Forensic Science: Select Committee Report

HL Deb 15 April 1993 vol 544 cc1185-215

3.37 p.m.

Lord Dainton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Forensic Science (5th Report, 1992–93, HL Paper 24).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, every right thinking person has a hatred of injustice. Institutionalised injustice is even more repugnant. To many, whose main source of information are the mass media, it must have seemed that this was the case in some recent well-publicised miscarriages of justice, like the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, Judith Ward and John Preece cases and, moreover—this is the important point—that there was something seriously wrong with the forensic science services supported by public funds which were involved in those cases.

Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology was not immune to this widespread feeling and therefore decided to set up a subcommittee to inquire into forensic science and to consider whether there were lessons to be learnt in matters of organisation of the services, of maintenance of the highest professional standards and competence of those who work in these services, and how their findings might be clearly presented to a court of justice.

It is no exaggeration to say that at the outset of our inquiry members of the committee had very considerable doubts about the quality of publicly provided forensic science work, not least because in 1989 the Home Affairs Committee of another place had commented very adversely on the forensic science service which was then part of the Science and Technology Group of the Home Office Police Department, and the largest single forensic science organisation in the United Kingdom. That committee reported that for a variety of reasons morale was at rock bottom, that staff were being lost and that the service was unable to meet police demands.

The old Baconian maxim "If a man shall be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties" was a justification for our initial critical approach. It also reinforced our determination to make a thorough inquiry and was the mainspring of the pertinacity with which, according to some of our witnesses speaking outside the committee room, we conducted their interrogation. We also decided to produce what might be called an anatomy of the provision of forensic science services in the whole of the United Kingdom. The outcome is to be found in Appendix 3 of the report and was based on a questionnaire devised and analysed by Dr. Ian Harrison, our specialist adviser, to whom we are greatly indebted.

That appendix details expenditure which is running now at about £42 million per annum, which, incidentally, is only about 0.5 per cent. of the cost of the criminal justice system. There are slightly less than 1,000 staff. The appendix tells how the staff and money are used and how the staff workload and numbers have been changing in the 1980s. Because of the great variety of ownership of laboratories where forensic science is carried out, we visited two laboratories owned by the police—that is, the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory and the Strathclyde police force forensic science laboratory. We also visited the Birmingham laboratory of the forensic science service which is one of the new Next Steps agencies; the Defence Research Agency forensic explosives division, and, as an example of a well-regarded foreign establishment, the Bundeskriminalamt—the Federal German Republic central forensic laboratories in Wiesbaden.

We also sought advice and opinion from overseas experts of the quality of British forensic science. Perhaps I may also add that since the report was published many helpful comments have been proffered by some of the laboratories, by the police, and by others too numerous for me to specify. Those views, for which I am indeed grateful, have coloured some of my comments this afternoon.

I cannot possibly do justice to all the evidence and conclusions in this short introductory speech. I hope that by their contributions, my colleagues on the committee will compensate for my shortcomings as they so often did during our inquiry and that they will fill in the numerous lacunae. Perhaps I may concentrate on the main thrust of our recommendations. The first point to acknowledge is that not only is British forensic science held in high regard by overseas experts, but it is also highly cost-effective. The simple fact that where the police are able to involve forensic science the clear-up rate of investigated crimes is twice the national average makes the point eloquently enough. In fact, it is more cost-effective than fingerprinting; not a point of which many people are aware.

That being so, it is obvious that in a period of rising crime it would be irresponsible to limit resources and so prevent forensic science making the contribution of which it is so obviously capable. In that context, I draw attention to the defendants who qualify for legal aid and who would be disadvantaged as the means limit decreases while the forensic science service, to which they theoretically now have access, increase its charges.

The next message is also one of reassurance. There has been a sea-change for the better in the forensic science service itself which is manifest in higher staff morale, better recruiting and management, as well as improved quality and control. We think that the chance of recurrence of lapses of the kind that occurred almost two decades ago are therefore very much reduced. Perhaps at this point I may remind your Lordships of a fact that seems to me is not fully recognised by the public; namely, that some of those lapses were detected by the control system then in operation in the forensic science service and that it was the forensic scientists themselves who showed that police evidence had been tampered with in, for instance, the well-known Silcott (sometimes known as the Tottenham Three) and the Birmingham Six cases, leading, as those discoveries did, to the acquittal of wrongly-convicted persons. In addition, of course, there are those cases which never come to court, and therefore not to public notice, because of forensic science findings which deter the police from introducing proceedings.

Nevertheless, despite those two, as it were, accolades there is still much to be done. The crucial issue is how to maintain the quality of work done at the highest possible level and that ultimately depends on two things: first, the technical competence, judgment and professional integrity of individual forensic scientists and, secondly, on the efficiency, tone and management of the laboratories within which they work. In relation to the maintenance of individual fitness to practise, we therefore lay very great emphasis on our recommendations on codes of practice and ethics; on job training; on the use of national vocational qualifications (or, in Scotland, the Scottish vocational qualifications) when those become fully available and which must provide, in our view, for regular reassessment of individuals—because each of us, as they say in the supermarkets, has his own sell-by date.

We regard it as essential that there should be a system of individual registration for each and every working forensic scientist. Registration would increase public confidence, assist the judicial process, encourage reputable private sector scientists, protect the public from what we call "cowboy operators" and complement those national vocational qualifications and what I shall refer to in a moment as the NAMAS system of laboratory accreditation.

We suggest how a small committee or government board could oversee that registration. That is referred to specifically although I have not time to go into its composition. As regards the second factor on the quality of a particular laboratory treated collectively, we recognise that that depends on the rigorous application of quality assurance systems where we support the common practice, as it now is, of inter-laboratory unseen testing. We see scope in due time for the publication of the results of such quality control tests by those laboratories who wish to do so—it is not a matter on which we would insist, because we are not particularly addicted to league tables in anything—and also on the accreditation of laboratories by an independent authority such as the National Measurement Accreditation Service, shorthanded in the trade as NAMAS, and which is now a part of the National Physical Laboratory.

All these conclusions seem to us to be self-evident. We have seen few signs of opposition to them from our witnesses, many of whose institutions were already moving along in these directions. Nevertheless, there are other actions which need to be taken if the judicial system is to derive the full benefit of what high quality forensic science has to offer. The first is that all necessary relevant samples from the scene of the crime should be collected. The recommendations in paragraph 3.32 of the report are designed to ensure that laboratories must show that they have an adequate degree of control of this process for if the input is faulty then the conclusions must also be faulty. Sometimes, of course, it is unavoidable that laboratory staff are not involved in the process of sampling. Then the actual people who collect the samples surely must be properly equipped and trained and the quality of their work subject to audit.

I now turn to the financial arrangements because existing United Kingdom forensic science laboratories fall into three distinct categories in their financial arrangements. There are, first, those like the Defence Research Agency Forensic Explosives Division which are not cash limited in any way. Secondly, there are those owned by police forces which give their laboratories a budget; for example in the Metropolis and in Scotland. Thirdly, there is also the Next Steps agency, the forensic science service, and a division of the laboratory of the Government Chemist called the forensic and customs division. Both charge for their services, and that is their source of revenue. The two last named bodies are content with those arrangements and the Director of the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory, which is funded differently, fully appreciates the advantages which his two colleague institutions gain by direct charging. We accept that position.

However, we do see some difficulties connected with direct charging. In the first place, there is a growing competitive private sector, whose practising scientists, we consider, should be subject to registration but they will be unlikely to do any research and development work so their costs may well be lower. Secondly, in a period of rising crime, and therefore a period of rising demand for forensic science, the police authorities with limited financial resources may wish to apply restraints to the budgets of their laboratories. That would be counterproductive and, furthermore, despite the obvious risks, the police may be tempted to do what some of them do on occasions—that is, more forensic science work for themselves. In parenthesis, perhaps I should say that that has obvious dangers, but our recommendation in paragraph 4.14 would provide some kind of safeguard against inadequate quality when that has to be done. The police will certainly want to keep a tight rein on any R&D expenditure by their laboratories.

We therefore feel that the R&D work being undertaken now, which of course underpins the quality of future forensic science practice, may be at risk and that there is therefore a case for establishing a small central fund from which grants for research and development projects could be made to applicants of whatever affiliation; the criteria of selection for an award being simply excellence and the potential utility of the project. Such a scheme already operates very well for forensic pathology in this country and for forensic science in the Commonwealth of Australia. Furthermore, we also consider that an independently funded university-based R&D centre would ensure that strategic research in this field does not go by default. The existence of such a centre would also put down a marker for forensic science as a proper field of study for university work (it can scarcely be described as that now); it would enhance the attraction of able graduates to the profession and it could also be a source of independent advice to Ministers and to the courts in cases where forensic science evidence is crucial. We recognise that the last point is a matter on which the currently sitting Royal Commission on Criminal Justice may well have views.

In conclusion, I must remind your Lordships that at the end of the day, however good the actual forensic science work may be, its value to the court is that its nature and significance are fully comprehended especially by jurors who have to conclude whatever it is they conclude "beyond reasonable doubt"—that famous phrase. Here there are several matters over which the committee is uneasy. These are detailed separately in chapter 5. One is a recommendation that the law relating to the significance of evidence based on DNA profiling be clarified. The other comments are largely suggestions for consideration by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice whose report your Lordships will doubtless wish to debate when it is issued later this year. These comments relate to the desirability of pre-trial conferences; of pre-trial review by the judge when necessary; a mechanism for ensuring that the expert forensic science witness holds back nothing which is relevant, but which has not already been elicited by examination and cross-examination, and which he of his own knowledge thinks could make his testimony clearer. Lastly, we suggest that lawyers in training should be made aware of the power and limits of forensic science—and there are limits as well as powers. This is the simple and necessary counterpart of forensic scientists learning something about court procedures.

At this point I am tempted to conclude with those famous words, "I rest my case", but instead I should like to thank publicly the committee's Clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower, whose clarity of mind and prose was invaluable to, and the envy of, many members of the committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Forensic Science (5th Report, 1992–93, HL Paper 24).—(Lord Dainton.)

3.55 p.m.

Lord Flowers

My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, on behalf of the Select Committee on Science and Technology as a whole, for agreeing to chair the sub-committee which inquired into the present state of forensic science in this country. We were all relieved and delighted that he found himself able to lead us to such an agreeable conclusion. I congratulate him also on the admirable way in which he introduced the subject today.

Forensic science is a complicated subject, its boundaries dictated by its multifarious applications rather than by its intrinsic character. It is a mixture of biology, chemistry, physics, information technology and statistics, backed up, of course, by a great deal of specialised experience of dealing with crime. In the past, there have been grievous failings of organisation and of persons, partly perhaps because of its multi-disciplinary character, but the essential message of our report is that the country may now have confidence in its forensic science service. It is of high quality, and it may be relied upon. We hope that our report may assist the process of reform in which the service is now engaged and that reform will become a permanent feature of the service.

I should like to amplify just two points made by the noble Lord. The first concerns the nature of scientific evidence. At the outset we reached a concordat with the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that we would not venture across the threshold of the courtroom door. We would concern ourselves with the laboratory bench rather than the witness box. I am glad to say that the Royal Commission seemed in no way displeased that we occasionally transgressed. The point is that the useful product of forensic science is evidence for the courts; so the laboratory bench and the witness box are not entirely separable in practice.

Nobody expects a scientific witness to be entitled to contravene in court the accepted rules of evidence. But the rules of evidence and the rules of scientific inference do not always sit happily together. It is clear that lawyers by and large do not understand the probabilistic nature of scientific findings. As the Government Chemist told us, The problems of getting across concepts of risk and uncertainty to courts, or indeed to the public at large, are very complicated and difficult". At the end of the day, to quote words that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already used, the jury has to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt". How can that be achieved in a case which hangs upon scientific evidence if neither the jurors nor the lawyers addressing them, including the judge perhaps, have any idea what scientific judgments consist of or how they are reached? It is a shocking indictment of our educational system.

I am glad to acknowledge that I know a few lawyers whose ability to grasp the essential nature of scientific discourse astonishes me as much as my ignorance of matters legal must dismay them—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is one of the most outstanding—but the evidence presented to the sub-committee leads me to suppose that they must comprise a very small minority. I have heard lawyers talk about "the balance of probabilities", but they seem to have something quite different in mind from me, something rather subjective. To a scientist, probability is objective: it is a number, calculated with a precision that may also be calculated.

For example, DNA profiling, or genetic fingerprinting as it is sometimes known, is a technique—a British technique at that, and immensely powerful—recently introduced into forensic science and taken up with great enthusiasm all over the world. It allows body samples from the scene of the crime and from a suspect to be compared in minute detail at the molecular level. If the samples do not match exactly, the suspect is eliminated. Forensic science has made an unheralded contribution to justice before the case has even come to court. If the samples match, there is still a certain probability that they come from different individuals. The molecular geneticist is able to calculate what that probability is and within what confidence limits that probability can be stated on the basis of the laboratory results.

Perhaps there is a probability of one in 10,000 that the samples come from different individuals. Does that put the matter beyond reasonable doubt, or not? There tends to be quite unreasonable argument about that. If only two or three people could have left the sample at the scene of the crime and none was an identical twin of the suspect, a scientist would say that it was beyond reasonable doubt. If several thousand could have done so, then it was not beyond reasonable doubt because in the simplest case one has to multiply the probability that another individual displays the same molecular pattern by the number of people possibly involved. That takes it into the very doubtful range. In either case, the scientist could make his statement more precise if the court so desired, but I have tried to describe the essence of the inference that must be drawn from the scientific evidence—entirely hypothetical in this instance.

It is of course right to question the measurements that were made and the inferences drawn from them. Recent cases at the Old Bailey, however, suggest that some judges regard the rules of scientific inference themselves as being open to argument. If they are, I venture to suggest that those rules will be neither refuted nor refined in the courts. That is truly a matter for the laboratory, not judicial, bench.

With regard to genetic fingerprinting itself, we recommended that the law should be clarified as soon as possible in close consultation with appropriate scientists, and we shall be interested to hear the Government's reaction to that. But more generally, we proposed to the Royal Commission, on whose toes we had so gently trodden, that certain steps be introduced into court procedure to lessen the disparity between the rules of evidence and the rules of scientific inference.

Specifically, we first recommended—the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned this—pre-trial conferences between counsel and their own forensic witnesses and, under the eye of the judge, between expert witnesses on both sides, to try to resolve, or at least define, essential disagreements about the interpretation of the scientific evidence. Nowadays, that is commonplace in inquiry tribunals. Bearing in mind the possibility that learned counsel may not always understand the forensic evidence, we recommended, secondly, that an expert witness should be invited by the judge to make a concluding statement before leaving the witness box in order to fulfil the terms of the oath sworn by the witness to tell the whole truth. We recommended, thirdly, that visual aids should be permitted, as appears to be increasingly the case in Scotland, because most scientists feel grossly disabled without them. The bludgeon that did the deed most foul is exhibited visually. Why not the scientific evidence also? Every teacher knows that a simple picture is worth a thousand learned words. And, lastly, we recommended that forensic science should feature in a lawyer's training, much as legal procedure is required in the training of a forensic scientist.

The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, upon which I wish to comment briefly, is the need for a certain capacity for research and development in forensic science. It is perfectly true that the service can and does draw heavily upon research conducted elsewhere. DNA profiling, for instance, was invented at the University of Leicester. As a result, much of its own R&D, although of good quality, tends towards development rather than research. We believed that it is important that the service should itself have the capacity to pursue original research into areas which seem to its practitioners most likely to lead to new forensic applications.

There are nowadays great pressures on the forensic science services which may lead them to cut back on research in favour of service. They have to pay their way. Industry in recession exhibits similar tendencies. We should therefore like to see a certain capacity for research ring-fenced in the budgets for the forensic science services; perhaps a small central fund which could be distributed to forensic laboratories according to the merit of proposals made to it. We do not say much about it in our report, but it is a serious point. We should like to know the Government's attitude to it.

That is not, however, sufficient. We should also like to see the creation of a small but independent research institute for forensic science at a suitable university. Personally, I believe that it should be at a university at which forensic pathology is also strongly represented. There is much in common between the two, at least in motivation. It is possible that the Government have been advised that that is the least persuasive of our recommendations. In my experience, establishment laboratories always advise thus. After all, if the forensic services themselves can both perform and sponsor research, why should there be a need for anyone else to have independent initiative? And, in particular, why should their budgets be reduced and their jobs lost in order to pay for it?

I hope that the Government believe in competition as much as I do. Competition in research, at any rate, is essential. It is an indispensable element of the progress of any branch of science. Nevertheless, it requires sponsorship, and in this case it is difficult to see who else but the Government would provide for it. The presence of a forensic research institute at a reputable university has implications far beyond its remit to pursue independent research. It carries with it the unmistakable message that forensic science is a subject worthy of the attention of some of the finest scientific minds. Justice deserves no less.

4.10 p.m.

Baroness Platt of Writtle

My Lords, the foreword written by our most expert and efficient chairman the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, sums up, as he also emphasised in his speech this afternoon, the unique nature of the study by the Select Committee. When we started we were very aware of the faults exhibited in the past by the forensic science service. As we define: The task of forensic science is to serve the interests of justice", and we were aware of significant failures in that respect during a period of years. We were, therefore, expecting that the emphasis in our recommendations would lie in strengthening safeguards so that those miscarriages of justice should not occur again. In the light of the increase in violent crime that formed in our minds a rather dismal prospect.

It is always a pleasant surprise to find that one's worst fears are not realised and that the situation is much better than expected. As we took evidence and visited the various laboratories of the forensic science service it became clear that people with strength of character determined to effect improvements were in charge and that the service had taken itself in hand to do all that it could to prevent a repetition of past failures.

The past few years have seen great changes in the service in many respects. The Home Office forensic science service has become an executive agency funded by charging both the police and other users, including the defendants. In the development of a more market-oriented approach a private sector is developing in competition. The Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory is still operated under the auspices of the police but can now also carry out defence work and charge for it. It gave evidence that it was "demand led and resource limited" and would welcome greater independence, which it felt would lead to better service delivery and value for money. That view is not shared by the Metropolitan Police force. We have not come down on one side or the other as the situation is finely balanced, but have recommended that the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of State in the parallel Scottish service, should review the situation.

The recruitment and retention of forensic scientists does not seem to be a problem according to the evidence which we received. Potential forensic scientists need a variety of initial disciplines when they first enter the service. Chemistry, physics, biology, photography and so forth at various levels of qualification may constitute individual entry qualifications at the beginning. Some may come with actual forensic science qualifications from Strathclyde or London universities but those are by no means the only or the desired entry routes.

Clearly, as well as theoretical knowledge, practical experience in the forensic service under the supervision of experienced officers during a period of years must be essential to provide the broad knowledge necessary for an expert witness giving evidence in court under cross-examination. Those witnesses need to have been capable of in-depth self-criticism during the whole period of their investigation of a particular case and able to withdraw from a tempting conclusion where contradictory evidence begins to build up. That demands a strong sense of personal integrity as well.

We were very impressed by the emphasis on quality assurance, on the insistence on audit and corroboration by other forensic scientists and by the clear lead given from the top of the service in staff proficiency testing, the provision of in-service training and the up-dating of staff so that they can take advantage of progress in scientific diagnosis and interaction between different disciplines. Clearly, too, the more market-oriented approach, which includes advising the defence as well as the prosecution, leads to a more objective service and reduces any tendency towards seeking a prosecution above everything. Perhaps the latter approach had been the cause of some of the earlier miscarriages of justice, and has lead to today's very much greater emphasis on objectivity, impartiality and self-criticism.

That part of our investigation is perhaps the most important in our aim of seeing forensic science serving justice above everything and has led to a whole cluster of recommendations. We welcome the involvement of NAMAS in accrediting testing and look to its being involved in the sampling process as well. We recommend the registration of all forensic scientists at professional and technician levels in the same way as my own profession of engineering, which will certify the acquisition of both academic and practical knowledge and experience during a period of years. That must cover the public service and private practice and the police officers involved in acquiring and interpreting evidence so that there is no temptation to use cheaper, unqualified or less objective sources of investigation. Clearly NVQs will assist the registration in assessment of competence. All this insistence on high standards, validation, audit of methods of investigation and standards of interpretation will lead to a better quality of service which will stand up more strongly in court to the credit of the forensic science service as a whole, which it must have in future years to show a clear and excellent public image.

Another of our recommendations is concerned with the need for lawyers to be given a more scientific basis in their training, as was mentioned by other noble Lords today, so that they are better able to tease out both the weaknesses and the strengths of scientific evidence. Science and technology become more and more complex as the years go by. The interaction of different specialisms and judgment of degrees of uncertainty become more important. Lawyers need to understand in greater depth so that their questions can target the problems and uncertainties more accurately.

We also make recommendations on pre-trial conferences and review so that uncertainties and hypotheses can be explored beforehand and expert witnesses can be alerted to the need for the requisite in-depth information and not surprised in the witness box. They may also need to make a final statement of their own to clarify an area of evidence in which they have not been questioned in sufficient depth so that they may clearly have fulfilled their oaths.

As a former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission I am always interested in seeing that professional women with scarce skills should have the opportunity of pursuing their careers to positions of responsibility and combining them with happy and responsible family life. I met some of these highly talented women whose skills are much appreciated by their male colleagues. Their skills represent costly public and private investment and must be retained to the benefit of the service. Flexible working arrangements are already in place in some cases but our committee recommends their further sympathetic consideration by senior management so that these talented women are retained in the service throughout their careers.

I should like to finish by thanking our chairman for his hard work and determination to achieve recommendations which, if put into action, will contribute to an even better forensic science service in the future, building further on the excellent foundations which it has created during the past few years.

4.18 p.m.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, I too was a member of the committee looking at the forensic science service and I greatly enjoyed the experience under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. Like other members of the committee, I too began the inquiry some 12 months ago on the assumption that the forensic science service was in considerable difficulties. First, I assumed that the highly publicised cases of poor science or incompetence would have produced a service in disarray or demoralised. Secondly, it had been widely reported that the move to agency status was producing distortions and reductions in the provision of forensic science support for the police service due to cash limited budgets. I also assumed that a centralised agency based on commercial principles would be less accessible to the defence, especially as the costs might be prohibitively high. In fact, as has already been said, we found a highly motivated and increasingly efficient organisation which applies rigorous standards of science.

Nevertheless, there was in my view some complacency in the service about its image and a reluctance to accept that that might have been tarnished by the actions of some individual forensic scientists. In the service they know that the sloppiness and errors are many years in the past, but perhaps they should do more to convey that reality to the media and the public at large.

There are two particular areas which I should like to address. First, there is a problem for the defence in having adequate access to forensic science facilities. Secondly—and this has already been addressed by other members of the committee—there is a related problem; namely, a philosophical clash between science and our adversarial system of law.

The initial problem for the defence is that most forensic evidence is collected at the scene of the crime on behalf of the prosecution at the time that the crime is reported to the police. However, a suspect may not be arrested for many hours, days or weeks and, even then, he may not be legally represented initially. Therefore, there is a long time lag in which the defence must try to catch up on the need to collect forensic evidence. At that late stage, the defence can rarely collect anything additional in the way of scientific evidence.

The forensic science service will carry out additional tests for the defence but it will be at a cost which may be beyond the reach of legal aid and those tests can generally only be conducted on samples of blood or fibre already collected on behalf of the prosecution.

Science should be neutral and objective, but within our adversarial system of justice scientists are called as witnesses by either the prosecution or the defence. Therefore, they are inevitably seen as partial to one side or the other. That is poor science and it does little to serve the cause of justice.

That leads on to the second issue which is the philosophical clash, which has already been eloquently addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, between science, which deals in tentative conclusions based on probabilities, and a judicial system which claims to deal in certainties and guilt or innocence. Since science proceeds on a basis of probabilities, in the mind of the layman there will always be some degree of uncertainty as regards the evidence presented by scientists in court. That can be readily exploited by defence lawyers who can make the forensic scientist appear to prevaricate or to be in doubt about his or her findings because of a reluctance to give a completely categorical answer.

Moreover, the adversarial system forces both prosecution and defence to attack each other's witnesses, highlighting minor points of difference between them rather than stressing large areas of common ground. Particularly in jury trials, that may so confuse the issues that the whole of the scientific evidence is placed in doubt. I believe that in many respects we are not well served by our adversarial judicial system which, like our parliamentary system, exaggerates conflicts and dogma at the expense of reality. That is a matter for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which will report soon.

As has already been said by other members of the committee, the report makes various recommendations which we hope may reduce the conflict and misunderstanding as regards scientific evidence. First, we suggest that barristers should meet with their own scientific witnesses before the trial to ensure that they understand the scientific evidence. Secondly, we suggest that where scientific evidence is likely to be disputed, counsel and scientists from both sides should meet before the trial to agree common ground and to resolve or reduce differences of opinion. That would be a radical departure for English law, but the more that scientific evidence can be extracted from the gladiatorial atmosphere of the court room, the more likely it is that forensic scientists will be able to maintain scientific impartiality.

Professional standards are inevitably threatened when witnesses are subjected to hostile cross-examination which force them to be over-categorical or less certain than they deserve. Neither outcome is good for science or the criminal justice system.

To reduce those possible consequences of forceful cross-examination, we recommend further that an expert witness should be allowed to make a concluding statement before leaving the witness box to clear up any possible misunderstanding of what he or she has said. Our two final recommendations about the role of the forensic scientist as a witness attempt to close that cultural gap between law and science. Thus, we recommend, first, that forensic scientists should be allowed to use visual aids to explain their points more clearly. That is a facility which would often be welcome in this House. Secondly, we recommend that forensic science should feature in the training of all solicitors and barristers.

In summary, this was a fascinating study during which we received a reassuring response to our initial anxieties, but which led us on to examine other problems which are more deeply rooted in our judicial system and, consequently, much harder to resolve.

4.25 p.m.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, it was a privilege to have been able to serve on the Select Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Dainton and so ably served by our specialist adviser and Clerk. Forensic medicine and forensic science, sister professions in this country, have a very long and proud record. Indeed, many years ago, long before I even became a medical student, the name of Sir Bernard Spilsbury was well known to me. In my study of medicine names like those of Keith Simpson, Francis Camps and others were constantly, through the evidence that they gave in court in forensic cases, brought to our attention.

Despite the cloud that was cast over the forensic science service in this country a few years ago, there is no doubt that the science stands high in international regard. Indeed, many of the major developments in forensic science have been based upon research carried out in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Flowers mentioned Professor Alec Jeffreys from the University of Leicester and his introduction of DNA fingerprinting and profiling.

The responsibilities of forensic medicine and science overlap at many points. For example, police surgeons are concerned particularly with the examination of the living. They examine victims of alleged assault, child abuse and rape and are even involved sometimes in examining, with permission, the alleged assailant. Once diligent amateurs, they have become increasingly skilled and are now well trained professionals. The same applies to those doctors in pathology who are on the Home Office approved list as forensic pathologists. Of course, they are more concerned with examination of dead bodies and with fluids and tissues derived from cadavers, but in the sciences of serology and toxicology, examinations of the living and the dead overlap.

Each of those branches of the medical profession working in forensic medicine could not carry out their responsibilities or fulfil their duties without a very clear overlap with the forensic scientist. The doctors concerned provide samples of blood, body fluids, skin and tissues for study by forensic scientists. As has been said and as is clearly set out in the report, an enormous range of physical, chemical, molecular, biological and other techniques are used. Of course, one must not forget the many other disciplines which exercise the minds of the forensic scientists; namely, the study of weapons, ballistics, document examination, photography, examination of handwriting and analysis and a great many more.

As has been said, the errors of the 1970s clouded the reputation of forensic science in this country. We were entirely satisfied in our inquiries that that is a thing of the past and that the quality of the service provided both by the forensic science service, now the agency, and by the police laboratories in the metropolitan areas and Scotland is uniformly high, with quality assurance and audit of procedures widely and increasingly practised.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and other noble Lords have made clear, we had some anxieties. First, it is clear that those with science degrees entering the forensic science service, whether in the agency or the police laboratories, receive some in-house training, but there is no system as yet of compulsory registration. And there is no statutory requirement that such a scientist should be required to undertake a statutory programme of training before being able to give evidence in court. In other words, we favour strongly the proposal not only that there should be registration of forensic scientists but that that should be preceded by a period of pre-registration training of those scientists entering the service. That is obviously a task which we believe should be properly looked at by the Home Office introducing a method of registration not dissimilar to that which it uses in recognising forensic pathologists. It is one of the recommendations about which the sub-committee felt most strongly.

Secondly, it was clear that the forensic science service as an agency is functioning well. There was no evidence in the information that we received from our witnesses to suggest that short cuts were being taken for financial reasons. However, an anxiety was expressed by our police witnesses and others that, with budgetary restraints, there was at least a possibility that investigations which the police and others thought very necessary or important might not be handed on to the forensic science service for financial reasons. At present, that is just a prospect which we believe could arise. There was no evidence to show that it has yet arisen. Nevertheless, it was argued that there should be careful monitoring of the situation to make certain that good science is not restricted by budgetary restraints.

We heard evidence that the Metropolitan Police and Scottish laboratories were giving an outstandingly good service and that they are now carrying out some work for the defence to a far greater extent than was done in the past as, indeed, they are for the prosecution. All the evidence we heard suggested that they were even handed in not favouring either side and that, as should be the case, the results of their investigations were handled with total scientific objectivity.

Another important reason why we feel that the registration process in forensic science is a crucial requirement for the future is the growing private sector, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred. It is vitally important that those in the private sector, many of whom will obviously work more for the defence than for the prosecution, should be seen to he well trained and that the standards of practice and science which they deploy should be as good as those in the agency and in the police laboratories.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, we make no final recommendation about whether it is right for the police to continue to fund the metropolitan laboratories and those in Scotland. On the face of it, as they are an arm of the police there is at least a possibility that they might be seen in some quarters as being the arm of the prosecution rather than the defence. The possibility that those laboratories might ultimately achieve agency status and independence from the police is one that I think we considered but upon which we made no formal recommendation, although we believe that it is an issue that the Home Office should certainly examine.

I do not wish to repeat the eloquent arguments so well presented by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, about the interface with the law and the statistical analysis of evidence. We all recognise that lawyers are very familiar in civil cases with the balance of probabilities and in criminal cases with the decision that a fact must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It therefore came as a surprise to some of us to learn that, despite the remarkable accuracy of DNA fingerprinting, this type of work and the results of such studies relating to identification of individuals had been challenged in certain court cases of late when it seemed to us, at least as scientists, that those facts were beyond all reasonable doubt on a purely statistical basis.

Many doctors appearing in court as expert witnesses have been compelled to learn legal concepts. Indeed, medical students are now required in their training to learn about the legal and ethical responsibilities of the medical profession. We were also greatly reassured to learn that forensic scientists all receive in-house training and some training in legal concepts in the course of their work. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said that some barristers and judges had demonstrated a quite remarkable ability to grasp difficult scientific and medical concepts. But we believe that there is evidence to suggest that some barristers have not, as yet, been able to acquire the scientific knowledge to enable them to deploy it appropriately and to analyse it in the presentation of the cases in which they are involved. It therefore becomes even more important that forensic scientists, all too often required to answer "yes" or "no" to a question in court which does not really lend itself to being answered by a direct positive or negative, should have the opportunity to make a closing statement in which they can at least amplify and expand upon the scientific evidence and concepts that they are trying to put across.

I cannot say how much I agree with the proposals that have been made about having pre-trial conferences, especially if there is a dispute about the forensic evidence, where the scientists on both sides can meet with counsel and perhaps at times even in front of a judge in an attempt to achieve a resolution of scientific evidence before the case ever comes to court. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, we also feel that there is a great need for research funds to be set aside and to have something like the small grants scheme for research in forensic science comparable to that, for example, in the Department of Health with its small grants for research which can be applied for in open competition.

The idea of having an institute in a university which would be research based but which might also provide independent arbitrators where there is a dispute on forensic issues is one which greatly appeals to us. Many years ago when I worked in Newcastle, I recall being invited by the National Coal Board (as it then was) and by the National Union of Mineworkers to make a report on a case where civil damages were being claimed because of alleged neurological damage caused by injury. I was asked to give a report which would be binding on both parties. I believe that there is a case for that kind of pre-trial study to be used more often.

Having read the report and having heard the speeches made today, I believe that your Lordships will agree that Her Majesty's Government and the public can be reassured that, while in every service and in every city errors will always be inevitable, the quality of British forensic science now stands high both nationally and in international terms and that the major miscarriages of justice that occurred in the past are very unlikely to be repeated.

Our view is that no radical revision in the service is needed. But we have certainly recommended some fine tuning and made a number of proposals for change which are relatively modest, certainly inexpensive, but nevertheless important and significant. I trust that they will commend themselves to Her Majesty's Government.

4.37 p.m.

Lord Knights

My Lords, as the first speaker in the debate who is not a member of the sub-committee which produced the report that we are discussing, perhaps I should begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for providing the House with the opportunity to consider a topic which is particularly important at present. I congratulate him and his colleagues on producing such a challenging and informative report.

By way of introduction, I point out, first, that my comments relate mainly to the arrangements in England and Wales as my knowledge of Scotland and Northern Ireland is rather sparse. Secondly, bearing in mind the review of the police service now being conducted within the Home Office, it is perhaps interesting to note that the forensic science service which is at the heart of the debate came out of a review of policing in England and Wales which took place some 60 years ago. It took the form of a departmental committee and sat for just over five years. When one considers that its task was confined to inquiring solely into the organisation and procedure of the police for the purpose of detection of crime, perhaps one could be forgiven for thinking that it must have been somewhat more comprehensive than the current one.

Be that as it may, building on action which had already been taken by the Home Office as a result of an earlier inquiry, the 1930s committee recommended the establishment of a number of laboratories set up on a regional basis, each serving a group of police forces, of which at that time there were no fewer than 183. Many were far too small, of course, to sustain a laboratory of their own. The laboratories were to be run by the Home Office independently of the police but they were funded jointly by the Home Office and the relevant police authorities. At the same time they were to work in direct association with each force that they served. Their function was to apply science as an aid to the police in the investigation of crime generally. That applied quite as much to day-to-day offences such as house breaking, burglary and theft as to murders, robbery and sexual offences. They helped the police to develop new lines of inquiry as a result of the examination of what were perhaps previously unrecognised clues and traces left at the scene of crime.

This formula was adopted by the Home Office and the staffs in the new laboratories became valued members of the police investigative teams. That relationship is clearly described in the comments of the Metropolitan Police at paragraph 4.18 of the Select Committee's report. Very little was said at that time, however, about forensic science evidence. In the absence of direct witnesses of an offence, prosecutions continued to be based very largely on confession evidence. Fundamentally that is still the organisation that we have today, save that the laboratories, the number of which in England and Wales has not changed, are larger and better equipped and are run as an executive agency within the Home Office rather than directly by the department. They are funded directly by the users as opposed to a per capita charge under the previous arrangement.

The potential demand for their services, however, is quite different. The 1930s committee considered that eventually the laboratories would be involved in the investigation of up to 4 per cent. of all reported crime, giving an anticipated case load at that time of 10,000 or so per annum. By 1991, however, the annual crime figure had risen from 266,265 offences to 5,276,000 offences, giving a case load for the laboratories of 211,048 per annum if the committee's predictions had proved accurate. In fact the case load in 1991 was 35,909, excluding 29,869 driving under the influence cases and 12,839 drugs cases which did not appear at all in the original calculations. This amounts to only 0.6 per cent. of all recorded crime. For example, of the 1,219,000 offences of burglary which were reported in 1991, all of which have a potential for scientific evidence, the laboratories assisted in only 4,700 cases.

More importantly, the increasing unwillingness of members of the public to present themselves as witnesses; the now often proven weakness of visual identification evidence and the growing suspicion of confession evidence have led to forensic science evidence becoming much more important. Should the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommend that all confession evidence should be corroborated, as is being suggested, forensic science evidence may well become even more important. Added to this, the laboratories now hold themselves out to do work equally for the defence as for the police and prosecution service. However, a recent Home Office research study produced for the Royal Commission seems to indicate that at least for the time being defence lawyers are likely to prefer the growing private market place.

Your Lordships may agree that all this indicates a large suppressed demand which the existing laboratories could not possibly meet. Paragraph 2.13 of the Select Committee's report graphically illustrates the selection which is already being made at the Metropolitan Police laboratory and earlier paragraphs discuss the delays which now occur on occasions in processing exhibits through the laboratory system. If this analysis is correct, it would seem to raise a number of questions. First, should additional laboratories be set up, or should the 42,708 drink and drug cases be hived-off elsewhere so leaving the laboratories to concentrate on their original task of dealing with crime?

Secondly, now that we have only 43 forces instead of 183—it is being suggested that that number might become still smaller—should some of the larger ones be allowed to emulate the Metropolitan Police which has its own laboratory? If not, how can the Home Secretary justify different arrangements for his force as opposed to the other 42?

Thirdly, in any case should it now be accepted that, should they wish to do so, individual forces might at least be allowed to undertake elimination work such as that described in paragraph 4.9(c) of the report? This again would reduce the work of the laboratories but would also save the high cost of transporting everything, sometimes quite fruitlessly and often over long distances, from the scene of the crime to the laboratory bench with the attendant problems of continuity and safeguarding from contamination. Such a step would also enable forces to have scientific advice available at local level as clearly laboratory staff are only able to visit the scenes of very serious crimes such as explosions and murders. One would never expect them to visit the scene of a house break-in. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the current Home Office review of forensic science—I understand that such a review is being conducted—is considering any of these points.

I appreciate that the implications of the points that I have made are considerable as they would affect funding. That is a matter of considerable difficulty and it has already been addressed by previous speakers. However, it seems that were we to increase funding for forensic science, at the present moment at any rate, other aspects of policing would have to be cut back. My points also have considerable implications for quality assurance. I would certainly support the committee's recommendations regarding laboratory accreditation and individual registration of all forensic scientists.

The matter of sampling was referred to by the committee at paragraph 3.32 of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, specifically drew attention to that matter in his speech today. Currently this is undertaken by force scenes of crime officers under the control of the chief constable. I see no logical alternative either now or in the future to that arrangement. Their training, however, is now comprehensive and is nationally organised. It can lead to a diploma in scientific support skills issued by Durham University. I believe that that diploma is more relevant to the scenes of crime officers than the NVQs which are thought to be more relevant to laboratory technicians. It should therefore not be difficult to monitor the skills, the equipment used and the activities of those who take samples at scenes of crime.

Clearly we shall hear much more about this topic in the months ahead. It is right that we should acknowledge the valuable contribution to the debate made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues. Whatever changes may be introduced however, I would hope that they would not make the work of the police and the prosecution services more difficult. It goes without saying, of course, that the acquittal of a guilty person is just as much a miscarriage of justice as the conviction of an innocent one.

4.49 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I join with all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I am sure with all Members of your Lordships' House, in expressing admiration and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues for the work they have done in producing this report. The noble Lord referred in his opening speech to the thorough review which had been undertaken and the pertinacity with which it had been undertaken. I echo those remarks. It must have been particularly difficult in view of the fact that there is no such thing as forensic science. There are a large number of different scientific or technical disciplines which are related to forensic matters, but they do not form a study which is called forensic science. There are forensic physicists, forensic chemists, forensic biologists, forensic photographers, forensic information technologists, and so on. There is no such thing as a forensic scientist. That must make a difference to the way in which we consider the views of the committee.

I agree with a large number of the conclusions and recommendations of the committee. However, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, refer to them as being largely modest and inexpensive. I hope that it is not the job of committees in your Lordships' House to confine themselves to modest and inexpensive recommendations.

I support the thrust of the committee's concern with training and registration and with quality assurance and standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, rightly said, it is not merely a question of training scientists in understanding the law. It is also a question of training lawyers in understanding science, because the disciplines are very different in outlook as well as in the content of the training which is undertaken.

In particular, I wish to express my support for the thrust of the committee's recommendation in favour of individual registration of those engaged in the forensic sciences—which is probably the simplest way to refer to the subject without over-simplification—in addition to the laboratory accreditation which is undertaken by NAMAS. However, accreditation should not be confined to the individuals who work in laboratories. It must apply to everybody who takes part in the whole process of forensic scientific activity from the time of the crime right up to the time of the verdict. Therefore, I suggest that it should include scene-of-the-crime officers in police forces as well as those employed by laboratories, whether public or private laboratories.

From the depths of his experience the noble Lord, Lord Knights, suggested that the diplomas which are awarded by the University of Durham on a national basis within the police force would be more appropriate than NVQs or SVQs for that purpose. I am not sure that I agree with him. I believe that NVQs and SVQs will prove more flexible and less restricted to laboratory activities than the noble Lord seemed to think. Nevertheless, the point is a valid one. Unless there is control right from the very beginning through to the very end registration will not be meaningful.

Registration will not mean examination in a particular scientific discipline. As has been made clear, the variety of scientific disciplines makes that impossible. Registration means a common adherence to codes of practice. That is certainly the case in my own business of market and survey research in which we come from all sorts of academic, scientific and non-scientific disciplines. What we have in common is adherence to a code of practice and codes of conduct which govern our activities. We can be expelled from our trade—I shall not dignify it by the name of profession—if we fail to adhere to those codes of practice. I hope that that is what is intended here.

I very much agree with the suggestion that there should be a ring-fenced capacity for research and development. When the bulk of activity in the forensic sciences is undertaken by either an executive agency which is paid for largely by the police forces or, as in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, by the police force directly, it is impossible for the forensic scientists to undertake the research and development activity unless they are specifically enjoined to do so or enjoined to contribute to such work being done in other places such as academic institutions.

I agree very strongly with the committee's recommendations aimed at reducing misunderstandings between forensic scientists and lawyers and the courts as a whole. I agree in particular with the suggestion that there should be greater use of pre-trial conferences and visual aids. For that to become effective, defence counsel would have to be appointed earlier than they are in many criminal cases. Recent research for the Royal Commission showed that 30 per cent. of defence counsel were appointed only the night before the trial took place. That raises the issue of the division within the legal profession between solicitors and barristers and the right of the Crown Prosecution Service and solicitors to plead in the Crown Courts. That is beyond the subject of the debate today but, clearly, unless that matter is also put right the possibility of pre-trial conferences is severely reduced.

Although it is not an explicit recommendation of the committee, I also believe that there should be some form of independent watch-dog, as was recommended by a number of witnesses to the committee, along the lines of the General Medical Council or the Police Complaints Authority, to take the most obvious and nearest examples.

Yet I have doubts about the report and it is only right that I should express them. I realise now that my doubts arise from the concordat which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, described as having been reached at an early stage in the committee's proceedings between the committee and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The noble Lord said that it had been agreed between the two that the Royal Commission would not venture into the laboratory and the committee would not venture into the court room. However, if we are concerned with the quality and effectiveness of forensic sciences as a whole we must surely be concerned not only with the quality of the work in the laboratories but also with the way in which that work is used. That is the area where the committee's report fails to meet the high standards which it set for itself and which it achieved in its consideration of laboratory quality.

If I did not do so at the beginning I should like to make it clear now that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the committee's conclusion that the problems which were identified in the 1970s with the quality of work in forensic science laboratories have largely been addressed both by management and by the individual forensic scientists concerned. I have no reason to doubt that the committee carried out a thorough investigation and felt justified in being satisfied with its conclusions.

When we turn to the use of forensic scientists we must be concerned not just with training but with the whole process from the time of the crime to the time of the verdict. We must be concerned with the relationship between forensic scientists and those who pay for their work. Again, I have no doubt whatsoever that the work of the forensic scientists is fully justified on a value-for-money basis. The report states that total expenditure on forensic science in this country is of the order of £42 million. I have seen in another report that the cost of a day in the Crown Court (and this figure must exclude lawyers) is £7,000. That means that if the forensic science services save only 5,000 Crown Court days per year they already pay for themselves. I am sure that they are saving a great deal more than that and are providing many more intangible benefits to the quality of justice in this country.

However, we must doubt whether the change to agency status, and to the charging system which has been implied by agency status, solves the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, made this clear when he emphasised the problem of suppressed demand for forensic science services. If we consider those services which are still provided on a per capita basis, such as the Metropolitan Police laboratory and the laboratories in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is severe under-provision of services. There are severe delays in the provision of forensic science evidence. Yet when we consider the forensic science service, the executive agency, it appears—I emphasise that word—that the problem has been overcome and that it is now able to provide a much more immediate service. That cannot be a reflection of reality. In truth that must mean that the charging system of the forensic science service is suppressing demand; and that it is doing so because police forces have to pay not only for each hour of a forensic scientist's time but also for each item submitted for examination.

We ought to reflect on that factor. A number of expert witnesses to the committee made this point clear. There must be the temptation to reduce the number of exhibits presented for scientific examination. If we accept that the essence of science is the possibility of the examination of alternative hypotheses—and I shall not get into Popperian qualifications on that—clearly the charging system of an executive agency damages the possibility of that examination being undertaken.

It must be the concordat which led to the curious restraints that the committee set on its work. It must be because of the concordat that the committee never refers to the fact that Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, produced in 1991 a report on science and the administration of justice. It must be that factor which led to the, to me, astounding fact that Justice did not give evidence to the committee. If it was asked, I cannot understand why it did not agree to do so; or, if it was not asked, why not. I should have thought that the eminent lawyers and others who took part in the Justice report would have had useful things to say.

I suppose that it is an accident of timing that the research study for the Home Office for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which is highly relevant to the work of the committee, was not produced in time to be reflected in the committee's considerations. However, if the House will permit me, I ought to read the most important paragraph from the Summary and Conclusions of that research study. It states: Forensic experts are in a subordinate or reactive position relative to the prosecution agencies who instruct them. Essentially, they are asked to conduct tests which will support or refute an investigative hypothesis. Scientists depend upon prosecution agencies to supply them with exhibits for analysis and information to guide their scientific investigations. In some cases the submission of items to the laboratory has been too selective, and recent changes in the arrangements for payment for forensic science services could induce greater selectivity. The danger is that forensic science evidence will reflect this selective approach to submission by the police, rather than giving a fair impression of the strength of the case against the defendant. Some FSS scientists attempt to mitigate these difficulties by attending scenes of crime and by requesting additional exhibits as they consider appropriate. But their customer/contractor relationship with the police limits their freedom to define the ambit of their investigations". That paragraph largely expresses the worries that I have. Whatever improvements there have been in the quality of work in forensic science laboratories, we have to consider the fundamental issue of the relationship between forensic scientists and their customers—the customer/contractor relationship. Severe problems may still remain in the use of science in our judicial system. It is welcome to know that laboratory standards have improved. However, the institutional framework in which those laboratory standards work has not been improved by agency status. It would have been enormously helpful if the committee had not felt it necessary to refrain from making recommendations on that point.

5.5 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the opportunity to debate his committee's report on forensic science. It is a specific subject with which not everyone inside your Lordships' House or outside it is familiar. However, the committee has turned the spotlight on to what one might call in broad terms this peculiar and important subject. Certainly the members of the committee, as they have shown today by their contributions, will now be very much more familiar with the subject than they were at the beginning of their researches.

The Government welcome the report. We are grateful to the committee for the thoroughness with which it has gone into the subject. I am sure that that is apparent to all those who have listened to today's debate. I thought that the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was a little hard. I do not see how the committee could have gone much further than it did since the Royal Commission is at present sitting. Of course it is always difficult to get the balance right. I believe that the committee did so.

The report is a valuable document in its own right, but it will be undoubtedly of great assistance to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice to which many of the recommendations are directed. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, referred to the fact that they had believed that the forensic science service was in a parlous state for a variety of historical reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to it as a cloud that was hanging over the forensic science service. I was glad that they did not find it to be the case when they began their investigations. At least whatever cloud did exist has now gone.

I was glad that my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said that she found that people with strength of character and determination were in charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, stated that she found a highly efficient service which applied rigorous standards of science. Those were generous comments. If I may say so, they accord with my own view.

The Government are delighted that the committee has highlighted the fact that the quality of forensic science is high and is rising, and has recognised that forensic science has a great deal to offer to the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has reinforced that view today. The Government were also pleased that the committee considered that forensic science is highly cost effective—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised that point too—and that it is crucial both to investigation and to the judicial process.

With all his experience as a distinguished member of the police service in former times, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, gave the figures relating to the small part of recorded crime which involves the use of the forensic science service. That factor is true, but the cases in which the forensic science service is involved tend to be the worst ones. It is also true to say that in earlier years many less serious cases were also dealt with by forensic laboratories which do not undertake such cases now.

On defence work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred, the cases for the defence which are done by the forensic science service increased by no less than 40 per cent. between the periods 1991–92 and 1992–93—which is a very considerable jump. The fact that three of the providers of forensic science—the forensic science service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Defence Research Agency—are already executive agencies has done much to improve the value for money which the services give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not agree; I think we have to accept that we disagree on the point. I believe that it has proved to be a very considerable step towards even greater value for money.

Those organisations have made great strides in endeavouring to provide a high quality of management. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, that high quality of management is extremely important, as is high quality of work. The committee's recommendations, particularly where they encourage accreditation and the development of national vocational qualifications, reinforce that view. The committee recommends that the use of the forensic science service should be allowed, and encouraged, to grow. I fully endorse that and I am sure that the forensic science service organisations are in a position to do so.

Of course, the police play an important role in all this—as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, will know only too well—especially when they have to decide whether or not to use forensic science in the processes of investigation. As the police become increasingly responsible for the management of their own budgets, they will have the proper freedom to make full use of forensic science where they deem it appropriate.

National vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications will play a large part in the setting of standards for forensic science evidence in court. That challenge will have to be met by any private sector organisation which wishes to achieve public recognition for the standards of its work.

Public sector organisations—and that includes the forensic science service—will have to respond to changes in demand; and forensic science will have to find its own level within the range of investigative processes which are now open to the police. The way in which forensic science is used in court, and the number of agencies which conduct work for the defence, is also of considerable importance.

I welcome the committee's comments on national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications, to which my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle referred. We shall draw them to the attention of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which will undoubtedly be interested in the committee's views.

I am grateful to the committee for recognising the particular career needs of women forensic scientists—a matter also referred to by my noble friend Lady Platt. I can assure your Lordships that forensic science organisations are aware of the importance of this. All laboratories operate equal opportunities policies, and flexible working arrangements cater for the different needs of different people.

The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, recognised that the emphasis on research and development is on the development of new techniques and advances in technology, and their application in the fields of forensic science. The Government are concerned, as is the committee, that research and development should continue to be a vital part of the life of forensic science. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was also concerned about that matter. And the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, reminded us that many innovations in forensic science research have been carried out within the United Kingdom—a fact which gives us cause for some pride.

But research must continue to meet operational needs and my fear would be that, if we set up a research centre of forensic science on the lines which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, suggests, it could lack the flavour and practical application which are so important and which are found only in operational laboratories—for example, in the research programmes at the forensic science service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, some of which research is done in conjunction with universities.

But I refer, also, to the many hours of bench research which is carried out by caseworkers. Research, which is conducted within a laboratory and by practical caseworkers, means that the specific and particular needs of forensic science can be fully addressed, at the same time incorporating the results of more fundamental and wider research which has been undertaken elsewhere. Perhaps one of the best examples is the development and application of that remarkable system to which various noble Lords have referred; namely, the DNA technique. The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, referred to it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I find it an astonishing technique. Not only does it help to provide very impressive and difficult-to-contradict evidence in an endeavour to convict the criminal. More importantly —a fact which is often omitted from consideration—it also helps to eliminate the innocent, and therefore avoids time being wasted on inquiries about subjects who are not guilty. Those techniques were pioneered by Professor Alec Jeffrys at the Lister Institute at the University of Leicester. But much of the subsequent development and application has been carried out by forensic science organisations, some of which have been in collaboration with universities and industry. The committee's recommendations on DNA evidence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred, will be specifically considered by the Royal Commission.

The Government continue to think that research is best led by operational forensic science organisations. The noble Lord's committee feels that the Home Office should fund that research centre to the tune of a modest £1 million—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred. I believe the noble Lord said that he thought that that was the recommendation which the Government might find most difficulty in agreeing with. I think that his interpretation is probably correct. The Government would normally expect applied research to be funded by those who benefit directly from it. I will, of course, nevertheless, draw that recommendation to the attention of my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who also has the happy role of Minister for Public Service and Science.

The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to competition in research. Several existing forensic organisations already carry out research. So competition is already there.

The committee also looked at laboratory accreditation, to which a number of noble Lords referred. It concluded that any forensic science laboratory which applies to the National Measurement Accreditation Service should be required to demonstrate a degree of control over the sampling process. We took that to mean, basically, the collection and the selection of potential items from the scenes of crime and from elsewhere.

We agree that that process is a vital part of forensic science procedures. Work has started in the North East involving police forces and the forensic science service looking at the best practice. That will also be a matter of concern to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and we shall certainly consider any views which the Royal Commission may reach.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was concerned that the registration of forensic scientists should be introduced and pre-registration work should be done by them—a point with which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, was also concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, considered it important in view of the likely increase in work in the private sector, and of the fact that much of that might be done for the defence. It was necessary, so the noble Lord felt, that their work and methods of investigation should be, and should be seen to be, of the high standards which obtained in the public service. I think that is right and I am sure that the Royal Commission will also be interested in the committee's recommendations in that respect; namely, that a system of individual registration of all forensic scientists should be established. That raises wider applications for the field of expert witnesses in general. We shall certainly consider the Royal Commission's views on that, together with the views of the committee in the context of any recommendations which the Royal Commission may make.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the training of lawyers in science. Forensic scientists in the forensic science service support the proposal to give lawyers some training in scientific matters. She was also concerned about visual aids in court. Forensic scientists would welcome the opportunity to use visual aids more in presenting their evidence.

As the Home Office Minister with responsibility for the police service, I was particularly pleased to read the committee's views on the forensic science service. I am also grateful to the committee for setting out the areas of concern for the future wellbeing of the forensic science service and the work which it does. I have touched on police budgets and research but I can give some additional assurances.

The safeguards on the continuity of evidence, which are required by the courts when samples are transferred from one laboratory to another for a different series of tests on the same subject matter, are, in fact, already in place. But I can assure your Lordships that these safeguards will be drawn to the attention of the forensic science service advisory board.

The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to pre-trial reviews. The forensic scientists support the pre-trial discussions of scientific evidence. That is being considered by the Royal Commission.

The noble Lord, Lord Knights, was concerned about the Home Office review of forensic science. That review will be fairly wide-ranging and will look at the organisational issues surrounding the provision of forensic science. The future position of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory will also be considered.

We are also drawing a number of other conclusions to the attention of those who are directly involved, including the committee's recommendation that the extension of scientific activities by the police themselves should be closely monitored.

Many recommendations of the committee fall within the area of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, and they will be for that body to consider. The committee's views on matters such as whether the forensic science laboratories should be linked with police forces, on various aspects of evidence and on the procedures which are used in criminal courts, are all matters to which doubtless the Royal Commission will wish to address itself.

I congratulate the committee, under what I can only describe as the perspicacious leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, not only on producing a report which will assist the Government but on producing one which will help the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice when it comes to consider the future of forensic science. The report is an important and valuable document.

If I may say so, I liked the committee's frankness in stating at the beginning of its report—words repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his opening speech —that it had instituted this inquiry because of concerns that high quality had not always been achieved in the past but that it had found that action was already in hand to address those misgivings.

The report also went on to say in Chapter 2 that: It is our opinion, based on our meetings and visits, that the quality of scientific casework done in the public forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom is very high". If I may say so, that is a generous and, I think, justified comment of the committee.

It also equates, as I explained earlier, with my own modest experience. When I first came to the Home Office some five years ago the forensic science service for a whole variety of reasons was in a trough of low morale. That has all altered. The service went through a considerable upheaval in moving to agency status—which is foreign territory for most civil servants, let alone applied scientists. But that was done. It altered direction. It has beaten its targets, both financial and work targets. Morale is up. It has good and strong leadership. I find that impressive. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his committee also came to the same conclusion—one to which I fancy that they did not expect to come when they first started on their journey.

I congratulate the committee on producing a valuable report and on generating a most interesting debate.

5.24 p.m.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, before I turn to the Minister's comments, perhaps I may deal with some points raised by other speakers. First, it is a great pleasure to see in the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He was chief constable of the city in which I was born and bred. I can, however, assure the House that this is my first meeting with him. I did not meet him in his official capacity. I do not believe that he had cause to meet me then. It would have been very useful if the committee had known of his interest. He put many matters into an historical perspective which, as members of the committee, we lacked. We were very aware of his concern that if forensic science is to grow, other police activities might have to be cut back. I believe that those were the words he used. It was a point to which the committee drew particular attention and the reason for our concern. We had the advantage of meeting those who ran the Harpurley Hall activity and we knew about the Durham diploma, which truly has its place in the scheme of things in forensic science. The noble Lord will, I hope, forgive me if I do not go into the many suggestions that he made.

I turn briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thank him very much for his support on registration and on the code of practice. We are concerned about individual responsibility and performance, the code of practice, registration and re-registration. We do not consider that it is registration for life at the beginning. As I said in my report, we all—even I—have our sell-by dates. We need to be re-tested from time to time and shown to be competent. Perhaps it was the lack of that in the past which led to some of the unfortunate incidents to which I referred.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the so-called concordat with the Royal College of Criminal Justice was one-sided. The Royal College of Criminal Justice did not undertake not to look into the laboratory. Indeed, as one of its members, it has a distinguished chemist named Sir John Cadogan. I know that he is there for his particular interest in these affairs.

I should reveal that we have met the chairman and secretary of the Royal Commission. We felt that it was desirable to inform them early on of our concerns about the court procedures. We did not feel in any sense inhibited about making suggestions to the commission as the proper body to consider them. We were not inhibited from making any suggestions that we thought right. Those suggestions are there for what they are worth. I hope that they will come before this House when the Royal Commission's report is debated.

We share many of the reservations and concerns about agency status expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In fact, we listed the effects of direct charging as we saw them. We discussed the matter at great length but not one member felt that there was much mileage in suggesting to the Government that, having had a Next Steps agency step forward, the service should now be invited to go backward into the totally different system from which it had moved. There seemed to be no profit in that for us.

The committee considered carefully whether there would be disadvantages in the system which had been introduced. Many of the committee's recommendations were specifically directed towards avoiding what were foreseen as possibly considerable difficulties. I hope that the House will feel that the committee went a very long way—at any rate as far as it could see —towards mitigating any adverse effects, which were detailed in the report itself.

I must thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks about the work of the committee. The members of the committee who heard his responses as he took the House seriatim through the committee's conclusions will have felt, as I did, that there was a reasonably high degree of agreement by the Government with most of the conclusions. That is rather encouraging. It leads us all to hope that when the official government response is put before the House it will be similar in character but will carry with it more details as to implementation.

Having said that, I should like to take up a few points arising from the Minister's statement. He said that the police will become more responsible for their budgets and that that will enable them to make full use of forensic science. That brings us back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Knights. I should like to know more about the size of those budgets. If the level of funding rises at its present annual rate and, as seems likely, the demand for, and therefore the amount of and the costs of forensic science increase faster, then the proper freedom of the police authorities to use their funds for forensic science will undeniably and inevitably be restricted. That still gives me a great deal of concern.

Similarly, the Minister was lukewarm to our proposal to stimulate strategic research. We did not say that all the research in forensic science was of the applied near-market kind, nor should it be. We said that it was necessary to stimulate strategic research by instituting a small fund from which grants could be made and a research institute or centre set up. That was elaborated on by my noble friend Lord Flowers.

I should perhaps reveal to the House that in the brief space of time since the publication of the report at the beginning of March, I have received a large number of communications which indicate a contrary view to that expressed by the Minister. The head of a large forensic science laboratory run by the police wrote to say that he welcomed the recommendations. Indeed, he went further and called for the Science and Engineering Research Council to make special provision for supporting forensic science research. That comes from the second largest laboratory in the country. I hope that the idea will appeal to Mr. Waldegrave. I believe the Minister said that he would draw Mr. Waldegrave's attention to our report and to that specific aspect of it.

Furthermore, I received a communication from the Chief Constable of Durham, Mr. Taylor, who was a witness on behalf of the forensic science user groups. In his letter he said that there was merit in both the proposals that will partially fill the vacuum that has been created. If the police realise that there is a vacuum, how can the committee deny that it exists, particularly when that coincides with its conclusions? I hope therefore that the Government will think again and, in referring the recommendation to Mr. Waldegrave, the Minister will indicate that there is a real gap which must be filled.

Perhaps I can emphasise again the importance of individual registration. I mentioned it earlier but it is an important part of our recommendations. It is fundamental to the maintenance of quality. As the episodes in the 1970s show, lack of quality is a denial of justice in this field. As my noble friend Lord Walton emphasised, registration works extraordinarily well and has done so for many years in the field of forensic pathology. The two fields are not dissimilar. Indeed, forensic pathology is in a sense part of forensic science: it happens to have been classified separately simply because that is the way it grew up.

I can see that it is a matter which concerns the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and also, I should imagine, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who will have views on the question. Does it not concern also the Home Office? In the last analysis it is the lead department for the forensic science service and it is its members of staff whom we are anxious to see registered as well as those outside the professional staff—those who are in the market place—before they can give evidence in court or be accepted unless the court decides that someone without registration is a fit person to be an expert witness.

The Minister says that some of our anxieties—for instance, that rising charges may lead to disadvantages, which we call fragmentation, or confusion when several different forensic science units are involved in the same case—are misplaced because that circumstance would be unusual. But as science progresses, the number of exhibits per case is bound to rise. That is a danger we would do well to watch for in advance. I hope that the Home Office will give the matter some real consideration.

Finally, I thank the Minister for promising to keep under review the possible difficulties of legal aid cases to which he referred. Perhaps he will also keep a close eye on the delays in payment of that legal aid, which many witnesses testify is a severe problem borne particularly badly by those people of limited means.

There are many other points on which I should like to have commented. I thank my fellow committee members who have spoken today and who have illuminated all those areas which, because of lack of time, I have had to leave dark. I am immensely grateful to them. I believe most of the points have been covered in this interesting debate. I thank your Lordships for the consideration you have given to the report.

On Question, Motion agreed to.