Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-117)
RT HON
LORD GOLDSMITH
QC, RT HON
HARRIET HARMAN
QC MP AND ANDY
BURNHAM MP
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q100 Dr Iddon: I am going to reactivate
the Home Office Minister, and turn to DNA databases in particular.
This Committee has been very concerned, with the progression of
FSS to a GovCo and perhaps eventually to a PPP, about the ownership
of the national databases that they handle now and that the police
handle. Let me pick up the question of the National DNA Database.
An announcement was to be made about the ownership of this particular
database, but we are also worried about the firearms database
and the footprints database, where personal information is collected.
Who will own these databases and who will gate-keep the access
to them in future, when the FSS moves on?
Andy Burnham: The short answer
is that obviously it is a public sector resource, and not in the
ownership of the FSS. With the vesting process having been carried
through, I would want to inform the Committee that I will make
a very clear written statement on 5 December, or at or around
that time, with the clear arrangements for the future management
and custody of the databases, if you like—which does respond
to recommendations that the Committee have made. As a general
response to your question, however, it is not the property of
the FSS; it is a public sector resource. The governance of it
will transfer directly to the Home Office on vesting of the FSS,
and there will be a clear separation between the two. So we have
taken on board the recommendations that the Committee have made.
I will make a further statement to Parliament, but I obviously
want to let the Committee know that that is coming and it will
respond directly to the recommendations that you have made.
Q101 Dr Iddon: The database is expanding
quite rapidly and it will carry on expanding into the future.
The Committee has two concerns about that. First of all, Professor
Alec Jeffreys, who discovered this technique at Leicester University,
has expressed a view that we should move from 10 to 16 markers,
to avoid miscarriages of justice as the database increases in
size—which becomes a possibility. I asked you this question
at Home Office questions recently. Are you able to provide an
answer today as to whether you agree with Professor Jeffreys?
Now is the time to do it. It is too late when you have to start
going backwards, when the database is too large to do that.
Andy Burnham: I mentioned before
that I did not have much commercial expertise, Chairman, but I
can tell you that the members of your Committee, particularly
the member for Bolton South East, is stretching this lowly English
graduate to the hilt, and his Biology O-level is at creaking point,
given the questions that he has been asking in the House! Since
he stumped me at the dispatch box, I have been looking at this
point in more detail. I now, I think, have a much better understanding
of the point that he was raising. We moved to SGM+—and Brian
will know what I am talking about here—some years ago, as
a more reliable technique. The quoted figure is that that gives
reliability to one in 1,000 million, and it is possibly higher,
as you may know. So that gives incredible accuracy. However, I
am aware of concerns that are being suggested that we should go
further still, and go to a 13 or even 16-marker technique. That
is a very valid and very real concern. As the database has expanded
rapidly, it may slow at some point. Even so, as the Attorney has
said, great use is being made of DNA evidence and there may be
this potential for more international use of that evidence. It
would make sense, if we know that the accuracy can be further
improved, at least to carry out the work that would enable us
to do that. I can assure you that that work is being done and
we have had discussions with European counterparts on the value.
Q102 Chairman: Have you a date for
a decision?
Andy Burnham: I do not think that
there is a clear timeline for a decision. However, the change
to the law which allowed retention of samples was for a number
of reasons, and one of those reasons is very much that: that if
a decision is taken in the future, you can generate a more sophisticated
reading from the original sample. Brian has raised this many times
and he is right to do so, because if we can use the science further
to improve the accuracy, then that is something we should do.
It is under active consideration.
Q103 Dr Iddon: I am just reminding
the Minister of something Professor Jeffreys has said to the Committee,
and I remind him also that the tsunami victims were identified
on the basis of 16 rather than 10 markers, to make sure that there
was no misidentification in the cases there. Professor Alec Jeffreys
has also expressed another concern, which I think is also a concern
of the Committee. I can perhaps put that by quoting something
that he has written down. "I have repeatedly argued that
I am totally opposed to the extension of the database. I regard
it as highly discriminatory". He goes on to say, ".
. . 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". Therefore, what the Committee
is really arguing is that there should be some ethical oversight
of the use of the database, especially the DNA database which
stores personal details. There does not seem to be any ethical
oversight of any of these databases at the moment, especially
that one. My question therefore is this. Is the Home Office going
to provide such ethical oversight in future?
Andy Burnham: There are a lot
of issues in the question there. There is of course a public debate
to be had about the proportionate nature of the use of the database.
From my perspective, I believe that the vast majority of the public
believe that this is justified and right, in terms of detecting
serious crime. You will know something of the court case review
programme, which is delivering some incredible results to very
serious violent crimes and rapes committed many years ago, and
that would simply not have been possible. I think that the public
interested attached to it is clear in the results it can produce.
In terms of the proportionate nature of the system, obviously
the issue of the retention of data has been challenged in the
courts. We estimate that, since the change in the law in 2001,
something in the region of 162,000 DNA samples of individuals
have been retained that otherwise would have fallen to be removed
from the database because a conviction was not secured. Of those
162,000 samples, 7,990 have subsequently been matched.
Q104 Chairman: We do not want to
get into a lot of detail on this.
Andy Burnham: No, but I think
that it is important, Chairman. We are talking of 96 murders,
50 attempted murders, 116 rapes. It is absolutely important to
balance up the other side of the equation here. We hear a lot
about civil liberties and the intrusion on the privacy of the
individual. The principle of the database has been upheld legally
and the Law Lords found that the people to whom I am referring
here, whose samples have been retained, would not be stigmatised
as a result.
Q105 Chairman: We would like a note
on that, to put into our record.
Andy Burnham: Yes, sure.
Q106 Dr Iddon: I think that the point
we are making is that not even Parliament has discussed the extension
of the database. We might well agree with you on the basis of
the facts that you have just given us, but we do think, as representatives
of the people, that we ought to be able to discuss in Parliament
and agree the guidelines that the Home Office give us, because
this is a very important issue out there in the general public.
Andy Burnham: It is an important
issue. I agree with you, Brian. You say Parliament has not decided,
but Parliament did. Parliament subsequently amended the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act to make this possible. So I do not think
it is right to say that.
Q107 Dr Harris: You misunderstand
what Brian was saying, if I can help here. What he was saying
was that the extension of the use of the database to familial
searches—that particular use—has never been debated
by Parliament, and it is highly ethically contentious. That is
what I think we would like you to address: why that should be
allowed to happen without this place, other than this report,
discussing it.
Andy Burnham: The points being
raised are entirely fair, and I am not seeking in any way to avoid
them. Brian did actually say it was the expansion of the database
that—
Dr Iddon: I am sorry I did not make myself
clear.
Q108 Dr Harris: I think he said "extension
of the use".
Andy Burnham: . . . was not considered
by Parliament, and I just wanted to make that clear. Where I agree
with you entirely is that clearly this is a resource that has
huge potential, and a huge potential for public benefit; but if
there is misuse or usage with which people do not feel comfortable,
that is rightly a matter for Parliament. I would want to bring
forward the figures and lay those before the Committee and, if
we need to have more discussion in Parliament in relation to the
use of the database, particularly in the issue you mentioned of
familial searches, then I would want to do that—be it via
debate in Westminster Hall.
Q109 Chairman: Can I ask you a very
simple question? If there is to be any further extension of the
uses of the National Database, you will bring that to Parliament
for scrutiny?
Andy Burnham: I will.
Q110 Dr Harris: In respect of existing
uses, we drew attention to the lack of specific ethical oversight
of research uses of, effectively, intimate samples. I declare
an interest as a member of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee. That
would not be permitted in the NHS and in medical research without
a research ethics committee saying that it is acceptable to do
so without specific consent. You know from our report that we
regretted that we were misled as to the role of the Human Genetics
Commission, and your response was that it was given in good faith—which
did not really help Sir Roy Meadow, as we have heard earlier.
So I think that there is an onus on you now to say how you are
going to deal with this issue of ethical oversight of research.
That was a long question, to give you a chance to find your answer.
We are keen to get it.
Andy Burnham: It was also the
second part of Brian's question. The Committee was right to make
recommendations in this area. You will have your full answer on
5 December. I have said that we will bring it forward. When FSS
is vested as GovCo we will make our full answer but, just to be
clear, the operation and maintenance of the database will initially
be with the FSS, but the oversight and governance of the database
is being transferred to a Home Office unit. Further, the chairmanship
of the governance of the database will be via'd from ACPO but
with Home Office and the Association of Police Authorities' involvement
too. Additional to that there will be ethical and lay oversight
of the whole process. There will be a further panel established,
in co-operation and consultation with the Human Genetics Commission.
Q111 Chairman: So nobody with any
independent authority will sit on that oversight organisation?
Everybody will have a vested interest.
Andy Burnham: What I am saying
is that we are now working through the way in which ethical and
lay oversight of the database will be properly built into the
system, but in a way in which the database is operating and it
is operating to meet the functions we have outlined for it.
Q112 Dr Harris: In the new system,
sadly not currently, it will not be possible for the Home Office/ACPO/whoever
to grant themselves permission to do research—research,
not operational work on these samples—without there being
independent ethical oversight.
Andy Burnham: Yes, that is true.
Q113 Dr Harris: I think that is what
you are saying.
Andy Burnham: That is true. There
is permanent ethical and lay oversight of the operation of the
database.
Q114 Dr Turner: One of our concerns,
as you are aware, was the proliferation of degrees labelled "Forensic
Science" in universities but which are of little or no value
in practical terms, and which certainly have no chance of being
accredited. What steps have you taken since our report, in conjunction
with the DfES, to deal with this situation and to try and rationalise
and set up a system of accreditation of genuine forensic science
training?
Andy Burnham: It is not directly
a Home Office responsibility to set out what should be the content
or not of university courses. I think that this area has had a
welcome boost of interest; possibly some television programmes,
CSI and others, that have encouraged an interest in the
whole area of forensic science—which is probably a welcome
thing. You rightly draw attention to how we can capitalise on
some of the interest in forensic science, in terms of driving
up quality. It is not directly my responsibility to determine
the university courses on offer, and I hope that you will accept
that. FSS does have an interest but, from their point of view,
we would not want a situation where the FSS was constrained in
any way in terms of which graduates it took into the service.
Obviously it will draw from a range of scientific backgrounds.
I am probably not answering the question fully—
Q115 Chairman: The answer is no,
is it not?
Andy Burnham: No, the answer is
not no. We have had discussions with the Department for Education
and Skills, but the direct answer is that we are not going down
a path where we are going to dictate a university course.
Q116 Dr Turner: What about the question
of accreditation of forensic scientists?
Andy Burnham: I think that is
properly a role for the Forensic Science Society rather than the
Home Office. We all have an interest in the course being made
as relevant as possible to the needs of the Forensic Science Service,
and I would certainly welcome their input into these discussions
and their ability to talk to educationalists about what is provided.
However, I do not believe that it would be right for it to go
further than that. Also, the FSS has to retain an ability to recruit
from across the scientific spectrum; not just from people pursuing
forensic science degrees.
Q117 Dr Iddon: We have estimated
that there are 401 courses on forensic science in 57 universities,
but there does not seem to be an awful lot of research attached
to those courses going on, and certainly not blue-sky research.
If we increase competition in the Forensic Science Service, that
might reduce costs and might also provide less money in the private
sector for blue-sky research. The Committee is extremely worried
about staying cutting-edge in research in forensic science but,
for those two reasons, we cannot see a way forward. Are you doing
anything to increase the amount of research that goes on in forensic
science, either in academia or in the private sector?
Andy Burnham: What I can assure
you of, Brian, is that, in the business plan that the FSS has
submitted to the Home Office in advance of the move to GovCo,
research and development is a very prominent strand and feature
of that plan. I cannot at this stage—for obvious reasons,
now that the service is moving into a different commercial environment—give
you the precise figures on what will be spent in what year; but
I can give you the assurance that there are very clear commitments
going forward to research and improving the quality of what we
do. Actually, I think that the market could increase. With more
job opportunities, more players in the market, it could enhance
the research often; but that is something that we will look at.
Chairman: On that note we will conclude.
Could I thank you all very much indeed for a fascinating session
this morning? I hope you also feel that it has been worthwhile.
We may have one or two follow-up notes, in order to complete this
piece of work, but could I again thank you very much.
| 
