America and I accept your
point, security issues are important and that is something we are going to have
to work through, but I think it is important that the risk assessment takes
place in terms of what security is appropriate and that is something we are
discussing at the moment obviously with the move to the GovCo as well.
Mr Wilson: The Government are
signatories to the Government purchasing agreement which, under the World Trade
Organisation's rules, means that we cannot close up our gates to forensic
science providers from any countries including the United States. As far as going abroad is concerned, in
addition to the points made by the Minister, I think you need to get the right
local partners because you cannot succeed in foreign markets unless you have
very sound partners indeed. A number of
UK private firms have run into trouble precisely because of that problem. It also requires capital. As far as the Home Office is concerned,
while we wish to encourage that, we also need to consider the risks involved
and we need to ensure that that is done through ring-fenced arrangements in
order that any problems - people are never 100 per cent successful in
developing new business support - do not affect the core business within the
United Kingdom.
Q561 Dr Iddon: Let me turn now to a key question and that is
the question of a regulator which came up earlier. Many witnesses have told us that the need for a regulator is
getting quite urgent now and indeed the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
recommended establishing a Forensic Science Advisory Council both to provide
independent impartial advice and fulfil the function of a regulator. Why has that recommendation not been
implemented, Minister?
Caroline Flint: We are working through at
the moment. First of all, we agree that
there is a need for a regulator, some regulation, which is different to the
Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners in that it will be
looking at the sort of quality assurance of services rather than just
registering individuals, things like lab accreditation and what-have-you. We do think, as I said earlier, that, in
order to, within a competitive marketplace, at least have some sort of level
playing field, both in terms of what the customer is providing but what the
country and the public can have confidence in, we need to address this in both
the public and the private sectors in terms of providers. We are working through that issue at the
moment in discussion with ACPO and the APA but also as part of our forensic
integration strategy as well about how we can come up with the best model. So, we have not reached that point yet of
finally deciding; we have not ruled out different options but we do agree in
principle that that is absolutely right.
I think again, in terms of the changes that we propose to FSS, quite
rightly, the public and Members of Parliament have raised the issue about confidence
and I think this particular part of our discussions is absolutely important to
that. Can I just mention one thing in
relation to what you said before about international companies coming in. Also, we would see the FSS have an
opportunity to also be involved in what it can do abroad and Dr Fereday just
mentioned to me that the FSS at the moment are involved with the Dutch on DNA
and that is where they are obviously getting work going outwards rather than
just receiving it internally and domestically.
Q562 Dr Iddon: I want to bring Dr Fereday in on this
question. ACPO have told us that the
withdrawal of Home Office funding from the DNA expansion programme would have a
catastrophic effect. We are looking at
a sum of about £30 million. Do you
agree with that statement of ACPO and can you give us any guarantee that that
will not happen, namely the withdrawal of £30 million worth of Home Office
funding to the DNA expansion programme?
Dr Fereday: Certainly the withdrawal of
that funding would have a distinct effect.
The funding to date has been exemplary in the way in which DNA samples
have been analysed and the money has been used to analyse samples from
individuals and from crime scenes to ensure that the database works
effectively. It is also used to support
the police forces in the provision of forensic support for DNA and crime scene
examinations.
Q563 Dr Iddon: We have the catastrophic effect agreed, so
you are in agreement with that, but, Minister, is there any threat to that £30
million or not?
Caroline Flint: There are pressures on
police budgets as has probably been said to you by ACPO. What we are doing is ensuring that there is
what we think is focused funding and adequate funding for DNA. I think that there are some issues here
again about the extent of the use of DNA and the impact on the price as well
and one of the things that we have been looking at is what is changing in terms
of the pricing costs for the work involved in DNA. To be honest, some of the prices have gone down because the fact
is that it has become I would not necessarily say commonplace but it has
actually become a much more used tool.
The costs in terms of staffing and everything have changed and the
technology is changing. So, what we are
trying to look at is, what is a real appropriate cost for the work in this area
and reflect that, but we obviously are committed as a Government and as a
Department to making sure that we remain a world leader in DNA, hence our work
with the Dutch and hence that, during our UK presidency, that is one of the
issues that we are going to promote through seminars and other work with our
European partners. I do think again
some of this discussion comes back to some of the earlier points about how, in some
of the areas, technology has changed and, as a result, the use of something
which has become more commonplace affects the cost and the costs today are not
the same as they were a few years ago as some of those prices have come down.
Q564 Dr Harris: Before we continue on DNA databases, I will
take the Chairman's advice and ask you this succinctly and it could be a "yes"
or "no" answer. In The Guardian
on 12 January in response to the headline "Science Sell-Off Drop", it is
stated, "The Home Office has backed down over plans to create the world's first
privatised Forensic Science Service."
Is that accurate or would you like to take the opportunity to put the
record straight?
Caroline Flint: First of all, I would
dispute the words "privatised Forensic Science Service". It was never our
intention and is not our intention that the Forensic Science Service would be a
totally privatised company, it will be a public/private partnership, so I think
that is wrong. What we I hope clearly
said this afternoon is that the transition into a PPP was always going to
include a GovCo. What we have said -
and the Home Secretary said at the time - is that we are going to give an
opportunity to GovCo to see what it can prove in terms of the benefits. In that sense, if it were able to deal with
all the problems that we have identified and I think are commonly accepted,
then, if the GovCo worked, so be it.
However, as I have said, we have also been very clear about the
limitations of a GovCo and those are limitations that are placed on us by
Government but also there are issues there in terms of competition as well and
in terms of fair trading and what-have-you and we have to be mindful of that
too.
Q565 Dr Harris: I think that is helpful. So, when it says, "Whitehall Trade Unions
welcome the decision to drop the scheme", you can disabuse them of that, can
you? You have not dropped the scheme.
Caroline Flint: We have not dropped - and
that is clear within the statement - that a PPP might still be necessary at the
end of the day, but what we have said - and the Home Secretary said at the time
- is that we want to make a successful GovCo.
In fact, GovCo has to be a success if we were to keep PPP anyway but, if
GovCo can exist and can deal with the things that we think are real problems
facing the staff working at the FSS at the moment, then so be it. We are not tied to a dogmatic view but we
cannot escape what some of the problems are and GovCo gives us opportunities
but they are limited. I think we have
said a two-year period from this December to get into a GovCo and 12 months to
two years to see if that will work.
Q566 Dr Harris: Finally, will the move from GovCo to PPP
depend on reaching agreement with key stakeholders including the trade
unions? Yes or no?
Caroline Flint: Not on its own.
Q567 Dr Harris: On DNA, do you have any qualms about the
civil liberties issues around the way the database works, both who accesses it,
what it is used for and the fact that people who have never even been charged
let alone convicted have their details on that forever more?
Caroline Flint: No.
Q568 Dr Harris: Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys argued in his
evidence that the extension of the database to people who are not convicted or
even charged he regards "as highly discriminatory" because "you will be
sampling excessively within ethnic communities, for example. The whole thing seems to be predicated on
the assumption that the suspect population are people who would be engaged in
future criminal behaviour. I have never
seen any statistical justification for that assertion; none at all. Yes, it is discriminatory." You do not have any qualms?
Caroline Flint: I disagree with what he is
saying. What we are trying to do is
tackle offending behaviour and it has been useful to have those DNA samples
because they do sometimes have an effect in a criminal case. We have had discussions in this House on the
use of DNA and we feel that what we are doing is right and important in the
same way as we do on taking fingerprints in other areas as well. So, I disagree with what he is saying. At the end of the day, DNA is used for
criminal proceedings to see if people have been involved in a crime and I think
it is important that we have that database of information in the same way as in
other areas we take fingerprints and we do drug tests.
Mr Wilson: This issue has been
specifically tested before the House of Lords, who are not shy at expressing a
view about the preservation of civil liberties, and they fully agreed with the
arrangements that we have in place and I understand from the work that we have
done in the past that - and I do not have the figures exactly in my head -
something like 600 fairly serious crimes have been solved because we have
retained DNA from people who are not proceeded with including a number of
murders and serious sexual offences and we will gladly provide those statistics
as we did to the House of Lords.
Chairman: Yes, please.
Q569 Dr Harris: I do not think anyone argues that there is
not a good crime-solving reason to do that or do anything on the basis of that
but there is the balance. There is the
further issue about familial searching which might involve taking DNA from
multiple relatives of the person on the database. There is the Human Rights concern that that sort of testing can
raise issues of paternity and establish non-paternity with your kids and their
relatives as well as disclosing the fact, which might be considered damaging,
that a relative has a criminal record.
So, do you accept that there are concerns to be engaged at least, even
if they do not override your policy?
Caroline Flint: The way in which DNA is used
is very controlled. It is about the
prosecution and detection of crime.
Therefore, I cannot see how the examples you have given of establishing
paternity could link in with the detection of a crime. It is estimated that from the roughly
175,500 DNA profiles on the database which would have previously fallen to be
removed, 7,005 profiles of individuals have been linked with crime scene stains
involving 8,498 offences and these involved 68 murders, 38 attempted murders,
116 rapes, 52 sexual offences, 78 aggravated burglaries and 80 for supply of
controlled drugs. So, as Tim has said,
this issue has been tested in terms of the House of Lords opinion and it is
felt that on the balance of what is reasonable against obviously individual
human rights and this particular issue in relation to detection and prosecution
of criminal offences that the safeguards that exist, the restricted way in
which the DNA can be used has given confidence to the House of Lords, who as Tim
says do not always agree with us on these issues, that is proportionate and
reasonable in these very tightly controlled circumstances ---
Q570 Dr Harris: I just want to pursue this, if I may, and
feel free to add in. If we can be
persuaded that just as many detections or indeed more can be achieved by
putting everyone on this database, would you have any qualms at putting
everyone on the database? Why stop at
people who are never charged but who have been picked up and questioned? Why not just stick us all on?
Caroline Flint: Because I think it is about
being proportionate and what you make the case for at the end of the day and
what we have made the case for is that people who have been picked up by the
police and come in contact with the police, that is an issue, in a way, that
does not apply to just saying that every single other member of the public
should have their DNA sample ...
Personally, I would not mind. In
fact, I had my DNA taken whilst I was down at one of the forensic science labs,
but what I personally would not mind is not necessarily appropriate as a policy
for the whole of the public.
Q571 Dr Harris: You talk about controlled access for the
purpose of crime detection but what about research? There is no formal ethical overview for the use of this DNA
database for research purposes. I am
happy for anyone to answer that.
Mr Wilson: The Human Genetics
Commission are represented on the National DNA Board; they ensure that nothing
is done as far as the database and the returned samples are concerned that
would compromise ethical standards in research; they are our conscience, as it
were.
Q572 Dr Harris: On that basis, why do we bother with Research
Ethics Committees? Why do we not just
have everybody's DNA research project passed by one member of the Human
Genetics Commission if that is the way of ensuring that a conscience is there
and it is all sorted out?
Mr Wilson: I think this is in the area
where we need to make sure that we have the arrangements in place that are
appropriate and it is not necessarily the case that the current DNA Board
arrangements ... If I might just make two points. Familial searches are extremely controlled; they are not used
without the agreement of the Chairman of the DNA Board itself; they are not
something available to policemen in any case.
The techniques similar to familial searches were very important for
reversing a miscarriage of justice in South Wales which Dr Fereday may be able
to say something about.
Dr Fereday: I would just like to
reassure you that the way in which the database is accessed is extremely well
controlled. The oversight of the
database is managed through a board which is chaired by an ACPO lead in
forensic science. The custodian of the
database is a member of that board as is, as Mr Wilson said, a member of the
Human Genetics Commission. Research
cannot just be undertaken. Requests are
made and routinely turned down for research projects.
Q573 Chairman: Roughly what percentage?
Dr Fereday: I think very few; I could
not give you a percentage but it is a very, very small number potentially going
forward. That board is very controlled
in the way that the database is used.
Q574 Dr Harris: What you are saying is that there are plenty
of applications which are dodgy.
Dr Fereday: There are not that many applications. The situation is that the database is used
for intelligence purposes for the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Hence the access is controlled and the use
of the data is controlled in a most ethical manner. I feel very concerned about public perception of how this data is
held and how the samples are retained and I think this gives public confidence
that that data is managed carefully.
Q575 Dr Harris: Has an independent group been asked to judge
whether there is adequate ethical oversight?
Has the Human Genetics Commission been asked by the Government, "Is this
the appropriate way forward?" or is it just that you say it is ethical and
therefore it is ethical?
Caroline Flint: They might not sit on the
Board.
Dr Fereday: The Human Genetics Commission
visited the database and were satisfied with the procedures. In addition, a member of the Commission
routinely attends and is able to comment and so far there have been no negative
comments.
Q576 Mr Key: I have been trying to remember, Minister,
whether, under the Identity Cards Bill, there are any circumstances in the
categories covered under which a person's DNA will be recorded on their ID
card. If you cannot remember, will you
let us know?
Caroline Flint: I will let you know.
Q577 Dr Harris: What are the arrangements going to be of the
custodianship of the national DNA database because this was supposed to be
finalised in summer 2004 and yet there seems to have been a delay?
Caroline Flint: The arrangements are that it
will be obviously separated out because we are going to make sure that does
remain within the Government's ambit and arrangements are being sorted out as
to where that will be located and how it will exist and how it will function
separate from FSS.
Mr Wilson: And we are negotiating currently
with the Association of Police Authorities tripartite governance to ensure
that, if anything, the database is managed in a more transparent and
accountable way.
Caroline Flint: Which might bring some
pleasure to you!
Q578 Dr Harris: My final point is this question of the number
of marker issues. We heard evidence
from Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys with whom I know you do not agree with on
civil liberties ---
Caroline Flint: No, on that one statement.
Q579 Dr Harris: And there is some issue here about whether
ten is the right number. He argues that
particularly if you are doing relative searches and issues around physical
characteristics, it simply is not enough to provide the accuracy that our
system requires. Is there any
cognisance of this being taken in respect of going to a 16 marker, say?
Dr Fereday: At present, the ten marker
system has been researched and the chance of getting an advantageous match is
low, hence the ten markers will continue.
With the specific examples of cases of parentage or the sorts of cases
that you have mentioned, there are other systems available that can be used in
those circumstances. What you have to
remember is that the database is used as an intelligence tool and those ten
markers are adequate at present.
Caroline Flint: It is important to remember
that DNA is not just a tool that we can use in terms of finding someone guilty,
it is also about establishing someone's innocence as well. Clearly, DNA has been quite crucial in terms
of what can be miscarriages of justice.
I think that is important. The
other issue as well is cold cases where DNA can play a role in a way that
obviously was not available at the time when those cases were first
investigated.
Q580 Dr Harris: When Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys says, "I
would argue that that is not enough" when Dr Iddon said to him that it was ten
markers now, do you think that he was wrong and that you have good evidence to
suggest that he and people who agree with him are wrong in that statement and
that you are right?
Dr Fereday: Statisticians have
researched the database and the position is that the ten markers are adequate.
Q581 Chairman: What do the Americans use?
Dr Fereday: The Americans use 13 markers
using two different systems, so they do analyses to provide those 13 markers,
but they also say that it is an identification which is something we do not do.
Q582 Dr Harris: In terms of physical characteristics, do you
understand the point that, when you move to try and get physical
characteristics from the database, there is an argument that you need more
markers in order to get the same statistical powers? Have I misunderstood that?
Dr Fereday: That work is not possible at
the moment; the database is not used for physical characteristics.
Q583 Dr Harris: But, if it were ---
Dr Fereday: No, it is not. It is not for debate.
Q584 Dr Harris: So, it is never going to be used?
Dr Fereday: At the moment, that is not
the use of the database.
Q585 Dr Harris: If it became a suggested use - and people
have suggested it because we have had evidence to that effect - would there be
an issue around whether ten markers is sufficient?
Dr Fereday: Then it would be appropriate
to go through an ethical committee to work out exactly what procedures should
be laid down and the standards to be adhered to in order to make sure there is
the exact control that you need to give public confidence and to make sure that
everything you do is accurate.
Q586 Chairman: What about other national databases that do
not have the personal samples, the firearms and so on? Is there any change there or any
consideration or any discussion about changing them or the protection of
them? Is anything happening in that
arena?
Mr Wilson: This is something we are
discussing with ACPO in the context of the forensic integration strategy. What we are seeking to achieve with that is
getting the same kind of enhancement and detections from the use of forensic
science more effectively as we have achieved with DNA. In the case of burglaries where no DNA is recovered,
we are looking at a clear-up rate of about 15 per cent. Detections rise to about 48 per cent, if my
memory is correct, when DNA is found.
Over the next 18 months through the forensic integration strategy, we
will be working with ACPO to see whether there are any steps that the Government
can take to support the police and police authorities in actually getting
better value out of the various sources of forensic information, firearms,
footprints and fingerprints themselves to improve performance of what are
seeing now.
Q587 Chairman: You can understand why we are asking
questions in that people are a little worried about the protection of the data
and so on. What is your general
feeling, Minister? Is it that it will
stay as it is?
Caroline Flint: As Tim says, we are working
through some of these issues about those other forms of data as well, the
access to them and how they are controlled and that is something we are working
through. Obviously DNA is the most
personal thing somebody can have at the end of the day and, for the reasons
that Evan has outlined today, there are concerns. My worry is that he is actually putting out there concerns that
are not actually happening in relation to the way in which the whole process is
managed. All I can say at this stage is
that we are looking at other issues such as fingerprints, we are looking at
firearms and we are looking at footprints and trying to work through how best
that can be managed and how that data can be stored with changes to FSS in the
future.
Q588 Chairman: Do you consider financial matters at the same
time as you consider these questions or are they divorced?
Caroline Flint: I think that we do have to
consider financial matters at the same time.
For example, on the issue of the footprints, there is a system at the
moment whereby there is always a manual way, just as it used to be with
fingerprints, that you can look at the footprints to establish if that is
connected to an individual and I have to say that it has been quite fascinating
to see how you connect a shoe to someone but we are looking to that on a
computerised system, so we do have to be thinking at least one step ahead all
the time but, if we do want to have a computerised system where you can just
literally scan through and see what it picks up, there are costs to that. Again, in terms of the other work we are
doing with the police forces around the use of new technology - I think some of
these issues do dovetail into each other - we have to look at what it is we
want this for, how is it going to be used and what are the added benefits and
therefore, at the end of the day, then negotiate what is a fair price for the
police forces to pay for this because it should actually speed up detection in
other areas and be an added value for money as well as what we might need to
look at as Government in stimulating the growth of these technologies in
certain areas. In the same way as if
you look at something like Airwave, clearly the Government underwrote the cost
for that, but again that was also done on the basis of looking at what the
product was, how it would be used, whether it would change working practices
and whether it would improve efficiency and value for money. That was a long answer but the short answer
is that cost always has to be alongside these discussions.
Q589 Chairman: Yes, but you understand that that nub of our
inquiry is to see if you are reacting quickly enough to the new technologies
and sciences that come along and what drives that. Is it getting better information, better prosecutions or releases
or whatever, or does that come second best to the financial considerations in a
police force which considers itself starved of money?
Caroline Flint: I would not say that police
forces can say they are starved of money.
Q590 Chairman: You must have been lobbied by your Chief
Constable and others.
Caroline Flint: People will always
lobby. It does not matter how much
money you are going to give them, they will lobby forever. David Coleman has given evidence to your
Committee and I visited David in Derbyshire and I have been really interested,
for example, in the work that he has done with his in-house forensic science
services and how they actually have come up with a model which has cut down on
wasted time and used their staff better.
I am sure he can provide you with information on that. We know that value for money is not
necessarily about being on the cheap, it is actually about, are we using the
equipment properly, which is really important, and therefore are the staff
able, if it is in-house in the police force, to use the equipment, but also
what are the end products at the end of the day? Does it speed up detection?
Does it deal with problems quicker?
Does sampling, instead of sending it away for so many days or weeks,
come back quicker and therefore they are able to use that information in real
time rather than unnecessary waiting times?
At the end of the day, it is about looking about the practices in which
the science is used and applied and what the outcomes are. Yes, at the end of the day, there is a price
with that but I think the price always has to be measured against the value and
ultimately, at the end of the day, the public are going to say in terms of
prosecutions and convictions, "Are we getting value for money from the amount
we put in to the number of actual arrests that become charged but then actually
go to court and, where forensic science fits into that, is it delivering?"
Dr Turner: Minister, I assume you are
aware that there are 401 degrees out there available at 57 different
universities which have the word "forensic" in their title, most of which we
are told by forensic scientists who have been witnesses are simply Mickey Mouse
degrees as far as forensic science training is concerned.
Chairman: Not a word we use a lot on
this Committee!
Q591 Dr Turner: Does this worry you? Have you discussed any steps to deal with
this issue with colleagues in the DfES?
Caroline Flint: What worries me - and
obviously we are not the lead department in this area - is if young people
apply for courses and, at the end of the day, those courses do not equip them
in what they expect to be their future career.
I think that goes for anything that universities are providing at the
end of the day, whether it is forensic science, media studies or any other
course that is currently out there. I
think that is important. The other
issue is about recognising. I do not
claim to be an expert in this area but, from my limited involvement in terms of
meeting different people over the last six months, there is a range of different
skills that are required for different sorts of engagement in forensic science
or forensic intelligence. I read through some of the transcripts of your
sessions. I cannot remember which
witness it was, though it was a police officer, who did talk about the fact
that they were interviewing for a particular job in terms of crime scene
investigations and three people with forensic science degrees did not get the
job because actually the sort of skills they were looking for in terms of
application, analysis, practical hands-on involvement was what they were
looking for and clearly other people with other qualifications could provide
that, as far as they were concerned, on the day better than those with forensic
science degrees. I think these are
issues again whereby our work with ACPO and CPS and others, who at the end of
the day want to purchase the product, should have an influence in the same way
as any other employer in any other sector should seek to influence our academic
institutions as to what they want at the end of the day and I think that
engagement is as appropriate to this area as it is to other areas of how higher
education institutions develop the courses that they provide. They should have an engagement with the
people at the end of the day who will be recruiting for particular jobs and
make sure that the people they provide can do that. Again, I would say that I do not think there is a
one-size-fits-all for people who work in this field and I think that again is
something that needs to be looked at.
There clearly is, for some people, a grounding and background in hard
science is absolutely key and chief to their central role but there are other
issues as well and other skills that that person may need to have that they may
not clearly get from a pure science degree and I think again this is about
engagement, about what the jobs are out there and how our academic institutions
can understand that and equip people so they are not let down by thinking that
they can go along and get a job and it is going to be enough because they have
a forensic science degree. I think
that, in terms of our role, obviously through the work we are doing in terms of
tackling the procurement issue and tackling what is necessary and what is
needed in terms of the criminal justice system, hopefully through the DfES, we
can have some influence in that debate even though it is not primarily an issue
for us.
Mr Wilson: We also maintain links with
the Forensic Science Society and I think it is very important in terms of degrees
with forensic science in the title to recognise that they are not all the same
and that there are some degrees that have accreditation or are seeking
accreditation with, for example, the Royal Society of Chemistry to indicate
that there is a solid part-science component in that degree and that perhaps it
is more in a forensic context and then one can look at the people who are
teaching, whether they have forensic experience having worked in one of the
providers or having worked for the police and Professor Fraser, the Chairman,
is a good example of that because I believe that is the approach that his
department at Strathclyde are seeking to adopt for their first degrees and they
are also offering higher degrees that will convert non-forensic science degrees
into a more forensic focus.
Q592 Dr Turner: Is the Home Office supporting the FSS in
their efforts to produce an accreditation scheme for undergraduate and
postgraduate degrees?
Mr Wilson: We are supporting it but not
financially.
Q593 Dr Turner: I was not imputing that either way. What is the Home Office doing or has done in
trying to ensure that the best practice in the use of forensic science is
spread amongst police forces? Are you
satisfied with the quality of training that the police forces have and their
competence in the use of forensic evidence?
Caroline Flint: We are working closely with
them. We have a forensic integrated
strategy where that is looking at a whole number of issues which includes best
practice as well and David Coleman, as the ACPO lead, has been a very important
influence. I think I am right in saying
that there was a conference in October of last year which David pulled together
which was actually looking at some of these issues you have raised about the
quality assurance and the training at force levels of those in-house
services. I do think it is very
important and, as I say, we are trying to work with ACPO and the others to make
sure that we can spread that good practice and raise the standards in those
areas.
Mr Wilson: It is also work that is
being pursued through the Police Standards Unit and the Inspectorate. Very valuable work was undertaken by the
Inspectorate looking at the whole approach with police forces to forensic
science in two reports that were published a couple of years ago which actually
provide very important templates and which we actually picked up again to
remind police forces about in the conference.
The Police Standards Unit is working on specific issues where perhaps
the performance has been sluggish in some respects by forces.
Q594 Dr Turner: Can I ask you about the training that the FSS
currently delivers to police forces in the use of forensic science. As a GovCo, I assume that you would still
expect them to carry out this function.
Do you think there is a risk, having introduced the profit element to
it, that it may become too expensive for police forces to use as much as they
should?
Caroline Flint: I think it is important that
- and again this comes back to some of the issues about procurement issues as
well and having a realistic discussion but which is also based on quality as
well - when you are wanting to provide an in-house service, then actually the
training to do that is absolutely important and key and, at the end of the day,
it is going to be about whether police forces are able to meet that underlying
issue of solving crime. What we do not
want - and the police are also mindful of this - is that, if their staff are
not properly trained, then that could create all sorts of problems further down
the line in terms of an offence coming to court and I think that is absolutely
important. I do not think that in
itself the issue of looking at value for money should actually say that we
would not want a quality product for what is your money at the end of the day
and I think that is absolutely key. I
think that issues around best practice and the discussions we are having about
a procurement model for the police forces is certainly something that should be
addressed as part of that raising of quality of standards.
Q595 Dr Turner: In a market with a range of different
suppliers, quality of standards is quite important. Will you want to make the Council's registration mandatory for
forensic practitioners?
Caroline Flint: No, we have not felt that
was the appropriate way forward. We
opted for a voluntary situation partly because I think there are some
difficulties in terms of the range of people who might be necessary to give
evidence in court could be people, for example, who work in industry who have a
particular knowledge in metals or what-have-you and therefore it would not be
appropriate for them to necessarily be registered by the Council for Forensic
Practitioners. That being said, we are
encouraging and supporting more people to be registered who, if you like, I
think fit the bill so to speak and I think one of the issues in relation to
what you said before about standards at force level is again the registration
of those people at force level who fit the bill registering with the Council
too.
Q596 Mr McWalter: Just to follow on from Des's question, this
whole business seems to me just illustrative nonsense of the current way of
doing things because you have a purchaser/provider split. Police forces are increasingly seen as
purchasers and then these other people, companies, FSS, whoever and all the
people who can train are providers.
Then you say, hang on a minute, that is no good because, if the police
only become purchasers, they end up losing the expertise to even be very good
purchasers but in addition we want them to be implicated in provision in all
sorts of ways. Would it not be best to
just drop the whole nonsense of having purchaser and provider splits and
actually understand that police forces need a huge amount of knowledge and
involvement in the provision of the service and equally that forensic
scientists need an awful lot of involvement in policing functions?
Caroline Flint: Of course, one cannot exist
without the other, I suppose, at the end of the day, but ---
Q597 Mr McWalter: They have been split by Thatcherite politics
which you have then incorporated and are carrying on implementing.
Caroline Flint: I would dispute that. The relationship has always been that the
service is there and the police avail themselves of that service. The question is, is the service that the FSS
is able to provide today the same as it was 20 years ago? No, it is not. Is it going to be the same in 20 years' time? No, it is not because basically the science
technology is changing, the idea at the end of the day that some services could
be provided in a force area in a custody suite in terms of fingerprinting or
what-have-you, we are moving in terms of issues in the future of face
recognition and some of these issues face the service with questions they have
to answer and one of the questions they have to answer is, how best can we
solve crime? How best can we deal with
certain functions ourselves? What are
those other functions that we need to have provided by other agencies? That is nothing to do with Thatcherite
economics, that is about the pace of change in the technology and the science
and the better way in which actually the police have, to be fair, invested in
their own forces in people who are qualified to be there at the right place at
the right time on the ground when a crime is committed to get people out
there. If you are burgled or if
something terrible happens to you or your family is a victim of crime, you may
be extremely upset and distressed if you felt that the police force was not
able to respond quickly to, for example, scene of crime investigations, to be
able to take some sampling at that crime scene.
Q598 Mr McWalter: This is going well beyond my question.
Caroline Flint: This is the issue about what
people want and therefore how we can best deliver that in the public interest
at the end of the day.
Q599 Mr McWalter: I put it to you that the purchaser/provider
split is not the way but equally the American Service has changed out of all
recognition but they keep a huge amount of this activity in the public sector,
well away from the WTO rules that Mr Wilson talked about earlier, because the
Americans emphasise the security that my colleague Brian Iddon has pictured
and, as a result, it is the America defence system that provides a huge amount
and the American security system that keeps the research, the university work
and the forensic services all with a very, very strong public sector investment
and I think that maybe that might be a much better model than the crazy model
that has produced effectively a half-privatisation of a service that ought to
be in the public sector.
Caroline Flint: I say three things on
that. First of all, there is a mixed
economy in the American system.
Q600 Mr McWalter: Not of this service.
Caroline Flint: They do provide other
providers. If I can elaborate my
point. One of the issues is that their
turnaround times are in many cases deplorable and one of the issues is where
there is not the capacity in the public sector provision, they then have to go
to private providers to deal with those samples because actually their police
forces say, "It is not acceptable for us to wait weeks and weeks on end while
we are trying to pursue a criminal investigation to get some results
back." So, three reasons. They do have a mixed economy; they do
involve the private sector. Secondly,
their turnaround times in some cases take months and months and months in terms
of sampling and therefore they have had to engage the private sector. Thirdly, if you ask them, "Is there enough
money?" they say, "No, there is not enough money."
Q601 Mr McWalter: If you ask them if it is better, the answer
is "yes".
Caroline Flint: I would dispute that.
Q602 Dr Iddon: Can I bring you back to the world of
academe. It is difficult to get
research funding from the research councils for forensic-related research. Does the Home Office have perhaps sufficient
knowledge within it to be able to commission and encourage research in
universities and, if so, does it fund any?
Mr Wilson: We are very much involved
with the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council in a programme where
we were able to make an input into the first round of discussions, but we are
not involved in the second round that takes into account the academic quality
of the research being proposed, so we have tried to work with the Council to
get some focus research but inevitably there is the risk that it is not seen as
sufficiently advanced or blue sky to qualify for that kind of work. We have very modest amounts of investment
going into forensic sciences but we do invest directly and about £500,000 a
year has regularly gone to the FSS to support their R&D work and they have
been able to supplement that from other sources. I believe that they usually get £1 million from other sources in
addition to their own revenues. The
Home Office more widely is engaged in a very broad range of scientific
technological research but clearly that is very much prioritised. Priorities at the moment include devices for
obtaining information through intercepts of various sorts, protection of
police, so it is a very big agenda.
Caroline Flint: Perhaps if you want some
more detail, we can write.
Q603 Dr Iddon: My understanding is that it is very difficult
to get funding for forensic science research in universities, that is what the
witnesses have been telling us. I just
wonder, following on from Dr Turner's question, whether you hold quite regular
discussions with the OST and the research council.
Mr Wilson: I think these are all the
things we should be doing. We have
quite regular liaison with the research council through the programme I have
mentioned and we are also beginning in my unit to have more direct engagement
with universities. I went to Sheffield
before Christmas to see the range of work that they are engaged in and
Sheffield, for example, are engaged directly in some fingerprint transmission
research with Lincolnshire Police under an ACPO aegis, so it is also ACPO who
are involved in this area and part of the integration strategy is to seek to
get more banks(?) better integrated. We
are also establishing a database to try and make sure we know where the
research activity is going on which we do not at the moment.
Caroline Flint: It is a work in progress.
Q604 Dr Iddon: Quite recently, we had Professor Steve
Haswell in front of us who is a Professor of Analytical Chemistry at my old
university, the Department of Chemistry University at Hull. He gave us the impression that there was a
lot of useful work out there which the Forensic Science Services could pull in
but there is a lack of communication between the researchers and the people who
could use the research, particularly in the world of biology and chemistry, and
I hope that, Minister, you would take that criticism of Steve Haswell on
board and perhaps do something about it.
Caroline Flint: I will take that away.
Q605 Dr Iddon: In the present climate, the police do their
own in-house work and the FSS complement that obviously. There is a limited amount of money for the
police forces, so it is difficult for them to do their own R&D in house, so
who should do the R&D? Should it be
the Home Office?
Caroline Flint: I think this goes back to
the point Tim was making. Part of our
forensic integrated strategy is that we are talking with the police and others
about how certain forensic science services are provided but also looking at
this issue around research as well and, as Tim has just said, we could do more
in this area. One of the issues is what
is currently happening out there and how we engage with universities as to some
better understanding about what the police might want and therefore the
research that might be helpful to that and therefore being clear about what the
priorities are in terms of taking any steps forward and working together better
in a more integrated way rather than necessarily the police going off down one
stream and us going off on another and so on and so on. I think that is something we are working on
and hopefully there will be improvements in the future and, as I say, I think
some of those discussions we have set up for these sorts of discussions on a
tripartite basis are going to help.
Q606 Dr Iddon: The research and development investment even
in the private sector is not brilliant compared with some other industry or
sectors. Are the Government doing
anything to stimulate private sector R&D?
You have the tax credit system admittedly.
Caroline Flint: I would have to come back to
you on that. I know that the Treasury
has, over the last few years, tried to stimulate R&D in science, but I will
come back to you on the details of that.
Q607 Chairman: If you do not talk much to the DTI, you will
not know about small businesses, the problems and all the rest of it. That is a huge enterprise for this
Government and you have not really phased in with them at all.
Caroline Flint: In terms of where we are,
obviously we have discussions with some of the service providers into it in
terms of providing forensic science services but I suppose as an issue of
itself, that is not something we have hugely been involved in. Maybe it is something that we should be.
Q608 Dr Iddon: What Britain has been very poor at in the
past though it is getting better now is transferring research and development
from the laboratory into practical usage.
Again, Professor Steve Haswell, when we had him in front of us as a
witness, referred to 'lab-on-a-chip' technologies of all kinds. Britain has certainly had the lead in that
area but Professor Haswell flagged up the warning signals that the
research in that area is painfully slow at the moment, partly as a result of
the lack of investment in R&D in forensic science. I do not know whether you were aware of
that, Minister, but do you have any comment to make on that?
Caroline Flint: I am not aware of that
particular criticism. I will have to go
away and look at what the Professor said.
Again, I think one of these issues here is about having that better
joined-up thinking about what the developments are and how they can be used and
therefore collectively how some of the organisations that sometimes operate
apart from each other can invest in some of those areas or direct research in a
certain way that they are prepared to pay for it at the end of the day. I think that is important. If you do not have that basis of engagement,
then it is very difficult, I think, to be proactive in some of these
areas. Further to the point raised
before, I understand that the DTI do have a place on our Science and Technology
Strategy Group, so there is some input from there. I am sorry that I did not mention that earlier.
Q609 Chairman: Do they turn up though? That is the question.
Mr Wilson: Yes, they do and make
valuable contributions.
Q610 Chairman: Lyn, you might have something to say. You were against 16 markers and you were
quite vehement about that. What do you
think about this chip technology?
Dr Fereday: I think that with all these
new methodologies and research techniques, it takes time to roll out and
implement.
Q611 Chairman: But you have nothing against it in theory?
Dr Fereday: I think nothing against
it. I think what we have to look at is
that technology is changing and we need to move on and take advantage of the
opportunity that the new technology brings.
Q612 Chairman: Are we in danger of falling behind in your
estimate?
Dr Fereday: I do not think so.
Mr Wilson: There is a broader economic
issue to do with the size of our economy.
Compared with the US where most of this is taking place, perhaps
affected also by the way in which the taxation laws are changing in the States
which encourage people to invest there because of transfer taxation laws rather
than in the UK and we can see the Chinese, which at the moment have a smaller
economy than our own, doing phenomenal work in areas such as e-forensics. That has probably something to do with the
amount of private consumption that has been taken out of their GDP growth. I suspect that it is much less than in this
country. What we are trying to do is
talk much more to our European colleagues and our G8 colleagues about these
issues to ensure a more pooled approach.
Q613 Mr Key: Minister, do you think that solicitors,
barristers and judges are adequately trained in forensic science?
Caroline Flint: I understand that there has
been some work done in this area to build the awareness and training but I
think it is an area that could grow. I
think that is where we are. I
understand that there have been specific courses that have been run for those
working in these areas and again I think that, as in other areas, it is an area
that we need to develop.
Q614 Mr Key: We have had evidence that the English
adversarial court system really does not make best use of the forensic science,
it is just not like that, and maybe the use of specialist judges would be
better. Would you agree with that?
Caroline Flint: I would have to think about
that. I would have to look at that and
think about this area. We have the
system that we have and how it works. I
know that there are some issues here that concern people about one expert being
set up against another and how that influences a jury and I understand people's
concerns about that. Again, the issue
of the registration of forensic practitioners may be helpful in that regard, so
that at least a jury would know who is registered and who is not
registered. That will not deal with all
the range of different experts that might be brought to a court, but obviously
it is an issue in our system that someone will give their evidence for the
prosecution and of course the defence can have their own expert and the jury are
left wondering what to do in that situation.
As I say, registration may help and the jury being aware of that
registration may help but also, at the end of the day, you have to give someone
the defence and there are different expert views and, as we know in terms of
cases, there are different expert views.
Q615 Mr Key: We have had evidence from forensic scientists
and of course nobody knows why juries reach a particular verdict and it is
unlikely that a jury will understand complex forensic science, particularly
perhaps digital forensic evidence and so on, but are you bothered that the
outcome of a trial may depend on the prosecution and the defence finding the
most attractive and articulate expert witness rather than examining the facts
of the case because we have had specific evidence on that?
Caroline Flint: That is interesting if that
is the evidence that you have received.
At the end of the day, given the complexities of what you say about
juries understanding the forensic evidence before them, there are issues for
the judges also to play a role in giving some directions to the jury in terms
of the evidence that is presented before them at the end of the day. Tim might want to say a little more about
some new CPS rules in relation to this area.
Mr Wilson: I think that will help curb
some of the extravagancies of the adversarial system in the sense that the new
rules that the CPS and courts are working on mean that the issues are flagged
up earlier in advance which creates the opportunity for prosecution and defence
to identify what is being contested and what is not. I think that is a much more rational way of trying to approach
this and actually using the expert evidence in an informed way that perhaps
takes it out of courtroom rhetoric to what is agreed between the two sides,
what is disagreed and how you focus on those specific technical issues and how
you try and ensure that they are presented in the least rhetorical manner.
Q616 Mr Key: So, we are talking here about pre-trial
agreement in front of the judge between the prosecution and the defence.
Mr Wilson: Yes.
Q617 Mr Key: And the admissibility of the forensic
evidence.
Mr Wilson: Yes.
Q618 Chairman: Do you think that works well, Minister?
Caroline Flint: It is coming in, I
understand, but I think as a basis for trying to deal with some of the issues
raised, that seems to me to be a pretty good idea to have those sort of
arrangements and I think if it can, as I say, get to the facts of the situation
and provide that in a way that is not just rhetoric ---
Q619 Chairman: How do you equalise experts when you have
somebody with a knighthood against somebody who is just a lowly teacher in an
academic university or something because that was an issue?
Caroline Flint: Again, I think it is about
competence and that is where I think the registration comes in but also I think
in terms of these CPS rules to come into force, we are going to have to see how that will help that
situation. It may be something that has
to be come back to in the future.
Q620 Mr Key: Who should be responsible for training
forensic scientists on how to present evidence in court? Again, we have heard evidence there that
very distinguished forensic scientists can be completely thrown off course by a
skilful barrister.
Mr Wilson: I think we can all be thrown
off course by a skilful barrister, whatever our background. The providers take that very seriously
indeed. CPRF take it into account in
the accreditation of individuals. We
are thinking about this in terms of what we are requiring as we begin to
improve the arrangements for the registration of forensic pathologists because,
on the whole, the strongest part of accreditation of individuals is the
technical part, whether it is medical or scientific, there are well-established
paths there. The tricky thing is
actually getting right people's ability to operate sensibly and constructively
within the interests of justice within the criminal justice system and I think
that we all need to do more work there.
Q621 Mr Key: Does the Home Office have any plans to
establish some form of scrutiny on the presentation and use of forensic
evidence in courts?
Caroline Flint: Not as far as I am aware,
no.
Q622 Mr Key: Do you not think it would be a good idea in
view of the discussion we have been having?
Caroline Flint: I will certainly go away and
think about that issue.
Mr Key: I am very grateful!
Q623 Chairman: Will you talk to other departments about all
these kinds of issues as well?
Caroline Flint: Yes. It is not just obviously the Home Office ---
Q624 Mr Key: Indeed not!
Caroline Flint: There are issues in terms of
DCA and of course the Attorney General's Department.
Q625 Mr Key: Of course that is right. Minister, who do you think should be
responsible for the quality control of the Council for the Registration of
Forensic Practitioners because this is absolutely crucial, is it not? They are busy attracting more and more
registered practitioners and there is a huge new effort going into specialist
digital analysis and so on. Who is
doing to control the quality and the standards of the CRFP?
Caroline Flint: I think there are issues
there about the regulator and I think there is an issue around the Standards
Unit having an involvement in that as well in terms of how it would function
and how it would operate. There will have
to be a link between the regulator and the Council because there will be some
issues there. For example, whilst the
role of the regulator - and we talked about this earlier - is more in terms of,
if you like, the quality assurance of services and, for example, lab
accreditation, there will be some issues about, for example, the provider if a
provider is actually using qualified staff for their job. So, I think there is an issue there where
the regulator could again have an influence on the quality assurance of those
who are registered by the Council.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is the people who underpin the
quality of the service, so I think there will have to be cross-referencing
there.
Mr Wilson: Can I briefly refer you to
the membership of the Council that is responsible for the Council for the
Registration of Forensic Practitioners.
They are nominees of most of the scientific professional bodies in the
area. So, to some extent it is
self-regulating but it reflects very much the expertise that come from those
bodies such as the Bar Council and the General Medical Council.
Q626 Mr Key: Can I just be quite clear as to whom you are
referring as the regulator.
Caroline Flint: This is one of the issues we
have been discussing earlier in terms of quality assurance. It is one of the areas we are working
through at the moment about how we can come up with a structure and system in
terms of public confidence to give reassurance about the quality of services whether
it is in the public or the private sector.
Therefore, that is a model we are trying to work through and what I was
just saying is that the regulator's role will not be to register individuals,
that is the role of the Council, but there will be a cross-reference because
obviously those individuals ultimately underpin the quality of the services
that the regulator will be looking at.
Q627 Dr Harris: I just want to come back to this issue of the
Human Genetics Commission and the National DNA database, Dr Fereday. You said that they did not have any problems
with the way things were being done at the moment. Does that mean they resile from their recommendation in their
2002 report that there should be an independent body with lay membership to
oversee the database and a separate National Ethics Committee to review all
research projects involving the use of DNA samplings?
Dr Fereday: I think that will stand as
far as the Human Genetics Commission's recommendations are concerned. Those recommendations were made following a
visit to the database and the custodian.
Q628 Chairman: Who got the recommendations? Was it the Home Office?
Dr Fereday: I think so.
Q629 Dr Harris: Are you planning to do both those things?
Dr Fereday: I think it will be taken
forward in the separation of the custodian from the FSS.
Q630 Dr Harris: Is there a plan to have a national
independent research ethics committee type process because it says in the
annual report for 2003/04 - and I note, Tim, that you are on this board - that
it will be exploring the setting up of a protocol with a central office for the
Research Ethics Committee to obtain independent opinion for future research
policy proposals to be presented to the board.
Mr Wilson: That is still being
pursued. I cannot say from what I have
received by way of reports that a great deal is happening very fast though but
there is not a great deal of research by way of research proposals coming to
the board and similarly the McFarland report was also in favour of some
independent ethical advice.
Q631 Dr Harris: It is not a high priority.
Mr Wilson: It is more a question of
trying to ensure that what you put in place actually reflects what the level of
demand for R&D advice is and I think that, on the whole, the board's key
intention is to make sure that the regular mainstream work of the board is
operated in an ethical and transparent manner.
So, we are more concerned with ensuring that, for example, the reference
samples that are retained by the suppliers are properly retained and are only
used for purposes permitted under the law.
That sort of operation is a much higher priority in terms of the issues
that are coming to the board.
Q632 Dr Harris: Do you think the prioritisation is
right? Do you think that the reports
and recommendations of the Lords Select Committee of 2001 and the Human
Genetics Commission of 2002 about having independent ethical oversight for
research should be given a higher priority to move on with this proposal?
Caroline Flint: I think, as Tim said, our
priority at the moment is in terms of how we tackle the issues and the confines
within tackling criminal prosecutions and the use of DNA. That is a priority about how that is
used. I will have a look at that report
and have to come back to you later on that.
I cannot give you an opinion here and now without having a proper look
at that report and what it is saying.
Mr Wilson: Could we also check how many
research requests we have actually received.
I think it is two or three.
Q633 Chairman: Give us some data. I think the line of questioning from this side has been that it
is not just about getting numbers of prosecutions but they have to be fair and
seen to be fair by the public and you have to have a system/regulator that
makes sure that the process does deliver that.
Caroline Flint: Absolutely.
Chairman: We want no more Sir Roy
Meadows either and these kind of issues.
We are trying to ensure that there is a fair system out there related to
other activities you are taking. Thank
you very much indeed for helping deliver the Home Office position,
Minister. Tim and Lyn, thank you very
much as well. Our report will go out
before the Election, I presume, and hopefully we will get a debate on it. Thank you very much and, if it helps, all well
and good.
