Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andy Slaughter

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

This Government have already been responsible for full-frontal, across-the board assaults on health and safety in the workplace, from the changes in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the changes in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 in relation to strict liability in breach-of-statutory-duty cases. This is just another of those assaults, but I believe that it is an ineffective attempt. I have confidence in our courts, and I am sure that even if the Bill is passed unamended, the judiciary will treat it with the contempt that it deserves. They will consider the matters that are dealt with in the Bill, as they would have anyway, but they will not give those matters undue consideration because of what is in the Bill, and they will continue to find for meritorious claims and against unmeritorious ones. Of course, it remains the case that if an employee is on a frolic of his own—if he is, as the Lord Chancellor would say, trying it on—the courts will find that out, because that is exactly what the trial process is about. The Bill does nothing but add confusion.

If clause 3 is intended to change the law—no doubt the Minister will clarify that—for whose benefit is it intended to change the law? It seems to me that the Government can only be seeking to bring in extraneous factors which will allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases. The cards are stacked very much in favour of the employer in such cases. The employer controls the accident site, and the employer, directly or through his insurer, has the weight of finance and advice. The employee is often restricted, first, by nervousness about suing his employer; secondly, possibly by his injury; and thirdly, possibly by a lack of income as a result of the incident.

Why would a Government wish to set out to hobble a claimant in that respect other than because some blind prejudice causes them to consider all claims by employees against employers to be unmeritorious? The same motivation led to the 80% decline in employment tribunal cases that has followed the introduction of fees, and the Government have shown the same attitude to health and safety generally in their cuts to the Health and Safety Executive, as a result of which inspection regimes are not what they were, despite the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Unless the Minister either agrees to amendment 5 or can, very persuasively, show us that it would not have any material effect, I suspect that we will press the amendment to a vote.

Let me briefly deal with clause 4, about which a number of issues were raised in Committee. We have not sought to bring those up again, but one or two of the interventions were about the definitions of “heroic act” and “hero”, and about other poor drafting. I will not address those points this afternoon but, given the criticism from Members on both sides of the House, it is worth asking the Minister whether he will consider withdrawing the final words from clause 4:

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

St John Ambulance has clearly made the point that that is an irresponsible provision. It does not add anything; all it encourages is reckless behaviour likely to put either the putative hero or others engaged in such action at some risk. It is a loose and careless piece of drafting, and the Minister would do himself credit if he simply withdrew it. The brief that St John Ambulance prepared for us not only made that point clearly, but made the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell).

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The one thing the person will not think about when he or she sees something that they could help with is any Bill or legislation. They will think, “I’ve got to do something. I’ve got to help this person.” Whatever we legislate on, we have to make sure that someone who really cares is not inhibited from taking such action.

[Mr Slaughter]

I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman’s comments undermine the whole purpose of this Bill, which is, supposedly, to exhort the public to do things that they would almost certainly do anyway. I do not think the public need this Bill to be encouraged to volunteer or to be told that they should intervene when situations demand. The practical point, which St John Ambulance makes, is that if there was a much greater emphasis on first aid training and on people being competent to intervene, not only would the outcome of interventions be better, but people would feel more confident about intervening. The evidence shows that the principal reason for non-intervention is that people lack the confidence to know what to do and fear that they may make the situation worse. I do not believe for a moment that people do not intervene because of concerns for their own safety.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have just drawn the short straw. It would be tempting, given the title of the debate, to go on a Baedeker’s tour of the middle east. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has the authority and knowledge to do so, but I will not be tempted down that route. I will talk, as other Members have done, about the immediate crisis in Palestine and Gaza, not least because I—and, I suspect, a number of Members present—have received several hundred letters and e-mails on the subject from constituents during the past week.

First, however, let me say a few sentences about other interests I have. I entirely applaud the right hon. Gentleman for saying that Tunisia continues to give hope, as it has since the beginning of the Arab spring, notwithstanding the difficulties there have been and, indeed, the fact that there has been some violence in that country. I do not disagree with what he said about the Gulf and Egypt, in the sense that we need to maintain good relations with them, but I hope those will also be critical relations. I hope the new Minister, whom we welcome to his place, will be aware that, in relation to Egypt and, in a smaller way, to countries such as Bahrain, the hopes placed in the Arab spring have failed to materialise in many cases.

I sometimes feel that, perhaps for strategic or other reasons, Her Majesty’s Government are not critical enough of the violent deaths that have resulted from the actions of the state in those countries, of the death sentences handed out in Egypt and of the continued oppression of the majority Shi’a population in Bahrain. However, we need to be even-handed when we address such matters. I should add that, notwithstanding the appalling continuing situation in Syria, the events that have taken place since last summer have shown that the House was right to vote the way it did during the recall, and not to be stampeded into supporting military action. That would have been a catastrophic mistake.

My constituency has one of the 10 largest Arab populations in this country—I always suspected it did, but I now know that, thanks to the 2011 census. Many of my Arab constituents—indeed, not just them, but my Muslim constituents and my constituents more generally—would, I hope, think that what was happening in Gaza was truly shocking. I do not mean just the individual incidents, such as the two disabled people who were killed in a care home, the nine young men who were killed while watching the World cup, the 18 members of one family who were slain and the four children who were killed on the beach—I am not quite sure what strategic target there was there yesterday that meant those four young children were brutally and horribly murdered.

The current count is 227 deaths. There have been 2,000 air strikes, 1,400 homes have been destroyed and 18,000 have been displaced. If hon. Members do not regard that as disproportionate action, I do not really know what is. Listening to some hon. Members, I sometimes wonder what Israel would have to do, and what actions the Israeli defence forces would have to take, to earn their condemnation, just in the interests of simple humanity.

What I find more shocking than the individual deaths or the military action generally, however, is the cynical and predictable way in which Israel, on a cyclical basis, goes about its incursions into Gaza. I visited Gaza with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) three weeks after Operation Cast Lead. In that incursion—it was the last major incursion, but there have been smaller ones since—1,400 mainly civilian Palestinians were killed. According to a very good article in The Independent today by Matt Rowland Hill, these incursions are known colloquially in the IDF as “mowing the lawn”, which means going in—with complete disregard, it seems, for civilian casualties—and trying to curtail any military strength Hamas may have built up.

We can all talk about the role Hamas has played in escalating the crisis, and about the effect of rocket fire. However, I would like to dwell on where we are going with the occupation of Gaza and the west bank. I have come to this conclusion reluctantly, but I fear that, whereas the rest of the world—whether we are talking about the attempt to revive the Arab peace initiative or John Kerry’s recent efforts—is still committed to, and still believes in, a two-state solution, the state of Israel no longer believes in one, and the quote my hon. Friend gave from the Prime Minister of Israel says that in terms.

[Bob Stewart]

The problem with the two-state solution is that it looks almost impossible to enact. Given the number of settlements—many of them illegal—in the west bank, I just cannot see how we can carve out a two-state solution. We may well have to have a one-state solution where all are equal.

[Mr Slaughter]

I cannot fault the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I would say that what he describes has been the result of deliberate action by the state of Israel over a number of years. It has been brought about partly by the settlement building—that has been the main infraction. There are 500,000 settlers living in East Jerusalem and the west bank, and the pace of settlement building continues. However, Netanyahu said last Friday:

“there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

There is no intention at all in Israel, from the Prime Minister downwards, to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. We therefore have to see what is happening in Gaza and the west bank as the management of the status quo; we can conclude only that Israel wants to put 1.7 million people into a prison. The occupation continues in Gaza and the west bank —under international law and de facto—because the borders are sealed.

The consequence is that Palestinians in Gaza are living in hellish conditions. I have visited Gaza several times, and even when people are not being strafed by jet fighters, fired on from the sea and shelled, 95% of water is still undrinkable, thousands of tonnes of sewage flow into the sea every day, and half the population is dependent on UN handouts. That is the situation to which the Palestinians have been reduced by the deliberate actions of the state of Israel.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andy Slaughter

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I want to talk about costs in libel, privacy and other proceedings against the press. This is not an ancillary issue, either in itself or in the context of providing an effective self-regulatory system, according to Lord Justice Leveson. It will require fresh legislation to correct the current state of the law and to give effect to the whole Leveson framework. That is something that Leveson has said, and that the Government have conceded as well.

Prior to the enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, it was possible for persons grievously wronged by the press to sue using conditional fee—no win, no fee—agreements. The McCanns, the Dowlers and Christopher Jefferies used them. On the back of spurious attacks on personal injury claimaints, the Government legislated in part 2 of the LASPO Act to remove the protection from such claimants in bringing libel or privacy claims. They claimed that they were following the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs, but they were not.

Under the LASPO Act, no win, no fee is available only if the claimant’s solicitor receives their costs from the claimant’s damages, up to 25% thereof, but the damages in libel cases are now quite low—perhaps £10,000 or £20,000—and it is not possible to run a libel case on £2,000 or £4,000. Even if it were, no claimant would risk bankruptcy, as it is no longer possible since after-the-event insurance premiums became non-recoverable to insure against losing a case and paying the defendant newspapers astronomical costs.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could not the independent regulator give good advice to people who have clearly been wronged and, with it, some assistance with getting recompense for the hurt that they have suffered? Going to court is so expensive for normal people, and it would be really good if the independent regulator could do something to put that right.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is what Lord Justice Leveson recommends, in a rather more organised way, but he says that it must be underpinned by statute.

Going back to my previous point, I want to quote Sally Dowler, who said:

“At the outset we made clear that if we had to pay the lawyers, we could not afford to bring a claim; or if we had any risk of having to pay the other side’s costs, we couldn’t take the chance. If the proposed changes had been in place at that time we would not have made a claim. Simple as that, the News of the World would have won, because we could not afford to take them on.”

Lord Justice Jackson said that the losing claimant should be given protection in costs—so-called qualified one-way costs shifting—but the Government ignored him. The result of that has been summed up by Lord Justice Leveson, on page 1507 of his report:

“In the absence of some mechanism for cost free, expeditious access to justice, in my view, the failure to adopt the proposals suggested by Jackson LJ in relation to costs shifting will put access to justice in this type of case in real jeopardy, turning the clock back to the time when, in reality, only the very wealthy could pursue claims such as these…An arbitral arm of a new regulator could provide such a mechanism”—

this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—

“ which would benefit the public and equally be cost effective for the press”.

Those matters were discussed at length in proceedings on LASPO in both Houses. Victims of phone hacking, including Lord Prescott, raised the plight of all the victims and received this response from Lord McNally:

“I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1332.]

Yet nothing was in the Defamation Bill when it was published. On its Second Reading in this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) quoted Lord McNally’s promise, and added:

“Yet I do not see those issues being dealt with anywhere in the Bill. If the Government do not bring forward proposals to address this deficiency in Committee, we will have to do so.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 196.]

Indeed, that is exactly what we did. In Committee, we offered a variety of means for restoring the position of the claimants, but each of them was rejected by the Government, using what became a mantra that was repeated at all stages of the Bill, and that has been repeated today by the Secretary of State—namely, that the Government would look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings when the defamation reforms came into effect. I am going to ask the Minister what exactly that means.

First, however, let me read out what Lord Justice Leveson says about costs. This is in paragraphs 68 to 72 of the executive summary:

“The need for incentives, however, coupled with the equally important imperative of providing an improved route to justice for individuals, has led me to recommend the provision of an arbitration service that is recognised and could be taken into account by the courts as an essential component of the system…Such a system (if recognised by the court) would then make it possible to provide an incentive in relation to the costs of civil litigation. The normal rule is that the loser pays the legal costs incurred by the winner but costs recovered are never all the costs incurred and litigation is expensive not only for the loser but frequently for the winner as well. If, by declining to be a part of a regulatory system, a publisher has deprived a claimant of access to a quick, fair, low cost arbitration of the type I have proposed, the Civil Procedure Rules (governing civil litigation) could permit the court to deprive that publisher of its costs of litigation in privacy, defamation and other media cases, even if it had been successful. After all, its success could have been achieved far more cheaply for everyone. These incentives form an integral part of the recommendation, as without them it is difficult, given past practice and statements that have been made as recently as this summer, to see what would lead some in the industry to be willing to become part of what would be genuinely independent regulation. It also leads to what some will describe as the most controversial part of my recommendations. In order to give effect to the incentives that I have outlined, it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system and facilitate its recognition in legal processes.”

He then goes on to explain, as mentioned by other Members, what the legislation would achieve and what its purpose was. The third of his three reasons is that

“it would validate its standards code and the arbitral system sufficient to justify the benefits in law that would flow to those who subscribed”.

What that means is that, as far as Lord Justice Leveson is concerned, the costs issue is at the heart of his principles and legislation is needed for it to take effect.

I was unable to intervene on the Secretary of State, so I would like the Minister to address in his winding-up speech the question of what type of legislation—primary or secondary—the Government envisage introducing to deal with the costs issue, which they have been promising for about two years, ever since the misguided legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders proposals first came about. If the legislative principle is ceded in the process—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said—there will of course be some legislation relating to regulation of the press and here is a clear example, or a central example, according to Lord Justice Leveson, providing the entry to the entire regulatory system—it is the incentive given by the arbitral system and by the cost penalties that will lead to the whole self-regulatory body operating.

If that is ceded, what problem do the Government have in ceding the concept of legislation on the other two points that Lord Justice Leveson made? The first of those is

“to protect the freedom of the press”

and the second is to

“provide an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body and reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met”.

At the end of the day, that is all that Opposition Members—and, indeed, from what I have heard today, many Government Members, too—are asking for. The Government are setting up straw men in order to knock the proposals down. They are colluding with the proprietors of newspapers who are talking in the most arrant and nonsensical terms about what the implications of this will be. I believe that dealing with the costs route will justify the proposals that Lord Justice Leveson has made.

Forensic Science Service

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andy Slaughter

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I begin by referring to the declaration of interests that I made earlier in this debate? I also wish to praise the contribution—not only in today’s debate, but in leading the Select Committee—of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). He has framed the general discussion on this subject.

I could talk about the many aspects of the Government proposals that I consider to be short-sighted—the effects on the police, on the current staff and on the international reputation of forensic science in this country, for instance—but instead I shall focus on a central point, which the Select Committee report sums up thus:

“The primary consideration throughout must be the health of the criminal justice system.”

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Sir Alec Jeffreys—the inventor of DNA profiling—and senior members of the legal profession have all called on the Government to reconsider their decision, citing the serious negative impact it will have on criminal justice. The Government appear to be concerned only with the question of whether other people will do the work; they have not asked what the quality of that work will be.

I say that because the Government conducted no consultation on the wider criminal justice implications of this decision. Instead, they looked at the books, saw an organisation that cost more than it recouped—I shall say more about that shortly—and decided to close it. They did not consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, and they appear to have neglected to talk to the CCRC. Even the Attorney-General was consulted only in the “final clearance processes”.

The Government undertook no investigation. They looked at none of the wider issues. In the words of Sir Alec Jeffreys, this is “bean-counting”. It is no way to make policy, and this decision smacks, above all, of short-sightedness. The Government justify their decision by talking about saving money, yet the amount that could be saved is contested. As we have heard, the Government say it is £24 million, whereas the FSS, which perhaps knows more about its own budget, says that it is about half that—£11 million in the past year.

[Bob Stewart]

Surely the most important thing is the kind of service we will get. If the FSS is at a certain level and we do not get any other system up to the same level, there is no question of abolishing it. We must have a service of at least that level or higher; otherwise we are wasting our time. Justice must be done, and if necessary we will have to pay for it. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the worldwide reputation.

[Mr Slaughter]

I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point clearly and forcefully, and I hope that the Minister will address it head on. However, given that other Government Members have constantly referred to the figure—the £24 million, or the £12 million —I fear that the cost argument is the best the Government have. It is not a good argument, and it is not even very valid. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), although not every piece of FSS work comes from the police services, the overwhelming majority of its work does. So what we are saying is that the FSS is subsidising police services at the moment.

Perhaps the police services have got a good deal. For example, if a particular police force negotiates a fixed fee with the FSS for complex cases and an hourly rate for simple matters, clearly that police service will have got a good deal, as it will get a fixed fee for important and complex cases with many pieces of evidence, and where it thinks that there is not much involved in a case, it will pay just for what it wants. If that is right, it may actually be the right way to do things, as it may take the pressure off the police in terms of not submitting items of evidence. If a police force was paying by the hour or for every piece of evidence, and a complex crime scene had 100 pieces of evidence to be submitted, it might think, “Do we really need to submit every piece of evidence?” Perhaps the police are not expert enough to make those decisions and the systems works well, even if it produces a notional deficit for the FSS.

If that is also right, and the service is running at a deficit now, will commercial companies be prepared to allow such a situation to continue? Will they not renegotiate contracts with police forces over time that ensure that they not only cover their costs but make a profit? At least one Government Member has said, “Good luck to forensic scientists if they go off and earn more money in the private sector.” If that is right, who is going to pay for it? If, instead of working in the FSS, former senior members of its staff are hiring themselves out as consultants at a substantial daily rate, that sum will be picked up by the police and by the taxpayer. The argument about finance really does not hold water.

Let me pick up on the point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Dependability and expertise do cost money, and without them in criminal justice we would be in the realm of appeals and retrials, which also cost money. We have all received briefing notes detailing the many criminal cases in which the FSS has made a real difference, but the Minister has given us no reassurance that the new arrangements will produce the same essential level of dependability.

Let me set out the practical problems, in terms of criminal justice, with what the Government have proposed. First, although we are told at the 11th hour that the archives have been saved, they are now detached from the FSS—or what will replace it—as indeed is research. We used to have a unitary body that had its expertise not only in its written archive but in its expert staff. It would also have its research arm, and its investigatory and reporting arm. That is the right way to go about things.

Secondly, we must deal with the non-applicability of section 17 powers. Under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power to obtain material held by public bodies. It has requested material at least 150 times from the FSS since 2005, and has indicated that the contractual power to obtain material that will be included in contracts for the provision of private forensic science services is clearly not as satisfactory as a statutory power.

Thirdly, there is the potential for loss of expertise as top scientists exit the profession. That, and the loss of Government funding, will mean a major loss for research and development. Some 75% of forensic scientists have said that the new arrangements will lead to more miscarriages of justice, and there is the potential for that. The Government have provided no reassurance whatsoever on that point, so I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Mr Slaughter]

I can only agree.

The Government say that police labs can pick up the slack, but even if the police behave with complete propriety there will be scope for defendants, through counsel, to allege that pressure could have been brought to produce certain results. The Home Office Forensic Science Service was set up as a successor to the Metropolitan police forensic science service, in part for that very reason. Miscarriages of justice—not necessarily in the Met area—in the ’70s and ’80s were the reason why there was seen to be a need for an independent forensic science service. In the Library debate pack there is a quotation from an expert in cognitive behaviour at University college London, Itiel Dror, who says:

“The fact that more forensic work is going to be done by police doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but it means you have to take extra measures such as buffering examiners from police detectives, so they are not breathing down their necks saying ‘we think it’s this person’”.

What assurances will the Government give today that such protection will be in place?

Then there is the question of disparity between the resources of police forces. The Met probably will have the resources, given its size, but will Cumbria? Will Suffolk, or Devon and Cornwall, have the ability to run the same sort of operation? I doubt it. We are losing a comprehensive service that is serving the police, the courts and the public well. The FSS does painstaking work in ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes are brought to account.

I am sorry that we had to wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) to hear proper tribute paid to the people in the FSS—although, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston paid such a tribute too. That, essentially, is what this debate should be about. In terms of reputation, independence and the flexibility and ability to deal with everything from major complex cases to routine work, as well as the comprehensiveness of the service they can offer, we are losing key points. What are we losing? Expert staff and continuity. It is not even certain whether, from next month onwards, forensic scientists who have gone abroad, left the profession or retired, as a consequence of the break up of the FSS, will be available for ongoing cases. We are losing that continuity in the archive and research facility as well as in the operational service. We are losing a huge body of knowledge, and we are wasting equipment as well as human resources, by closing down the service so quickly in such a short space of time.

What is the alternative?

[Bob Stewart]

I think we might also be losing the ability to have seriously world-beating research and development in FSS-type matters. That is what worries me; we must not lose that R and D ability. If we are going to change, things must be just as good as they were before. If they will not be, we should leave them as they are.

[Mr Slaughter]

I wholly agree, and I ask the Minister, even if he is going to rely on the argument about money, to balance that consideration against the opportunity cost—the risk of losing the services that the FSS provides, which are in some cases easily quantifiable but in others are intangible, in terms of both its archives and its research and development.

I am not going to fall into the trap that some hon. Gentlemen on the Government side have fallen into, of playing the private and public sectors off against each other. I regret that one or two Government Members denigrated the FSS, saying that it was not working, and had to go for that reason. They implied that Opposition Members do not see a role for the private sector, but on the contrary, as the Select Committee report—and, I think, every Opposition Member who has spoken—has emphasised, there can be individual scientists and levels of expertise in the private sector. However, private sector companies are profit-making and will have to look at their bottom line. The way in which the changeover is happening means a mass outflow of experienced staff—often near to retirement age, often on a higher grade and often higher paid—who will be replaced, if at all, by the lower-paid and less experienced staff who come into private companies. That process might possibly work over time, but if it happens in a period of months, that will set up real problems in terms of the confidence that the criminal justice system can have in the quality of advice that it is getting.

We are going from a system in which we have a world-respected organisation to one with a very fragmented system made up partly of private sector organisations of different sizes. We have mentioned one of those, LGC, because it is the biggest, but not others that might be taking over some staff or resources from the FSS. On the other hand, we have the 40-plus police authorities that will each run, to a greater or lesser extent, their own operations, no doubt to different standards and with different ambitions and intentions. We are asked to believe that that system will provide the same quality and level of consistency of service as now. A recent survey by the New Scientist showed that more than 90% of forensic scientists, including those in the private and the public sector, thought that the abolition of the FSS would have a negative effect. Also, more than 75% thought there would be an increase in miscarriages of justice. The New Scientist also said:

“forensic science is not so much a coherent discipline as a collection of science-based techniques brought to bear on idiosyncratic questions of guilt and innocence. Since crime scenes are the very opposite of controlled environments, the answers provided by these techniques inevitably require interpretation.”

That is saying, in effect, that forensic science is sometimes as much an art as it is a science. That means—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was making—that when someone, whether they are appearing for the prosecution or the defence, is trying to talk to a jury and pull out of very disparate and sometimes contradictory pieces of information the best case that can be made, in fairness, in looking for a way towards the truth, the more expertise and experience that can be brought to bear on doing that, the better. That is what I fear we are losing with this precipitous and hasty measure. We are also losing a service that has been respected around the world, and has built up its reputation over many years. It is irreplaceable. For that reason I ask the Government to think, at this stage, about what they are putting in place instead of the Forensic Science Service that has served the country so well for so many years.