§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the status of the person who authorised his Department's press release of 14 September 1977 which announced Dr. Clift's suspension; and if Dr. Clift was given prior notice of the press release.
§ Mr. BrittanThe press release was issued following consultations with the then Home Secretary. It does not appear that Dr. Clift was given prior notice of it.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available to an independent arbitrator acceptable to Dr. Clift's solicitor the complete report of the police investigation into Dr. Clift's work, the statements by his Department's staff in the trial of Messrs. Morgan, Brown and Cowley, and the annual staff reports on Dr. Clift for the period 1972 to 1974 so that an independent arbitrator can judge whether or not they are relevant to the issues which were being considered by the departmental retirement board.
§ Mr. BrittanNo. I am satisfied that Dr. Clift's position was fully and properly considered by the departmental retirement board and the Civil Service Appeal Board.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it took for it to become clear that Dr. Clift's work did not reach an acceptable standard of professional competence; by what process it was made clear; whose view it was that it had become clear; and how much certainty was attached to the view that professional incompetence had become clear.
§ Mr. BrittanI would refer the right hon. Member to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in reply to the Adjournment debate on 15 November, at columns 889–94.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were handled by Dr. Clift during his 24 years as a Home Office forensic scientist; if he will give the total number of cases in which he was involved when a conviction was quashed; in how many and which of the cases where a conviction was quashed Dr. Clift's evidence was found unreliable because (a) of his discrediting and (b) it was challenged by other forensic experts who re-examined or re-evaluated the original forensic evidence; and in how many of these cases re-examination of the original material took place.
419W
§ Mr. BrittanIt has not proved possible to ascertain the total number of cases handled by Dr. Clift. As I have previously told the right hon. Member, a scrutiny of the records then available had yielded a total of approximately 1,500 instances in which Dr. Clift had examined material. More recently, further laboratory records have been located as a result of which an additional 80 or so instances, which we are examining, have come to light.
We do not have comprehensive information about the number of cases in which Dr. Clift was involved where the conviction was quashed on appeal, though we know of five where the conviction was quashed following a reference to the Court of Appeal or, in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary, and one case where the conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal following an appeal by the person convicted. On three cases recently heard by the Court of Appeal, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a question from him on 15 November, at column 303. In another referred case, heard by the court in 1978, a forensic expert who re-examined some original material gave evidence which was in variance to that of Dr. Clift. On the one Scottish case, I would refer the right hon. Member to what was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in and Adjournment debate on 15 November, at columns 890–91; Dr. Clift's contribution was assessed by other forensic scientists; no original samples were re-examined. In the other case, in which leave to appeal was given by the Court of Appeal in 1981, the court quashed the conviction, which was regarded as resting solely on scientific evidence, having regard to the serious criticisms advanced about Dr. Clift's evidence in the Scottish case. Dr. Clift's contribution was assessed by another forensic scientist, but I understand that no evidence was given. No original samples were re-examined.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name his Department's officials who took part in the discussions between 5 and 8 September 1977 which culminated in the decision taken on 8 September to suspend Dr. Clift; and say whether at this stage or on 9 September when Dr. Clift was informed of his suspension he was invited to have representation of any kind.
§ Mr. BrittanThe officials were the then principal establishment officer, under secretary in charge of personnel management in the establishment department, under secretary in charge of the Police technical services department, controller of the Forensic Science Service, head of establishment division 5, and director and assistant director of the Birmingham forensic science laboratory. In accordance with normal practice Dr. Clift was not invited to have representation at that stage.