Forensic Science Service Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Forensic Science Service

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts
Monday 27th February 2012

(12 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Howell Portrait John Howell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I fear that this is turning into a debate about who has got what television show—

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have no more Dr Whos or anything else. We will stick to the subject before us.

John Howell Portrait John Howell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful for those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to head in that direction anyway.

In 1991, we had a major change with the FSS that attracted new entrants to the market, including companies such as LGC Forensics. It ushered in a period of investment and scientific innovation that has driven up quality and ensured that prices and turnaround times have reduced dramatically. That move has resulted in a safer and more secure society together with better value for the police and taxpayers. That is an important combination of factors.

But what confusing signals the previous Government sent to this emerging sector! We had just encouraged the sector to be innovative and to invest, but then, as I mentioned in my intervention, in March 2009, the Labour Administration agreed to a £50 million subsidy to support business transformation. That was a major subsidy for a company that existed in a competitive market, and it sent a very confusing signal. No one in the private sector wanted to see the end of the FSS. Indeed, some of those private companies have said that they wanted the FSS to continue because a healthy competitive market is good for all. However, doing that through this sort of heavy-handed subsidy was not the way to go.

There are good private sector providers, as even Opposition Members agree, and they have a crucial role to play. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned the Stephen Lawrence case, because it illustrated the importance of the current investment in technology. It was not available at the time, and I do not think we would have had that result otherwise.