Communicating Climate Science

Debate between Andrew Miller and Graham Stringer

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, on his final point. It is important to separate scientific fact, evidence and theory from policy making. When policy making and science collide, there are often the most horrific difficulties, as people who want to change the policy try to change the scientific facts. We have seen that with stem cell research and we are seeing it at the moment on mitochondrial replacement therapy. People with quite genuine and reasonable ethical objections try to distort the science to get the policy they want.

There are particular difficulties around climate science, both in this country and internationally. Professor Trewavas, a fellow of the Royal Society, pointed out in his evidence to the Committee the fundamental difficulty of climate science, which is that there is not a single scientist on the planet who can distinguish between natural variation in climate and those changes in the climate system that are caused by anthropogenic interference. Nobody can do that, which is why climate models are so important in the debate on climate science.

The difficulty is that models do not conform easily to normal scientific method and analysis. The basis of science and the scientific method—Karl Popper laid down probably the clearest basis for it—is that hypotheses can be tested and things can be disproved. That is extraordinarily difficult with models. We must realise that a lot of climate science is based on models, not on the normal scientific method under which we can disprove and falsify hypotheses. That is a difficulty.

[Andrew Miller]

Just for clarity, when my hon. Friend had a proper job, a long time ago, he was a chemist. Will he confirm that his argument applies to any science in which we cannot see and touch the evidence? For example, some aspects of astronomy and palaeontology would fit in that category.

[Graham Stringer]

When we cannot repeat experiments, as we cannot with astronomy, we get into a difficult but different area. There is a difference between climate science and astronomy and cosmology, because of the ability to make and test direct observations in a way that is particularly difficult when we are relying on computer models. My hon. Friend makes an intelligent and sensible point, but cosmology and astronomy are not quite the same as climate science.

My point is that it is not just non-scientists who have become enthusiasts for policy, but scientists as well. Many of my views on climate science were formed during the investigation that the previous Science and Technology Committee and this one carried out into the “Climategate” e-mails from the university of East Anglia. I am not going to go down the path of analysing that case—although we have a lot of time, so I suppose one could—but from reading those e-mails and talking to the people involved, I came to the firm conclusion that, at best, those scientists were guilty of noble cause corruption. They believed so fundamentally in what they were doing and the policies that they wanted that some of their scientific work was below the standards one normally expects. Professor Kelly of the university of Cambridge, who was part of the panel that looked at the work of those scientists, said that their methodology had turned 300 years of the scientific method on its head. It was also clear that they were not using the latest and best statistical methods, and they could not even reproduce their own work because they had lost the papers. That is not science but narrative. That case informs a lot of the discussion about climate science.

When looking to communicate something, we need to know what we are talking about. The first lesson in debate and discussion for undergraduates is to define the terms, so that they know what they are talking about. Many discussions, both political and undergraduate, could be saved if people made it clear at the start what they were talking about.

Every witness was asked for their definition of climate change and the answers were interesting. The Committee concluded that the best definitions of climate change were given by Professor Slingo of Reading university and the Met Office and Professor Rapley. Basically, they talked about the energy imbalance in the earth and the disruption to the climate. We thought they gave good definitions.

We would have expected the Department to have a definition that the Minister understood, or at least had one at its finger tips. I am pleased to see the new Minister in her place, but I have to say that one of the crassest statements I have ever heard from a Minister at a Select Committee—I have served on many Select Committees over the past 17 years—was when the previous Minister of State was asked for his definition of climate change. He said:

“Climate change is climate change.”

That was less than useful. When I asked him to be a bit more helpful, he said,

“Climate change is a change in climate.”

That was not much more use. He then said that he did not think it was a technical term.

It was bad enough that the then Minister was not in agreement with senior scientists or even with the Government’s scientific adviser, who gave us a perfectly sensible definition, with a slightly different emphasis. I was surprised that the Government said in response to the Committee’s report, in which we said which two definitions we preferred, that they did not agree with the scientific adviser and were not sure what definition they were using. They said:

“However, we also note that the term ‘climate change’ does not apply just to the physical manifestation of a changing climate, but also actions to address human influence on the climate.”

That rather extends the definition. They continued:

“For example, the scientific definition of ‘climate change’ based on Professors Slingo’s and Rapley’s definition does not explain the use of ‘climate change’ in the acronym ‘DECC’. In this case ‘climate change’ means not just the physical manifestation but also steps taken in the UK and internationally to reduce”

greenhouse gas emissions

“and other human impact of the climate.”

There is a Humpty Dumpty element in that—words will mean whatever we choose them to mean. That is not helpful.

The first thing the Government should do if they want to communicate effectively on what climate change is and what they mean by it is to agree on a definition and what action is required. The Government do not agree and give the definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but they want to extend that as well. That is an unsatisfactory position for any Government and it is not surprising that climate science and climate change is not communicated effectively if Ministers, scientific advisers and the Department do not agree on the same words.

One statement is that there is consensus on climate science and climate change. That is sometimes used to close down debate. The Science Media Centre said:

“Climate change is real and man made.”

We heard that in a number of forms throughout the Committee’s hearings. A previous Minister said that the consensus is now beyond debate and that the BBC should not be interviewing people who do not accept it. It is worth looking at the consensus and at what it means. I will quote evidence that was given not to our Committee, but to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

Robin Guenier who, as far as I am aware, has done the only academic research into what is meant by the consensus, references Doran and points out that his results in the scientific literature and the 97% claim is based on consideration of only 79 of 10,257 earth scientists who were surveyed. He then referred to a study by Anderegg, who found that the 97% claim was based on a very limited sample of researchers whose opinion was asked for. He discounted 472 of respondents. Similarly, Cook concluded that there was overwhelming consensus, but that was from a survey of about 12,000 scientific papers, so he was looking at secondary sources.

Basically, Guenier’s view was that anyone who believes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has some influence is part of that consensus. That is not really where the argument is. He then moves on to two other studies, discounting the statistic of 97% and looking at a survey by the American Meteorological Society. It is worth quoting from that because, again, the previous Minister did not like it. It states:

“Only 52% of respondents thought global warming was happening and was mostly anthropogenic; moreover, at most 34% (and probably less) believed warming was happening, was mostly anthropogenic and would be ‘very harmful’”.

Therefore, the debate on this issue relies on a belief that 97% of scientists believe there will be some climate catastrophe because of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The evidence from scientific literature does not support that 97%.

Finally from that submission, I want to quote Xie Zhenhua, who led China’s delegation to the recent UN planet science conference in Warsaw. He stated:

“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude.”

He is not an obscure scientist. When people say there is consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has an impact on the climate, the evidence does not extend to the belief that carbon dioxide will do major damage to the planet.

Last week, Steven E. Koonin—again, he is not an obscure scientist, but was the Under Secretary of Energy for Science, in the United States Department of Energy, and one of Obama’s senior scientific advisers—made a statement. By profession, he is a computational physicist. He clearly makes the point that there is consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the real question he believes should be answered is:

“How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influence?”

He says that the answer is extremely difficult to determine. He believes that the carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere at the moment is responsible for only about 1% of the changes taking place. More interestingly, he points out that we do not know very much about the ocean and how it interacts with the rest of the system. We certainly do not understand probably the most critical part of the computer models, which is the feedback mechanism. It is not even clear whether feedback, when things warm up, will be positive or negative: whether feedback will intensify the increase in temperature or whether—because, at its simplest, there is less cloud cover—it will reduce the effects. Nobody knows that.

Mr Koonin talks in detail, because it is his specialism, about the computer models. He points out that the grids used within the computer models have a 60-mile resolution. That is a very big grid to have on the earth. Within those boxes, someone then has to change the average temperature and humidity, and work out how the carbon dioxide and the heat it traps affects the temperature and the humidity. He points out that dozens and dozens of assumptions are put into those boxes, because the resolution is so big, so they are adjusted. Adjustments and assumptions are effectively the same word—one could also use the word “fiddle”, because if someone is changing things that they do not know, they can change them to get the results that they wish.

The models cannot, by and large, reproduce the current situation and they imperfectly represent the past. There are huge, detailed differences between the 55 models that the IPCC uses. Rather than looking across the piece and seeing whether there is a consensus among scientists on the big issue—which there is not—if we look in detail at the modellers who are at the core of the climate change debate, we find that because they make different adjustments in their models, there is no consensus there either, and there are often huge differences in their predictions.

Many hon. Members in previous debates have pointed out that all but about 3% of the models that are used are running hot—in other words, they are over-predicting the temperatures that the earth is experiencing. It is not clear from the models why, when there has been a 25% increase in carbon dioxide, there has been effectively no rise in temperature. There is no clear explanation, and that is not covered by the models. The other basic theory with the models, which is well known by people who look at these things, is that the models predict that there will be increased warming in the atmosphere near to the earth’s surface in the tropics. Those hotspots have not been observed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

I think my hon. Friend answered his own question when he said earlier that we simply do not understand feedback mechanisms as well as we would like to, particularly in respect of the impact of the oceans on both absorbing CO₂ and the massive variations in temperatures. They are so poorly understood that that ought to be a call for a massive scientific study on our deep oceans.

[Graham Stringer]

I essentially agree with that, but there are two other points to mention. First, the stats on the temperature in the ocean, as well as other ocean statistics, such as salinity, are very recent. We know very little about what has been happening in the oceans over the last 30 or 40 years. Records go back between eight and 20 years. Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows, we as a Committee supported the Met Office’s bid for a supercomputer, which will certainly improve weather forecasting and bring the resolution of forecasting down. It may also help the Met Office with getting its models right. I am always in favour of increasing knowledge and improving understanding, but the real point I was making—by going through those different papers and what Obama’s scientific adviser was saying—is that much of the Government’s policy is based on the belief that climate science at present is settled, and it is not, because nobody knows the answers to those questions.

Having shown that, I want to pick up two or three other points. We had some interesting sessions with the BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4 and different experts on the media. Clearly, they are slightly wary of this subject, because passions run so high. It is fair to say, if we look at the BBC first, that it does not have as much expertise in science as one would wish it did. Most of the journalists are Oxbridge educated on the arts side, not on the science side. The BBC agreed to try to increase its journalists’ knowledge of science, but when we asked the representative from BBC which scientists it would get to do that, I was disappointed that the answer was none—that is, they are going to have their knowledge improved by other journalists, not by scientists.

Because the BBC is criticised from both sides, it has made real efforts to improve its coverage of climate science and climate change, but I am not convinced that it has got it right. It asked for a report from Professor Steve Jones, who is a well respected professor of genetics—I am slightly in awe of Professor Jones when it comes to genetics; I have read his books, and he is a brilliant man and a good communicator.

However, to go back to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was having about whether climate scientists should be the people to talk about climate science on the BBC, Professor Jones was an odd person to choose to advise the BBC on climate science. We had a private meeting with him—which was interesting, because I was a bit star-struck on meeting him—and I did not think his answers were really adequate, because he was looking at secondary and tertiary phenomena. He seemed to think the fact that the Thames gate had been raised more times than was predicted was in some way evidence that global warming and climate change was happening, and I do not think it is. Rather, it is evidence that the gate has had to be raised a number of times. One of the interesting facts about climate change is that, with all the extra carbon dioxide that has been put into the atmosphere, the rise in sea level, which is about a foot a century, has continued at almost exactly the same rate.

The BBC, fortunately, did not accept Professor Jones’s recommendation that climate science was settled. It says its remit is to give everybody a say and to give the opportunity for different views in British society to be explained to the rest of our country. The difficulty with that—this comes back to the Lord Lawson debate that goes on—is whether non-scientists should be able to talk about scientific issues. Should someone only be a climate scientist to talk about climate science?

I was a scientist some time ago. I have read some of the papers. Can I therefore debate and discuss climate science? I think I can. I would not pretend to be an expert in climate science, but I am scientifically trained enough to be able to understand those papers. When it comes to policy, because a lot of the argument about the science is settled, the aim is to stop not just the debate about the science, but the debate about the policy impact. People have to be careful that by trying to restrict debate in that way, they do not stop the production of better policy.

It is true that the media, as I said at the beginning, tend to be ignorant of science, and I cannot leave this subject without giving two examples. One is slightly old. “The World This Weekend”, a few years ago, put the tsunami in Thailand down to climate change, which would be a surprise to most scientists and geologists. A few weeks ago, The Times, in one of its editorials, declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we would all be dead. Plants need carbon dioxide; we need plants—end of story. It is not a pollutant. The amount in the atmosphere goes up and down. That just indicates how bereft of scientific training many journalists are.

It was quite an achievement to reach a consensus, whereby we all voted for the same report in the Committee, because clearly we place different emphases on matters, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about the IPCC as a resource for knowledge in this area and was saying that it should be respected. I do not agree. I think the IPCC should be disbanded, for a number of reasons. It is a political process. It claims to be a scientific body, but it is not. It holds its discussion on how the IPCC report is produced in private. When I say “in private”, a number of lobbying groups—green groups—go along. It comes to its conclusions based on compromise between those groups.

At the last meeting, the IPCC increased the size of the report by five pages and took out 700 words. Then it decided, having changed the summary, that it would change the basic documents underlying it to be consistent with the summary, which I think is a perverse process. The IPCC should be much more transparent or should be changed, not least because we need reports more often than every seven years on this issue as science improves.

The surprising thing about the IPCC is that as temperatures have flattened out over the last 16 or 17 years, and as its models have failed to predict that, it now has greater confidence in its results. I find that a strange conclusion—when people predict something incorrectly, they then say they have more confidence in the results.

I want to finish with two points. This is a serious debate. It is disappointing that so few hon. Members are present. A great deal of Government expenditure is based on a belief that there will be catastrophic climate change. The evidence for that is very limited. All energy policies should include the following. Security of energy supply, so that the lights do not go out, is the top priority. Cost to the consumer, both industry and the individual, is the second priority; and the third priority is how much carbon dioxide and pollutants are being put into the atmosphere.

At the moment, it is an act of genius by Government—this is not a party political issue, because the previous Government followed very similar points—to be responsible for putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise have been the case, because our carbon footprint is increasing at present; for them to have prices higher than they otherwise would be for some of the poorest people in the country and to be de-industrialising parts of the country; and for them to manage that when there is a greater probability and risk that the lights will go out. That is an energy policy based on a misunderstanding of the science, which could be disastrous for individuals.

This is a highly fraught area. I was appalled when I listened to “The Life Scientific” a few months ago, when Professor Julia Slingo was on, to realise that she had been vilified and been the centre of a campaign of abuse by people who think that she has got the science wrong. That is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of scientists involved in this area are honest, diligent researchers coming up with decent scientific papers. Some of their work is misrepresented. I think that a small number of scientists at the university of East Anglia have fallen below the standard I would expect for scientists.

There is that kind of vilification on one side and there is the vilification of Lord Lawson, who is not of my political party. He has tried to enhance the debate, particularly on the policy side. He has said—I would not go quite this far with him—“Accept that climate change is happening as people say. What is the right policy response?” I think he has enhanced that debate, but, again, he comes in for a great deal of vilification from the other side. If we are to understand the science better and to get better policies than we have at the moment, that nastiness, which should not be part of any political discussion and certainly any scientific discussion, should cease.

Forensic Science Service

Debate between Andrew Miller and Graham Stringer

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

I will go through the Committee’s case—hopefully reasonably forensically—but one of the concerns we express is our worry that this could lead, in the worst cases, to miscarriages of justice. At the time the Government made their announcement, the FSS’s operating losses were claimed to be about £2 million a month and the projected shrinking of forensic markets was cited as the reason for the decision.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that one of the appalling things about the Government’s decision was that there was no consultation? There were discussions afterwards about how to wind down the FSS, but no consultation either to look at the finances or, in particular, to determine what impact that would have on the science base.

[Andrew Miller]

I not only agree with my hon. Friend, who plays a sterling role in the Committee, but think that the Government, had they undertaken the kind of consultation he envisages, would have made savings by approaching the problem in a different way. There was undoubtedly a problem, because the GovCo would technically have been trading illegally if it had carried on trading at a loss, but for reasons I will set out there were solutions to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

I agree. The important point is to get things right, and I hope to demonstrate that that is what the Committee achieved in its recommendations. Indeed, the Government seem to have acted on one of the substantial recommendations, and we welcome that.

Police internal spend on forensics generally increased between 2005 and 2011, but although we have had explanations, such as increased efficiencies, reduced demand, competition and driving down prices, for the decrease in external spend, we have not been able to obtain from the Government a satisfactory explanation either for the increase in internal spend or of how the money was spent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) had a very unsatisfactory response to a series of freedom of information requests, and I raised that with the Minister on 19 December 2011. In answer to my question about whether it would be reasonable to add together revenue and capital to make sense of the figures that the police forces gave us, he rightly said that that would be mixing apples with pears—but that is exactly what the Metropolitan police did in response to my hon. Friend’s inquiry.

Let me put on the record what the Scrutiny Unit had to say about the period covered by the FOI requests. During that period only £10.6 million in total was classified as capital, and that was only by fewer than half the police authorities that provided data. That accounts for less than 2% of total expenditure, but the low level of expenditure might be down partly to how capital expenditure is recorded. The Scrutiny Unit notes, for example, that the Met police stated:

“The budgets for forensic science are revenue budgets and any expenditure incurred would have been through these revenue budgets. This includes any equipment purchases or building works.”

That is not in line with normal accounting practice, whereby expenditure over a pre-determined level on items with a lifespan of more than one year is classified as capital expenditure. That normally covers items such as building works and expensive laboratory equipment, so we agree with the Minister about not mixing apples with pears.

It remains the case, however, that there is no overall control of forensic budgets, and I think the Committee proves beyond doubt that the Government’s case remains seriously damaged. This situation also demonstrates the cavalier attitude of police authorities to a reasonable request from an hon. Member making an FOI inquiry.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is laying out the ambiguities in the finances, but on the two deep issues as the police changed from an FSS customer to a competitor: first, some bodies are not accredited to the right level in forensic science; secondly, the experience from the United States of America is that when the police do their own forensic work they end up with a conflict of interest.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend’s first observation takes us right back to the first intervention that I took, on the risk of miscarriages of justice. His second point is interesting. Some laboratories that are currently up and running do not meet the standards that the regulator wants, and police authorities that have thought about that have started to bring some of the resources together in house. If we are not careful we will reinvent the FSS, and find that we have wasted a huge amount of money in the meantime.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that every senior official of the Home Office is required to read that New Scientist article, because, first, it would do them good to read some science, and secondly, it underlines an important point about the quest for justice that this should be all about.

Looking forward, one of our key recommendations was that the forensics market must be stabilised. Police in-sourcing must be regulated to ensure that there is a competitive market for remaining providers; otherwise, the UK’s forensic science capabilities could be further damaged.

We also considered the implications of closing the FSS in terms of the risks to the skills base available to the criminal justice system. Our primary concern was whether forensic analysis would be taking place in unaccredited laboratories. Forensic services provided to police forces by the FSS and private companies had to be accredited to the standard of ISO 17025, but police laboratories do not have to be so accredited, and that seems to be an anomaly. That standard assesses the competence of an individual scientist and the organisation in which he or she works, as well as the validity of methods used and impartiality. Adherence to the standard is therefore crucial in maintaining the confidence of the courts and the public in the scientific evidence used in criminal cases.

We concluded that transferring work from the FSS to an unaccredited laboratory would pose significant and unacceptable risks to the operation of criminal justice. We specifically recommended that the forensic science regulator should be given statutory powers to enforce compliance with quality standards, and we remain disappointed that the Home Office has not committed to that. To the regulator’s credit, however, since our report was published we have not heard of any work being transferred to unaccredited environments.

The FSS has maintained an archive of materials, case files and notes—a rich resource that has proved valuable in cold case reviews and investigations of miscarriages of justice. To give a flavour of the scale, the FSS estimated that in May 2011 its archive held 1.78 million case files. We were deeply concerned about the uncertain future of the FSS’s archive, and strongly considered that it should not be fragmented, whatever the future of the organisation. I am pleased to say that the Government agreed with that recommendation. This underlines the fact that both Governments should have dealt with the GovCo’s accounts in a different way. About 21 staff will maintain the archive, and the Government’s estimated running costs are stated to be approximately £2 million a year. It would not be appropriate to put on a side wager with the Minister, but I predict that that cost will inexorably rise significantly, because the bigger the archive gets and the more complex the science gets, the more expensive a project this will become, albeit one that we ought to maintain in the interests of justice.

The long-term future of the archive remains uncertain. There are still several archive-related activities previously undertaken by the FSS that must be picked up elsewhere. In particular, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, will need in future to pay a private forensic service provider for the services previously provided free of charge by the FSS. I would be interested to know what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes. This again illustrates my point about the fact that the issue crosses Government departmental boundaries.

Another facet of our inquiry was to examine the impact of closing the FSS on forensic research and development in the UK. The FSS spent £3 million to £4 million a year on R and D. Private sector players also spend on R and D, but often more towards the development end. Basic forensic science research in universities and other institutions has long struggled for funds, and this area has not been supported by the research councils with the degree of priority that it deserves. We therefore recommended that the Home Office and research councils develop a new national research budget for forensic science. Alas, while there have been some soothing noises, we have not yet seen any real commitments. If this is not the job of the research councils or the Home Office, then whose responsibility is it—or are we just going to leave it in the air?

Last but not least, the strength of any organisation is its people. That is why we took a particular interest in what would happen to the highly skilled forensic scientists facing redundancy. This country is a world leader in the field, having pioneered DNA forensic technologies, for example. One does not become a forensic scientist overnight; it takes years of training and experience. Much of the UK’s intellectual wealth in this area resides within FSS scientists, and once it is lost, I fear that it will not be easily regained. We recommended that transfer of FSS staff to other forensic service providers be conducted under TUPE regulations, which provide the necessary employment protections. Reflecting our concern that forensics expertise may be lost altogether, we were keen for forensic scientists to be retained within the profession and within the UK.

The FSS had over 1,000 staff, about 840 of whom have left since December 2010. Unfortunately, while 103 staff have moved via TUPE to the Metropolitan police service and another 11 staff will move via TUPE to Government agencies, no staff have transferred to other forensic service providers via TUPE. Furthermore, because the FSS is a GovCo rather than a non-departmental public body, FSS staff have thus far been unable to access internal civil service vacancies. I am awaiting a response from the Government on this point, having written to the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 February.

Adding this all together, we are talking about the loss of skills to the UK; the damage to the UK’s reputation from closing a world-class service; the cost of running the archive; the fact that what the Government estimated to be a £2 million per month loss was in fact £1 million; the lack of understanding of expenditure in this important area and of the way in which it spills over to other Departments; and the impact on justice. That combination of factors makes this matter far too important to be dealt with on an estimates day, and I regret that this debate cannot take place on a votable motion.

The picture is looking bleak overall. Last week the FSS suggested that the vast majority—up to 80%—of forensic scientists from the FSS have left the industry, with an even larger percentage, closer to 90%, of research and development scientists moving to a different sector. Although there are not yet any definitive data, it appears that the UK is losing that intellectual wealth. We often talk about the brain drain in science. This could be a mass exodus of talent.

I hope that Members will agree that our inquiry into the Forensic Science Service was both necessary and timely. Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that we put on the record criticisms of the way in which the FSS has been handled by both the previous Government and the current Government. What I would like to see from the Government is a proper well-considered strategy for forensic science in the UK. It is important that this matter be addressed well before the imposition of police and crime commissioners. It is also imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police as a customer, as important as those are.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful speech on behalf of the Select Committee. He mentioned justice. I advise everybody in the Chamber to read the oral evidence that Dr Tully gave the Committee, in which she made it absolutely clear that there will be cold cases, and perhaps current cases, in which murderers and rapists get off free because of the changes that have been made.

[Andrew Miller]

I repeat what was going to be my final point. It is imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police, important as those are. I noticed the Minister nodding at that point; I am sure that it is one on which he and I would agree.