Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
LORD GOLDSMITH
QC, RT HON
HARRIET HARMAN
QC MP AND ANDY
BURNHAM MP
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q1 Chairman: It is a pleasure to welcome
everyone to today's follow-up session on the last Science and
Technology Committee's report on forensic science, and to say
how delighted both the former Committee and indeed the present
Committee are at the interest there is in this key topic. It has
raised a huge amount of public interest, as well as interest within
the scientific community, and indeed within the police service
itself and the legal community. Thank you to our expert witnesses
for coming today. Could I perhaps ask a couple of opening questions?
We believe that there was some reluctance that you would come
today. Is that because of the fierce reputation of the Committee?
The chairman has changed, and we are much better! Was there a
problem or not?
Lord Goldsmith: Not in the slightest.
Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to speak to the Committee because,
as you say, of the importance that science and technology plays,
particularly in the justice system. If I may say so, the report
of the Committee—whether under present or past management,
as it were—has been enormously helpful. It has meant that
a lot of key information has been shared across the agencies.
We value that. Forensic science is a very important area. I can
give some statistics, if it is helpful, about the number of cases
in which this arises. But, just to deal specifically with the
issue that you raised, we were not at all anxious not to be here:
quite the opposite. It was just a question of who was going to
help you most. What we have are three Ministers. Andy Burnham
can cover the FSS, the national database and things which are
specific Home Office responsibility. I am able to take the lead
on things which relate to the courts, partly because it affects
prosecutors, for whom I am responsible. Indeed, they have no less
than five distinct projects on foot at the moment which are relevant
to what the Committee was reporting on. I have also recently taken
on a sort of cross-criminal justice system responsibility for
experts within what we call the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
The result is that Harriet Harman, who leads for the DCA, can
help with matters where the DCA is relevant; but they are probably
quite narrow and so we thought that we could perhaps handle them
without needing to trouble you with a third person. However, we
are all happy to be here.
Q2 Chairman: We are absolutely delighted
to see you all, but we are somewhat concerned—if I might
put this on record—that a revocation order was placed before
Parliament, of which the Committee had no notice at all. Today,
Andy, you are giving a written statement at 10.30 which is directly
relevant to this inquiry, of which we had no notice, even though
our officials met your officials a week ago to ask if there was
anything coming down the line. Is that just a cock-up or is it—
Andy Burnham: I do not think it
is a cock-up, Chairman. I specifically asked that the announcement
today be sent to the Committee to arrive here in advance of today's
hearing.
Q3 Chairman: It arrived yesterday.
Andy Burnham: I wanted you to
have notice of it and, as you rightly say, it directly relates
to recommendations that you made in your report. Obviously there
is a balance to be struck in giving information, disseminating
it more widely, particularly with something we are laying before
Parliament. As I say, I was clear that I wanted the Committee
to have that in reasonable time in advance of today's meeting.
That is why I did get the information to you.
Q4 Chairman: You must have known
a week ago that that was going to be the case. Why could not the
clerks be notified that there was going to be a statement coming
down the track? I do not mean the content. I accept that.
Andy Burnham: I wanted you to
be notified as soon as possible without putting it out before
laying the statement. Obviously we have been working up the statement.
We had planned to release it today, but wanted you to have prior
notice, and that is what we did.
Q5 Chairman: At precisely 10.30 we
will return to that, so as not to break the conventions. Could
I ask you this, while we have the three of you here? Do you often
meet—if you like, as the three key players? Do you meet
as a team?
Lord Goldsmith: There is a lot
of being joined-up in the criminal justice system, so that essentially
these days the three departments which have a responsibility in
that area—that is, the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, and my office—meet a great deal. Not necessarily
the same Ministers. I will meet a lot with the Lord Chancellor,
with the Home Secretary, but certainly with Harriet as well.
Q6 Chairman: When did the three of
you last meet then?
Lord Goldsmith: When did the three
of us last meet? On this specific topic, we met yesterday.
Andy Burnham: Monday.
Q7 Chairman: If it had not been this
topic, would you have met at all?
Lord Goldsmith: The three of us
together? Quite possibly not, but it depends what the issue is.
Obviously our officials have been speaking a great deal.
Q8 Chairman: How do you ensure co-ordination,
Harriet, between the three departments? That is absolutely crucial,
is it not?
Ms Harman: Because we met because
of coming here together to give evidence to you—
Q9 Chairman: We form a purpose.
Ms Harman: You certainly did.
Because there has been such a rapid pace of change in terms of
how the different bits of the criminal justice system are working
together and the new structures underpinning that, because there
is an ever-changing scenario in the way that forensic evidence
is used in court, in a way that was unimaginable 20 or 30 years
ago, and because there has been a particular experience, which
the Attorney has led on, in relation to the post-Cannings and
Clark case—which involved the Home Office, law officers
and courts working together—I wonder whether you would find
it helpful to have a thumbnail sketch, a quick bringing-up-to-date
from the Attorney, about the structures. Not to trespass on your
time for asking questions, but about the structures of how we
work together and a couple of examples. I wonder whether you think
that would be helpful. He has got something that he prepared earlier!
Chairman: I think that we may return
to that, if it is appropriate to do so. We are very anxious to
carry out the purpose for which we have invited you here. That
is not a discourtesy, Lord Goldsmith; it is just the fact that
we have a fairly busy schedule. Could we move on to the development
of the FSS?
Q10 Dr Turner: Andy, can you give
us a straight answer as to the Government's intentions with FSS?
Is the Government genuinely prepared to look at GovCo as a prospective
free-standing, permanent entity, or do you see it only as a stepping
stone to PPP?
Andy Burnham: I can give a straight
answer, Des. The answer is yes. Since I came into the job in May,
after the election, I was aware of some of the background discussions
that had been going on in the last Parliament. I am aware how
important the service is to people who work within it, but also
those constituency MPs who represent constituencies where there
is a strong FSS interest. I know that there were genuine concerns
put forward in that whole process. So my straight answer to you
is yes; that no irrevocable decision has been taken with regard
to any further development following PPP. It is my intention,
and that of the Home Office, that the GovCo structure should be
given an opportunity to succeed in its own right.
Q11 Dr Turner: Can we clarify whether
any further transition from GovCo to a PPP would require primary
legislation?
Andy Burnham: No, I do not believe
they would. As the Chairman indicated a moment ago, an order has
been laid before the House. That was laid, I think I am right
in saying, the week before last.
Q12 Chairman: 5 November.
Andy Burnham: Yes, so it has been
laid for some time. That of course is subject to the negative
procedure. That order will create the legal basis for the GovCo.
Q13 Chairman: I am sorry, 10 November.
Andy Burnham: It was laid on 10
November, yes. I think that I am right in saying that further
change to FSS GovCo would not require primary legislation. If
I am wrong on that, Des, I will clarify that with you.
Q14 Dr Turner: It is an important
point.
Andy Burnham: I think the point
that you are perhaps raising, if I may say this, is that you are
keen that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of any further
change following GovCo.
Q15 Dr Turner: Should it happen.
Andy Burnham: Is that right?
Q16 Dr Turner: Absolutely.
Andy Burnham: I take that point
entirely. When I was talking a moment ago about being aware of
the strong feeling, particularly in members with a very specialised
interest in this topic, I am aware of that fact. In the New Year
I want to be as open and as transparent as possible about any
future development of the service. I would, at the earliest possible
opportunity, want to publish a framework or criteria by which
any future change to the service would be judged, so that there
could be clarity about that.
Q17 Dr Turner: Could you at least
give us the comfort that any further change will be carried out
by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure, so that
there will at least be the opportunity for scrutiny?
Andy Burnham: I agree with the
general point that you are making: that, if there were to be a
further change to a PPP structure for the Forensic Science Service—that
change is an important change, it is a serious change, because
it does have implications for the criminal justice system and
the provision of forensic scientists to the police. So it is an
important change, and I want to give you the assurance now that
there will be full parliamentary scrutiny of that. At the appropriate
time I would welcome, I would want to see, there to be a proper
debate in the appropriate forum within the House. The possibility
of it being an affirmative order—I will consider that. I
will take that away. I would not want to resile from the possibility
of there being full parliamentary scrutiny of any further decision.
It is proper and right that there should be, because, as I say,
I accept the seriousness of that particular change.
Q18 Dr Turner: When the Government
responded to our report, the Government said they accepted the
Committee's recommendation that FSS GovCo "should be given
every opportunity to succeed in its own right". However,
we understand—correct me if I am wrong—that the time
period that GovCo is being allowed to prove itself is only a year.
Why is it shortened to this? Quite clearly in a year, for a new
company, it is absolutely impossible to judge its performance.
Andy Burnham: I think that there
has been some confusion on this point. If I can help, I can be
absolutely clear as to what the Government's position is, and
I do not believe that it has changed. I think it relates to a
statement given by my predecessor in December 2004, which may
have been a communication to the trade unions. Anyway, there was
a statement; it was then followed up by a written statement in
the House, where she said that it was her intention that there
should be no decision to move to GovCo for at least two years.
That was in December 2004, so that is why it was the date of December
2006. That was the intention behind that statement: that there
should be no decision before that time. I should stress that that
was a minimum. It is not to say that there will be a decision
then; it is saying that at least until that time the FSS can plan
with certainty that there will be no further decision on its future.
Q19 Dr Turner: We foolishly assumed
that two years meant starting from the time when it became a GovCo,
not from the time of a previous Minister's remarks. That does
seem a little disingenuous.
Andy Burnham: I would refer you
back to her exact statement at the time, because I have looked
back at it too. That is very clearly what she said and that was
clearly the policy that she laid out at the time. Obviously it
was responding, as I said, to some of the concerns that had been
put forward about the changes to the service. She was therefore
responding to the concerns raised; but it was that there would
be no further decision for at least two years, at that particular
time. One of the things that may have changed the picture slightly
is that the process of vesting of the GovCo has taken longer than
we anticipated. When I came into the job back in May, officials
were telling me that it was becoming clear that it would take
longer to go through the procedures; that it was right that time
was taken to do that work properly so that we were clear about
the FSS's business plan; absolutely right that pension arrangements
for staff were properly sorted out and clear before any move was
taken. For me, it would have been improper to make the change
with some of these questions hanging over, and people not knowing
for sure that the question had been resolved before the move-over
was made. So time was taken. It is right. Further time was taken
to get some clarity on these questions. That has now led us to
a date of vesting of 5 December. Perhaps I could say this in response
to the Chairman's comments at the outset. In no way is this an
attempt to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny of the process. I
would remain ready to come and answer questions on the order,
and give further assurances or explanation of the order if it
is decided to be prayed against. But—and there is a "but"—we
thought it was right at this stage to get on with setting the
clear date of 5 December for the vesting of GovCo, because staff
within the organisation now need some certainty to get on with
the future of the organisation.
| 
