14 ACCREDITATION OF FORENSIC
SCIENCE LABORATORIES
(30720)
10964/09
--
+ ADD 1
| Draft Council Framework Decision on the accreditation of forensic science laboratory activities
Explanatory Memorandum
|
| Legal base | Articles 30(1)(c), 30(a), 31 and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 October 2009
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 6 (21 July 2009) and HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 9 (10 September 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| 23 October 2009 |
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 ISO 17025 sets out general requirements for the competence
of testing and calibration laboratories. The requirements apply
to, for example, the laboratory's quality management system, the
competence of the staff and the quality of the equipment. Accreditation
of a laboratory to the ISO standard ensures that the methods the
laboratory uses are valid, the equipment is appropriate for the
method, the staff performing the analysis are competent and the
organisation has the capacity to maintain the quality of its results.
Previous consideration of the document
14.2 In July, when we first considered this draft Framework Decision,
we noted the view of its proposers (Sweden and Spain) that, with
the growth in the volume of information exchanged between Member
States for the purposes of police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure
that the quality of data is sufficiently high; this applies as
much to forensic evidence as to other data.
14.3 Article 1 of the draft Framework Decision said
that the measure's objective was to ensure that the results of
the laboratory activities in one Member State are recognised as
being equivalent to the results of laboratory activities in other
Member States. The objective was to be achieved by ensuring that
all laboratory activities are accredited to comply with ISO 17025.
14.4 The draft Framework Decision would:
- apply to "laboratory activities"
related to DNA and fingerprints;
- define laboratory activities as any measure taken
when handling, developing, analysing or interpreting forensic
evidence;
- require every Member State to ensure that laboratory
activities in its area are tested by the national accreditation
body for compliance with ISO 17025; and
- require Member States to ensure that the results
of accredited laboratory activities carried out in other Member
States are recognised as equivalent to the results of domestic
accredited laboratory activities.
14.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 July 2009,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Mr Alan Campbell) told us that the Government supported the proposed
use of ISO 17025 for DNA and fingerprint evidence but that it
would:
"take care to ensure that these provisions
do not require the UK to accept the results of laboratory activities
carried out in other Member States to be recognised as admissible
for evidential purposes in UK courts … ."[56]
14.6 In the conclusion to our report on the proposal,
we questioned the accuracy of the proposed legal bases for the
Framework Decision. We also noted that Article 1 of the draft
Framework Decision states the objective of the measure as the
mutual recognition by all Member States of forensic evidence about
DNA and fingerprints emanating from laboratories which have been
accredited to ISO 17025 wherever they are located in the EU. The
Government said that it supported the use of ISO 17025 but also
said that it would ensure that the requirements for mutual recognition
would not apply in the UK. We did not understand why the Government
appeared to oppose the objective of the Framework Decision. We
asked the Minister to comment on these points and kept the document
under scrutiny pending his reply.[57]
14.7 In his reply of 1 September, the Minister told
us that he agreed with our views about the defects in the citation
of legal bases for the Framework Decision and would propose corrections.
14.8 In response to our suggestion that the Government
appeared to oppose the objective of the draft Framework Decision,
the Minster said that the Government firmly supports the aim of
increasing "mutual trust" in DNA and fingerprint data
exchanged between Member States by requiring conformity to a basic
standard. The Government also believes, however, that there should
be no attempt to prevent a Member State from setting a higher
standard if it wishes. So accreditation to ISO 17025 should be
seen merely as a minimum.
14.9 In the Government's view, the Framework Decision
should be limited to improving mutual trust by improving the reliability
of DNA and fingerprint data in the interests of police and judicial
cooperation. So the Government would propose the removal of the
requirements for mutual recognition.
14.10 On 10 September, when we considered the Minister's
reply, we recognised that some Member States may require forensic
laboratories in their territory to achieve higher standards than
laboratories in other Member States. In those circumstances, it
seemed to us necessary in the interest of justice that the courts
should not be required to treat the results of the laboratories
which have achieved only the minimum standard as being the equivalent
of results from a laboratory which has achieved higher standards.
The courts should, therefore, have discretion to decide which
evidence is to be admitted. Accordingly, we understood why the
Government considers that the objective should be to increase
mutual trust rather than to require mutual recognition.
14.11 We asked the Minister for further progress
reports on the negotiations.[58]
The Minister's letter of 14 October 2009
14.12 In his letter of 14 November, the Minister
tells us that:
- the legal base for the proposal
has been corrected;
- the text has been amended so that Member States
will not be required to ensure that the results of accredited
laboratory activities carried out in other Member States are recognised
as equivalent to the results of domestic accredited laboratory
activities;
- the definition of laboratory activities has been
amended to require all police fingerprint laboratories to obtain
accreditation;
- the period within which the DNA provisions must
be implemented has been increased to four years from the date
when the Framework Decision comes into effect; and
- the period within which the fingerprint provisions
must be implemented has been increased to six years.
14.13 The Government is content with the amendments.
The effect of the change to the definition of laboratory activities
will be to reduce the cost of implementation in England and Wales
to £30,000 in the first year and £10,000 a year thereafter;
and the longer period for the implementation of the fingerprint
provisions is more realistic.
14.14 The Government now supports the amended proposal
and the Minister asks us to clear the document from scrutiny before
the JHA Council is invited to agree it on 23 October.
Conclusion
14.15 The Minister has provided us with all the
information for which we asked and has provided satisfactory answers
to our questions. We are content, therefore, now to clear the
draft Framework Decision from scrutiny.
56 Minister's Explanatory Memorandum of 15 July 2009,
paragraph 21. Back
57
See HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 6 (21 July 2009). Back
58
See HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 9 (10 September 2009). Back
| 
