Forensic Science Regulator Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for granting time to debate private Members’ Bills today. Following a full debate on Second Reading and a useful and substantive debate in Committee, the Bill is now in a very fine form to hopefully conclude its passage through this House before going to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

While my name is on this Bill, I should take this opportunity to thank the many people involved in bringing it to this stage: to the right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate, both in this House and in Committee; to the Minister, the shadow Minister and their respective teams for their support; to Finn McMahon in my parliamentary office for his help in guiding the passage of this Bill; to the Whips on both the Government and Opposition Benches, as well as the Clerks of this House, for their wise counsel; to the work of many Select Committees both in this House and in the other place over many years; and lastly, as has already been mentioned by the shadow Minister, to Dr Gillian Tully, the outgoing forensics regulator, who has consistently lobbied for this change over many years.

As has been said, the standards that will be put in force for forensic services in this country will do justice to the victims of crime and will add confidence in the criminal justice system. Now more than ever, with all this on our minds, I look forward to the Bill taking a smooth passage through the House of Lords and becoming law in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(6A) A disclosure of information pursuant to a requirement under subsection (3) does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

(6B) A person may not be required under subsection (3) to disclose information if to do so—

(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether the disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by virtue of that subsection is to be taken into account), or

(b) would be prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

(6C) In subsection (6B)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).”

This amendment has the effect that a person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator does not breach any restriction on disclosure in doing so, but may not be required to disclose information in breach of the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(1) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) A person given notice under section 6(8) of the variation of a compliance notice may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision to vary the compliance notice.

(3B) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (3A) are that—

(a) the decision was based on an error of fact;

(b) the decision was wrong in law;

(c) the decision was unreasonable;

(d) any step or prohibition specified in the compliance notice as a result of the variation is unreasonable.

(3C) On an appeal under subsection (3A) the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) confirm the decision to vary the compliance notice, in whole or in part;

(b) quash that decision, in whole or in part;

(c) vary the compliance notice in a different way;

(d) remit to the Regulator the decision whether to vary the compliance notice.”

This amendment enables a person on whom a compliance notice is served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision by the Regulator to vary the notice.

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(4) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, after “(1)” insert “, (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

“(8) Where an appeal is or may be made to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under this section, the Upper Tribunal may suspend any requirement or prohibition specified in the compliance notice until the appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.”

This amendment enables the Upper Tribunal to suspend a requirement or prohibition in a compliance notice where a person appeals against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under clause 8.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, after “advice” insert “or assistance”.

This amendment enables the Forensic Science Regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person.

Clause 9 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, leave out from “functions” to end of line 33.

This amendment removes the ability of the Forensic Science Regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendment 9, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) Nothing in this Act affects the exercise by any person other than the Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.”

This amendment provides that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any person other than the Forensic Science Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.

Clause 11 stand part.

Clause 12 stand part.

Government amendment 10, in clause 13, page 7, line 22, leave out “and Biometrics Strategy”.

This amendment has the effect of modifying the short title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.

Clause 13 stand part.

That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment 11, in the title, line 2, leave out from “science;” to “and” in line 4.

This amendment modifies the long title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and to be back debating this Bill just six weeks on from its Second Reading. Although it has felt like a pretty long month and a half—especially for those of us who have spent far too much time watching the CNN app—this is legislation a decade in the asking, so six weeks is dizzying progress. It is therefore hugely welcome that we are here, and there are a number of people whom I should thank before making substantive remarks.

First of all, I am hugely grateful to the outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, who was rightly recognised with a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours last month in appreciation of her work since being appointed in 2014, and over three decades in the Forensic Science Service before that. Dr Tully has been a constant advocate for the changes given force in this Bill, with her annual reports laying out in unanswerable detail the case for a regulator with the statutory powers to do its job. In her report, Dr Tully not only gives her views as the regulator, but brings to life the stories of many in the criminal justice system who have suffered wrongly from poor standards in forensic science in the past.

Although Dr Tully’s tenure will conclude before the office is able to wield those powers, it is in no small part testimony to her doggedness in making the argument that it will at least have statutory powers. Dr Tully has been enormously generous with her time as we have drafted this Bill, and previously during our inquiry on the Science and Technology Committee, and we are indebted to her. Two successive configurations of Science and Technology Committee, both in this House and in the other place, who have built an invaluable case for statutory powers for the regulator over many years.

More immediately, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the Government, in particular the Minister for Crime and Policing, for their support and willingness for this Bill to proceed, and for offering the amendments that we are debating today to fine-tune the Bill so that it is ready to become legislation. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield Southgate and the Labour Front-Bench team for their continued support from the very beginning.

Last but by no means least, I thank all colleagues on the Committee today, and certainly those who helped to corral other colleagues to be here, for which I am very grateful. I am sure hon. Members will be agreeable to this being a short sitting, but I thank them for making the effort to be here.

The broad approval reflected across the debate today highlights the common-sense wisdom of the provisions being put forward. The Forensic Science Regulator has done indispensable work since its creation in 2008, but the market for forensic services in Britain is not working as it should, with shortfalls in capacity, skills and funding, a lack of real competition and an inconsistency in the application of required standards.

Victims of crime, as well as those accused of crimes, must be able to rely on a criminal justice system that can call on high-quality forensic science provided by experts able to demonstrate their competence, with agreed standards across providers. This perhaps small and technical change will make a real difference to people’s lives and their experience of the criminal justice system.

One amendment would change the title of the Bill to remove the suggestion of a biometrics strategy. That has of course been agreed with the Minister and the Government. It highlights the complex nature of biometrics regulation and indeed the scope that one can pursue in a private Member’s Bill. I understand that, as the Minister has suggested, there will be primary legislation on this subject before the House in due course.

In Britain and around the world, Governments need to do much more to regulate the ways in which biometric data is collected, stored and used. The technologies that enable these processes are evolving much more quickly than the oversight that is necessary to hold them accountable. Plugging that gap is crucial to serving the public and the national interest. In that context, although I am happy for the amendment to be made, I hope it does not come at the cost of too long a delay in legislation coming before the House.

In the round, the provisions build on broad, expert consensus, with cross-party support in Committees in this place and the other place, on giving the regulator statutory powers to compel compliance and enforce the outcomes of its investigations. It is a necessary first step in bringing about a better functioning market and raising standards for the long haul. It is a service not just to the criminal justice system, but to the victims of crime. I am sure of consensus across the House in bringing the measures forward, and I look forward to getting the Bill through Committee today and to its final stages.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure for me as well to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West on having progressed the Bill to Committee stage. I thank the Minister for his letter to me yesterday expressing the Government’s commitment to the Bill, taking the time to clarify their position on the issues raised on Second Reading, and explaining the amendments tabled by the Government.

The Opposition broadly support and welcome the Government amendments, which seek to strengthen the Bill by tackling the issue of the appeals process in clause 8, which goes hand in hand with the new regulatory powers granted to the regulator. We also support the tidying-up amendments to ensure that the clauses do not overlap with other measures that also clarify the scope of the new powers.

The Bill is long overdue. I am sure that all Members will agree that there is a need to put the regulator on a statutory footing to be able to ensure that the standards set by the regulator are met. If enforcement action were not available to the regulator, the standards could not be properly implemented, so we need provision for the regulator to enforce the standards. Forensic science has advanced so much in the last 40 years that it must surely be self-evident that where someone’s liberty is at stake and where the criminal standard is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we should expect high standards from those carrying out forensic science work, and those standards must be capable of being enforced. Voluntary compliance with standards will simply not do.

When we think about Rachel Nickell and Stephen Lawrence, for instance, and how we brought their cases to justice, and how the Birmingham Six were successful in their appeal following new forensic evidence, it is clear why what the Bill sets out to achieve is so important. The integrity of our criminal justice system is at stake; we must not get this wrong. Select Committees in the Commons and the other place have highlighted the pressing need to put the regulator on a statutory footing, and the Government have repeatedly said that they will do so, so I am pleased that they are finally taking steps to make sure that that happens.

In my experience of speaking to forensic scientists in the lead-up to this debate, it is clear that for many of them it is a vocation. In the traditional areas of forensic science there is wide compliance with standards, but that is not the case in other areas such as the newly emerging field of digital forensics, where the level of compliance with ISO standards is less than 30%. Because there is more reliance on digital evidence in criminal justice now, the level of non-compliance to a voluntary standard in that field is very worrying indeed. That is why the measures in the Bill are so important. The outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, stated that she can get average compliance across all forensics up to 75% under the current system, but that the final 25% can be achieved only with enforcement powers. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve.

Clauses 2 to 4 establish the code of practice and set out a statutory footing for forensic science standards to be followed. Clauses 5 to 7 give the regulator enforcement powers to ensure that the code is complied with. The powers of investigation include the power to require production of documents and the provision of other information, with the sanction of legal measures in the High Court as an ultimate last resort for failure to comply. The Bill is exactly in line with the Government’s own forensic science strategy of 2016, which recommended giving the regulator statutory powers to identify and sanction forensic service providers who failed to maintain standards. It is long overdue. While I wish it was going further, I accept that the Bill is a welcome starting point.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Dr Gillian Tully for her years of service in the post, her dedication and commitment and the respect which she has commanded, and for leaving the post of regulator in good shape. I thank the Minister for indicating support from the Government and I look forward to the Bill passing on to its next stage-.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a pleasure to be here, Ms Eagle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West on getting the Bill to this stage and on his constructive attitude throughout our discussions and discussions with officials about the amendments. I thank other hon. Members for attending today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who previously made a brave attempt at a similar measure, which was sadly foiled by the parliamentary timetable. Nevertheless, here he is to join in the triumph of the hon. Member for Bristol North West.

I do not intend to rehearse the extensive arguments that were made on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. It was a very long debate with a surprising level of interest from Members across the House on a Friday; it was nevertheless helpful and included many tributes to Dr Tully, which I associate myself with again this morning. She has done a great job and her influence here in the Bill is strong. We wish her well for the future.

The Bill is a key part of our plan to ensure that police, prosecution and defence in criminal proceedings are adequately, sustainably and proportionately served by high-quality scientific analysis of the relevant evidence. The Bill will provide the Forensic Science Regulator with statutory powers, which will enable it to issue compliance notices against forensic providers who are failing to meet the required quality standards, and will protect the criminal justice system. Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools for investigating crime. These powers, to be used as a last resort, are necessary and will support the effective delivery of justice and help restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

By your leave, Ms Eagle, I will take the Committee through our amendments, not least because I am conscious we have an audience at home to whom we have a duty to outline what we are doing as we change the law of the land. I do not propose to go through the various clauses, which have been outlined. It is a relatively simple Bill, establishing a relatively simple principle, but there are some amendments to fine-tune the legislation.

Amendment 1 provides that any person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator as part of the regulator’s investigations does not breach any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of data, howsoever imposed. Any person who is required to provide information to the regulator may not be required to disclose information in breach of data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Amendment 2 removes the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against a refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 3 enables the recipients of a compliance notice served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the first tier tribunal against the decision of the regulator. The amendment also sets out the grounds under which a person may bring such an appeal and the remedies that the first tier tribunal may grant. Grounds for an appeal of a compliance notice are that the decision was based on error of fact, the decision was wrong in law, the decision was unreasonable or that any step or prohibition specified in the notice is unreasonable.

Amendments 4 and 5 remove the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against the refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is already governed by existing legislation. It also makes an amendment consequential to amendment 3. Amendment 6 enables the upper tribunal to suspend a compliance notice pending the conclusion of an appeal for the first tier tribunal to the upper tribunal. Amendment 7 enables the regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person, and not just advice, as currently worded. We hope that amendment will remove ambiguity.

Amendment 8 removes the ability of the forensic science regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions. That means that the regulator is empowered to disclose information only where doing so is necessary to enable or assist the other public authority to carry out its functions. This amendment ensures consistency with data protection legislation.

Amendment 9 amends clause 1 so that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any persons other than the regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities. This is to ensure that the duties and powers of other bodies or regulators who oversee scientific activities, such as in the area of forensic pathology, are not affected by any of the provisions of the Bill.

Amendments 10 and 11 modify the short title and long title of the Bill. to reflect the fact that there are no clauses related to biometrics or a biometric strategy within. This is because the Government could not support the biometrics elements that were initially proposed.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West made a good point about the future of police technology. As I think I outlined on Second Reading, the Government have a manifesto commitment to create a framework within which law enforcement can operate as it adopts new and evolving technology in this area, particularly in relation to technologies that could be deemed to be biometrics, data or forensics, for which we have a variety of regulatory regimes at the moment, and about which we need clarity.

In particular, technology that could be deemed by the public to be intrusive needs to have democratic consent. One of the issues that is raised, for example in clause 3, is that the code of practice that the Forensic Science Regulator will put in place has to come to the House and be laid before the House to get expressed consent by affirmative action, and indeed must be approved by the Secretary of State. We are very keen that people know that, where such technologies are used and are developing fast, we as democratically elected politicians have a say and have influence on an ongoing basis. Some of the legislation is about allowing forensics to have the agility to adopt new technology, but I hope and believe that we will be able to bring those measures forward, certainly before the next election, because it is in our manifesto. I hope that we can do so as soon as possible, because technology is racing away from us.

Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools in investigating crime. These powers to be used as a last resort are necessary, and they will support the effective delivery of justice and help to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

On that note, I urge the Committee to accept amendments 1 to 11 and to agree that clauses 1 to 13 stand part of the Bill.

[Darren Jones]

I have nothing further to add, Ms Eagle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to formal decisions on the remaining clauses and amendments, which have already been debated. I will still need the Minister to move the amendments formally when we get to them. With the leave of the Committee, I intend to put single questions on consecutive clauses and amendments where possible.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Investigations by the Regulator

Amendment made: 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

‘(6A) A disclosure of information pursuant to a requirement under subsection (3) does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

(6B) A person may not be required under subsection (3) to disclose information if to do so—

(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether the disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by virtue of that subsection is to be taken into account), or

(b) would be prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

(6C) In subsection (6B)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).”

This amendment has the effect that a person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator does not breach any restriction on disclosure in doing so, but may not be required to disclose information in breach of the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.—(Kit Malthouse.)

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Appeals

Amendments made: 2, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out paragraph (e)

This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(1) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, at end insert—

‘(3A) A person given notice under section 6(8) of the variation of a compliance notice may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision to vary the compliance notice.

(3B) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (3A) are that—

(a) the decision was based on an error of fact;

(b) the decision was wrong in law;

(c) the decision was unreasonable;

(d) any step or prohibition specified in the compliance notice as a result of the variation is unreasonable.

(3C) On an appeal under subsection (3A) the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) confirm the decision to vary the compliance notice, in whole or in part;

(b) quash that decision, in whole or in part;

(c) vary the compliance notice in a different way;

(d) remit to the Regulator the decision whether to vary the compliance notice.”

This amendment enables a person on whom a compliance notice is served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision by the Regulator to vary the notice.

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (d)

This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(4) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, after “(1)” insert “, (3A)”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

‘(8) Where an appeal is or may be made to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under this section, the Upper Tribunal may suspend any requirement or prohibition specified in the compliance notice until the appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.”—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment enables the Upper Tribunal to suspend a requirement or prohibition in a compliance notice where a person appeals against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under clause 8.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Other functions of the Regulator

Amendment made: 7, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, after “advice” insert “or assistance”.—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment enables the Forensic Science Regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Disclosure by the Regulator

Amendment made: 8, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, leave out from “functions” to end of line 33.—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment removes the ability of the Forensic Science Regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Meaning of “forensic science activity”

Amendment made: 9, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) Nothing in this Act affects the exercise by any person other than the Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.”—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment provides that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any person other than the Forensic Science Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 10, in clause 13, page 7, line 22, leave out “and Biometrics Strategy”.—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment has the effect of modifying the short title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: 11, in title, line 2, leave out from “science;” to “and” in line 4.—(Kit Malthouse.)

This amendment modifies the long title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Further to the Minister’s point of order, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express our condolences following the tragic death of a police officer in Croydon overnight. For most of us, it is impossible to comprehend what the officer’s family, friends and colleagues must be going through this morning, and the thoughts and prayers of everyone in the House are with them.

Like other Members who have had the strange fortune of winning a parliamentary raffle for private Members’ Bills, I spent the first weeks of this strange year being inundated with submissions making the case for the noblest crusades and the worthiest causes, as well as some of the strangest. I realise that, at first blush, the minimal changes proposed in this Bill may seem a little arcane or marginal, but my purpose today—to give the Forensic Science Regulator the statutory powers necessary to do its job—is, in reality, an urgent and necessary one for the functioning of our criminal justice system.

Access to high-quality forensics is vital so that victims and defendants get the justice they deserve, prosecutions are successful and our system commands and justifies the public’s confidence. Poor-quality forensics, as noted by the regulator, has without doubt lead to the failed prosecution of criminals and a failure to secure justice for victims. As it stands, the market for providing forensic services is flawed, with grinding delays, gaps in capacity and skills and a lack of real competitiveness. The first step in fixing it is to enable the regulator to enforce effective standards, which I hope the House will support me in doing today. It will not take a forensic scientist to note that the title of my Bill also anticipates action on the biometrics strategy, which is no less essential but will have to wait for another time, and I will speak more about that later in my speech.

The profusion of acronyms that, of necessity, opens the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual report gives some sense of the range of scientific disciplines and expert processes on which our justice system must rely. It incorporates not only crime scene investigation but digital forensics, drugs and toxicology analysis, firearms and ballistics, the comparison of tool marks and footprints, as well as DNA and fingerprints. For even the most established forensic practices, the maintenance of high standards is vital to the course of justice, but rapid advances in technology continue to reshape the tools with which forensic scientists can collect, store and analyse evidence and data, as well as the nature and complexity of the crimes they are working to combat. We therefore rely on experts to do that work for us and to present it in a way that is intelligible, accurate and reliable. As the regulator’s report observed last year:

“Courts should not have to judge whether this expert or that expert is ‘better’, but rather there should be a clear explanation of the scientific basis and data from which conclusions are drawn, and any relevant limitations. All forensic science must be conducted by competent forensic scientists, according to scientifically valid methods and be transparently reported, making very clear the limits of knowledge and/or methodology.”

Isolated slip-ups in the science threaten to imprison the innocent and exonerate the guilty. The potential for ubiquitous failings—made more likely by shortfalls in skills, expertise and funding—risks not only isolated miscarriages of justice but the integrity of the entire system. The stakes, therefore, are uniquely high. Plainly in such a world we should expect robust, mandatory and enforceable quality standards for the providers of forensic science, matched with an oversight regime with the independence, the teeth and the resources to do its job.

That insight is what inspired the creation of the office of the Forensic Science Regulator in 2007-08. It was tasked with enumerating those standards, ensuring the quality of providers and processes, assessing the soundness of the scientific techniques being used, and monitoring the competence of the individuals carrying them out.

In its inaugural mission, the Forensic Science Regulator was tasked to

“influence the strategic management of UK forensic science to place quality standards at the heart of strategic planning”.

That, among other issues, formed the seeds of the regulator’s present shortcomings. It can encourage police forces and their providers to seek accreditation, but it cannot compel compliance. It can establish assessments but not enforce their results. It can advise the Government of the day, but it does not weald any power on the market.

Virtually since its creation, therefore, the office and the voluntary model of regulation centred on it have been visibly short of the teeth they need. It is operationally independent, but unable to compel the change that is required.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which he chairs. I am interested in his observations about the non-statutory powers since 2007-08. To what extent does he have evidence that the absence of statutory powers has had an impact on particular cases? That may be something he wants to speak about in more detail.

[Darren Jones]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s delight at serving together on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The evidence speaks for itself, to stretch a metaphor when we are talking about evidence. The Science and Technology Committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as the Government’s own reviews and the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual reports, have all pretty much concluded the same thing: where standards cannot be enforced by providers and the validity of the forensic process is brought into question in prosecution, miscarriages of justice will have followed. The forensics regulator has been pretty bold in making that case in her annual report to Parliament. That is why, I am pleased to say, there has been broad consensus on the measures brought forward in the Bill to ensure that she can enforce the standards for more providers of forensic services.

That is why successive Governments have been notionally committed to putting the regulator on a statutory footing for nearly eight years. Many right hon. and hon. Members have called for this for a long time. That is what underpinned the conclusions of the reports from the Science and Technology Committees in this House and the other place that I mentioned to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Last year the Science and Technology Committee, of which I was a member, concluded in its inquiry on this issue that

“the Regulator—now more than ever—needs statutory powers.”

A couple of months earlier, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee had said:

“It is hard to understand why…the Forensic Science Regulator still lacks powers they need… The Forensic Science industry is in trouble; such action is now urgent.”

The regulator herself said in the report:

“Legislation is urgently required to give the…statutory enforcement powers”

needed to do the job properly.

I therefore appreciate the Government’s willingness to co-operate in seeking to carry the Bill, and the support of the Minister and his officials in producing the Bill and the explanatory notes, and in helping to secure the Bill’s passage through the House today. It is especially important that the Bill does pass today, because the availability of these services on time and to reliable standards is often patchy.

When the then Government announced the wholesale closure of the loss-making Forensic Science Service in November 2010, the Science and Technology Committee warned that they had failed to give

“enough consideration to the impact on forensic science research and development (R&D), the capacity of private providers to absorb the FSS’s 60% market share and the wider implications for the criminal justice system.”

That warning has proved prescient. Today, many scientific processes are conducted in-house by police forces, but this is piecemeal in its extent.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the Bill, which I understand has a fair chance of success. Clause 6(4) allows the regulator to prohibit a person from carrying out forensic science activities. Where that person is employed in-house at a police force, as he describes it, what would happen to the employment status of that individual?

[Darren Jones]

I think that is an important enforcement question. Of course, this has been one of the bedrocks of the voluntary model: where services are provided that do not meet the accredited standard, either by a private provider or in-house by a police force, that has just been able to continue. How a police force dealt with an in-house service that did not reach the accredited standard would be an issue for that police force, but I suggest that it might either bring its service up to the accredited standard or have confidence in the private sector market to find a provider that met that standard, which would be enforced by the regulator. I have every confidence that every police force across the country wishes to do this in the right way; there has been a huge amount of pressure on them to do so previously.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I do not object to the clause. I welcome the fact that, unlike under most regulators, individuals will be held to account, not just the organisation. My question is: where an individual who is employed by a police force is held to account, might disciplinary proceedings be taken against that individual, for example?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to conclude on that issue in debate on a private Member’s Bill. My personal view, for what it is worth and to entertain the hon. Member’s intervention, is that one would not want an employee to be dismissed as a consequence, but they might receive further training to meet the accredited standard and be able to continue their duties. However, as I say, it is not for me to judge an employment issue in such a setting.

As a consequence of some of the points that the hon. Member raises, individual services are often outsourced by police forces, but a lack of clear incentives for providers to seek accreditation, given the overriding need to compete on price, has created a vacuum of accountability. Last year’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report set out the situation. Their lordships concluded:

“Simultaneous budget cuts and reorganisation, together with exponential growth in the need for new services such as digital evidence, have put forensic science providers under extreme pressure. The result is a forensic science market which is becoming dysfunctional and which, unless it is properly regulated, will soon suffer the shocks of major forensic science providers going out of business and putting justice in jeopardy… This is not just a budget issue: structural and regulatory muddle exacerbates the malaise. There is no consistency in the way in which the 43 Police Authorities commission forensic services. Some Police Authorities have taken forensic investigation predominantly in-house whilst outsourcing some services to unregulated providers. These actions call into question equitable access for defendants and raise issues over the quality of the analysis undertaken and the evaluation of the evidence presented.”

Their lordships therefore recommended that

“the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently be given a number of statutory powers to bolster trust in the quality of forensic science provision.” This is a multi-layered challenge that defies simple political or partisan characterisation, but the enduring message is that consistent standards, consistently applied, must be foundational to the effective provision of a forensic service across the whole country. Although forensic evidence is generally of good quality, the consequences of a market that is failing to perform that function to measurable standards are, of course, serious, specific and widespread.

The Home Office commissioned a joint review of the provision of forensic science, which identified a growing perception about the risk of unsafe forensic evidence and demonstrated the twofold impact of an inadequate enforcement regime. Some judges, the report noted,

“were not specifically aware of accreditation requirements or”

the Forensic Science Regulator’s codes of practice, and defence lawyers expressed concern that

“perceived compromises regarding quality standards meant that challenges to the integrity of forensic evidence presented in court could soon become routine.”

I think that it is of value for us to pause and reflect on that submission to the Government’s review. Defence lawyers had a concern that the forensic science process itself was being used as a mechanism to provide arguments in prosecution cases. Of course, the service itself should not be the basis for such submissions.

[Richard Fuller]

Frequently, regulators fall back on a requirement for statutory enforcement powers, citing that they are not in a position to be effective with the powers that have been given to them, whereas the issue could be that the regulators are not effective in using the powers that they already have. I admit that that is more usual in the economic sphere and there may be particular issues in the legal sphere, but in his research in preparing the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman reached any conclusions about how well the existing powers are being used versus the requirement for statutory underpinning?

[Darren Jones]

Yes, and the repeated conclusion, not just from the regulator but the other officials and bodies I have mentioned, is that the powers that the regulator has been given for some time—since 2007-08, when the office was created—are not sufficient to bring providers up to the accredited standard. There has been strong messaging, encouragement and co-ordination to try to bring providers up to the accredited standard voluntarily, but that has still not happened. After many years of trying, the regulator and others have concluded that statutory enforcement powers are required. On the evidence, that seems a reasonable request.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Following up on that point, is it right that the regulator already has problems with codes of practice and conduct? The annual report refers to the fact that there has been a delay in publishing issue 5 of those codes but that it would be published in early 2020. Has it now been published? Why are those non-statutory codes not sufficient?

[Darren Jones]

The regulator has been able to introduce codes of practice, but where they have not been followed, she has not been able to enforce them, which is one of the main issues today. As I understand it, the codes of practice are published in co-ordination with the Home Office, so perhaps the Minister can give an update on the outstanding codes that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

The market’s dependence on large or specialised service providers is not an abstract concern. We know that the resulting fragility, which already existed because of a lack of competition in the market, has had damaging effects on people in the criminal justice system. The collapse of key forensic services in 2018 is a case in point. To manage the fall-out from that collapse, police forces contracted other commercial providers to take on the resulting workload, creating system-wide capacity constraints. The appalling consequences that the Forensic Sciences Regulator laid out show that some cases, where forensic science may have provided valuable information or evidence, could not be processed. In addition, there was evidence of an increased error rate during this period, as well as an unsustainable strain on staff working overtime.

I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that is an unacceptable position for part of the criminal justice system to be in and that we should do our best to try to fix it. At the risk of straying a little beyond the immediate scope of the Bill, I urge Ministers to recognise the systemic issues that such cases highlight. Giving the regulator statutory powers will raise standards but cannot by itself mend a broken market. In the medium-term, the only way to get forensics right is through sustained investment in people, processes and skills.

I am sure that other hon. Members will have examples on which to draw, but the way in which violent sexual crimes are prosecuted makes an especially clear case for why statutory powers are so important. Such crimes, which are subject to unique challenges in obtaining convictions, often rely on DNA evidence as the critical element of a prosecution case. It is therefore vital that the possibility of contamination, for example, at sexual assault referral centres, is minimised as far as possible, yet the regulator’s 2016 annual report highlighted instances of DNA swabs being contaminated through unrelated case handling of different victims on the same day. Clearly, that is unacceptable.

Ensuring adherence to the regulator’s quality standards is a basic precaution, as victims and the general public rightly expect. However, the cost of testing to achieve compliance has meant that the commissioners of affected centres are unlikely to co-operate unless the regulator is empowered to require that. That inadequate incentive structure gets to the heart of why the current soft regulatory model is so weak for existing markets. The regulator’s highest aspiration is to create a competitive climate, in which underperforming or corner-cutting suppliers are unable to acquire contracts.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman also consider a problem in the digital sphere if there is no effective market for delivering services digitally? If victims of the worst crimes have their smartphone, which is so critical to many people’s lives, taken from them and it takes a long time for it to be returned, that will add to and compound that individual’s distress.

[Darren Jones]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber today, given his previous valiant efforts to try to secure a similar outcome in the previous Parliament. He makes an important point in respect of digital forensics, which, we know from the evidence reported to us in the House, has been in increasing demand, given the nature and complexity of modern crimes. There also seems to be a lack of expertise, skills and capacity to deal with that. There have been incidences reported in the media where victims have, for example, had all their data on their mobile phones downloaded at the point at which they have reported a crime. There are pretty significant questions about whether that is the right balance and approach: what the framework is around that, what happens with all that data going forward and whether that is the right approach to take. That, of course, comes to the questions around accredited standards for digital forensics.

With the market dominated by a few large players, and niche processes or specialised capabilities often, in practice, offered by a single small provider, the cost of achieving and retaining certification is frequently seen as a greater impediment to competitiveness than the ability to demonstrate the quality of their work. With the majority of affected forensic work conducted in-house, the absence of statutory regulation has meant that police forces themselves have come to the view that accreditation is a low priority for time and investment. Statutory regulation would therefore enable a path to competition on the basis of quality and encourage new providers to enter the market. Police authorities would not only be more accountable for the procurement decisions they make but better able to make the case to the Government for investment to enable funding safe, high-quality forensics.

I do not wish to present the Bill today as a panacea, but that kind of regulatory environment should be the baseline for a competitive market in services as publicly important as these. That aspiration is key, because although there is ample cause to regret that manner in which the forensic science service was shut down, the Bill seeks to improve and build on the marketised approach as it exists today, rather than seeking to turn back the clock. That is why making this change commands, in my view, such universal expert and political consensus.

In what form, then, could objections possibly be taken? I am conscious that a small minority of practitioners, for example, have previously expressed concern that a statutory regulator would mean essentially sound practices being invalidated on technicalities and leave robust prosecutions open to unfounded but seemingly credible defence challenges, but that is emphatically not a risk created by this proposed legislation. The enforcement and investigatory powers it seeks to create are not directly rooted in compliance with quality standards but justified by substantial risk that the course of justice will be prejudiced by reliance on the science conducted by these practitioners. As such, the only providers with a meaningful basis for concern are those whose work entails risk of that order. Most providers take the rules and codes of practice that govern their work, and the sense of public duty that comes with it, extremely seriously. Only a minority of bad actors have anything to fear from a system that begins with the aim of rewarding quality work done in good faith.

The same essential need for intelligent, enforceable and responsive regulation underpins the case for action to address the increasingly widespread collection, storage and use of biometric data. As I have already said today, the title of the Bill offers some clue to my initial aspirations on that front, but I take the Minister and the Government at their word that solutions are en route. They need to be, in my view, because this is an area in which it is even clearer that innovations and technology will consistently outpace the capacities of primary legislation and where current law leaves an intolerable vacuum for the abuse of new and developing biometrics.

In that context, and very briefly today, I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to the independent review of the governance of biometric data commissioned by the Ada Lovelace Institute, which I understand is due to report its conclusions next month. The findings, I suggest, would represent one of the most authoritative contributions to the debate on how we govern biometrics, and I hope Ministers will take full account of them.

The general data protection regulation defines biometric data in fairly bloodless terms as the information that results from

“processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images”.

Some of the processes we are talking about, such as fingerprinting, are well established and the limits on their use well defined, but the potential for abuse created by the speed with which technologies for processing other kinds of biometric data are advancing should make clear the need for political oversight to keep up.

Clearly, that does not begin and end with, for example, automatic facial recognition, but the worry that the technology simply is not ready for roll-out has been debated on the Floor of the House in the past.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I wish to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s strong point that technology is moving at great speed in crime, as it is in all our lives, and to draw his attention to the fact that we were the only party that stood on a manifesto commitment—it was buried in our manifesto at the general election—to create exactly the robust legal framework to which he refers. I am hopeful that we will get movement on that quite soon.

[Darren Jones]

I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. I confess that I did not notice that in his party’s manifesto, but on the basis of his confirmation to the House, I look forward to the tabling of comprehensive legislation. I can confirm to the House that, although it may not have been in our manifesto under the previous Labour party leadership, I will do my best to ensure that it is in the next one.

I believe the Minister when he says that he wants to get this right, and the Government will have a partner in me when they get around to it, but time is of the essence. I sorely hope that the Bill fires the starting gun today on a period of revitalised thinking in the Government about how to regulate technologies in the public interest. I want to be a participant in that effort.

The Bill is as evidence-driven and task-focused a piece of legislation as it could be. Putting the regulator in statute is a matter of broad political consensus. As I have said today, on a cross-party basis in both this House and the other House, and among experts in the field, the regulator and, indeed, the Minister and the Government, there is consensus that the Bill should be given its Second Reading today. It will make good on a commitment, first made by the Government in 2013, that the regulator says is necessary if it is to do its job effectively. Finally, it will create a basis of quality enforcement, on which we can build a better-functioning market, and is plainly the right thing to do. On that basis, I commend my Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

I thank my hon. Friend for his message.

Let me finish this point about the future tech. We have not really touched on the internet of things, and that global connectivity of billions and billions of devices. That might have an impact on the way the police and other services investigate a crime.

I read a simple but odd thing about how electronic doorbells can play a part in crime. Apparently—I hope no one is listening to this—burglars can observe the data usage when a doorbell is rung and an internet connection is established with the owner, who may be at work or away. The fact that the data usage rockets up tells the burglar that the person has not come to the door and that they are observing what is going on from afar, and so are not there.

[Darren Jones]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for debating the opportunities and risks of data and technology in this space, about which he is clearly very learned. I am sure he also welcomes the Minister’s comprehensive legislation on the issue. Does he agree that my Bill is—to coin a phrase—specific and limited in its scope, as it merely seeks to give enforcement rights to the regulator to accredit standards? I congratulate him on leading on the issue, but we will be able to have this debate, in which many hon. Members are clearly interested, in greater detail when the Minister brings forward his legislation.

[Chris Green]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is sometimes tempting to speculate more widely. I appreciate the focus that he wishes the debate to have, which is to some extent represented by the biometrics element having been taken out so that we can focus on the most important elements.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who made some very thoughtful remarks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green)—who is about to leave the Chamber—who earlier gave a detailed analysis of many of the key issues in the Bill. I particularly thank to the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for all his work in bringing the Bill forward.

Forensic science has changed criminal investigation across the world. It has led to countless convictions that would otherwise not have been possible. It has also helped to solve cold cases and helped the innocent to be acquitted—not to mention the thousands of hours of crime drama produced across the world that would have been significantly less interesting without forensic science. It is important that we can rely on forensic science to keep us safe and secure. The Science and Technology Committee in the other place said in its report:

“In many criminal cases forensic science evidence is pivotal. The delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of that evidence, and the trust that society has in it.”

This Bill is therefore not just about ensuring proper regulation of forensic science, but about protecting a fundamental pillar of our democracy: justice.

The dependability of evidence is essential in our criminal justice system. Jurors and indeed the wider public must be able to have confidence in the evidence put before them. Similarly, defendants and prosecutors must continue to be able to conduct fair trials. Consequently, it is very hard to argue against the Bill, as it will make the current Forensic Science Regulator a statutory appointee with statutory powers. Fundamentally, that will enable the regulator to ensure that standards are upheld in the science used in court proceedings across England and Wales. This has the support of the Government, as well as the Science and Technology Committees of both Houses. The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences also supports these statutory powers. Indeed, the Forensic Science Regulator herself, Dr Gillian Tully, has said how important it is that her office receives the powers it needs to ensure the effective delivery of justice. It is definitely time that these changes were made. To be honest, it is regrettable that they have not been achieved before now. This House now has an opportunity to act, and I welcome the support that the Bill seems to have.

It is important, however, that it should ultimately remain up to a court to make decisions on the admissibility of forensic evidence, as detailed in the explanatory notes to clause 4, and I welcome the fact that that will remain the case. Clause 2 will allow the regulator to prepare and publish the code of practice, which will then need the approval of the Secretary of State and both Houses of Parliament. That is also to be welcomed. However, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman let the House know of any discussions that he may have had with the Government or the regulator about possible timeframes for publishing the code of practice, or perhaps he has a timeframe in mind himself. I am mindful that years have passed since the first calls for this Bill were made and that Members will be anxious for the code of practice to be enforced as quickly as possible if the Bill were to be enacted. I understand that the code will be open to consultation, and I appreciate that these things take time, but an indication of the timescales would be helpful.

I also have concerns about clauses 6, 7 and 8 and the issuing of compliance and completion notices. I accept that the power would be used to maintain standards, but how will that influence court cases? For example, if a provider was issued with a compliance notice while analysing evidence or afterwards, how would that be perceived by a court or a jury?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution today and for raising these important questions. Of course, the whole reason for accreditation in the first place is to ensure that the validity of the Forensic Science Service is not brought into question as part of prosecutorial or defence-based arguments. Indeed, the hope is that, by bringing in these compliance requirements, we will move away from the current problem and make that process better.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the codes of conduct and their publication, of course I support his call for that to be done as quickly and promptly as possible. I know the Forensic Science Regulator also supports that position. Indeed, she has been in detailed conversations with my office and with the Minister’s office about the publication of the Bill. However, it is obviously for the Minister and the Home Office to conclude on that point.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that clarification. I suppose my point was more about compliance notices being issued during court proceedings and the impact that that would have. For example, would another provider then have to analyse the evidence, and could it be legitimately argued that the evidence had in some way been contaminated while under the care of the provider issued with the compliance notice? I want to make it clear that I am by no means an expert on forensic science and my concerns may be utterly unsubstantiated, but these are important points to consider during analysis of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Gentleman could give further clarification on them, not necessarily today but further down the line.

As I am acutely aware, justice is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Scotland, so this Bill of course applies only to England and Wales. However, one of the huge benefits of devolution is being able to look over the border, wherever that may be, to see what can be done better, or perhaps more importantly, what should be avoided. As a representative of the Scottish Borders, I see almost every day differences in policies either side of the Tweed, and their qualities and shortcomings, although I must point out that sometimes all nations collectively get it wrong. I am sure I do not need to remind Members of the exam results debacle over the summer, when all four Education Secretaries felt the heat from disgruntled parents and students simultaneously.

Despite the fact that justice is devolved, I would point out that the current Forensic Science Regulator plays a role across the entire United Kingdom. The Forensic Science Advisory Council, which is chaired by the regulator, has representatives from Forensic Science Northern Ireland and the Scottish Police Authority Forensic Services, which are deemed to be full partners. In written evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the regulator said that that allows for the implementation of the resulting standards in jurisdictions across the UK and that that

“will beneficially ensure the existence of UK-wide standards in forensic science.”

That is good news and means that we are all sharing best practice across all parts of this United Kingdom, ensuring that justice can be served in these islands.

I am a very firm protector and supporter of devolution, but to appease those who may not believe in common working between the nations of our United Kingdom I would happily point out that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland stated in a report in 2016 that “there is no requirement” for the decisions of the advisory council to be implemented in Scotland. I think all right hon. and hon. Members can agree that this is a great example of the nations of the UK working together for the good of all, despite powers residing in the different capital cities of our country.

Another example of the Forensic Science Regulator having a role other than in England and Wales was when it was asked to review the performance of the Scottish Police Services Authority in the case of HM Advocate v. Ross Monaghan. I do not want to go into the specific details of this report, but it is important once again to flag up how this Bill may end up having an effect, however small, across the whole United Kingdom.

I want to return to the topic of biometrics. The Bill’s full name is the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Bristol North West why there is so little about biometrics in the Bill. I understand that “Erskine May” allows private Members’ Bills to have purposes that do not relate to their titles, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member intends to amend the name of the Bill as it progresses. We will have to wait and see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

To give the hon. Gentleman a little comfort, the case that he makes will in fact be resolved by this Bill. The issue we have today is that when evidence is presented, the defence can say that it came from a provider that is not accredited compared with a provider that is accredited, because there is a lack of standardisation. The Bill, in enforcing standards, will mean that the very question being put to the jury is resolved because all providers will be accredited as opposed to some versus others.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

With the leave of the House, I thank the many hon. Members for their contributions today. We have had a substantive and in-depth debate with appropriate challenge of the Bill. I extend my thanks to Dr Gillian Tully for her support, both on the Science and Technology Committee and in the production of the Bill. I also thank the Government for their support.

All of us know that behind this Bill are individuals with issues of liberty and justice at stake. In a small way, I feel that this Bill will add real value and make a difference to these most important issues. I hope Members will support its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No.63) .

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We have been examining the laws in different countries that govern foreign agent registration. We are drawing that together into something that will be effective from a UK standpoint, learning whether that has been effective and applying that to our law as we prepare for the introduction of legislation countering espionage and hostile state activity. I look forward to continuing that discussion with him.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as the chair of the new all-party group on technology and national security and as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The remarkable insight from this report was the lack of horizon scanning, understanding, mitigation and response to modern threats in the technological frontier from hostile states. On the assumption that the Minister agrees that we need to invest in and enhance our capabilities in this technological frontier, when does he intend to come to the House with the Government’s strategy to secure our national security?

[James Brokenshire]

Members will have heard what I said in my opening statement about the various steps that have been taken, including on countering illicit finance, dealing with the potential abuse of visas and investing through our national cyber-security strategy to counter cyber being exploited against us in so many different ways. That work continues. We also continue to work with those involved in the internet and social media on our online harms legislation, which we remain committed to. That underlines the breadth of our response.

Automated Facial Recognition Surveillance

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend highlights an extremely important opportunity for us. As he quite rightly points out, many, many people go missing every year. Some people want to disappear for various reasons, but, often, young people do not want to do so. Where it is proportionate, necessary and in line with the code, the identification of missing vulnerable people, particularly young people, would certainly be an incredibly good use of the technology.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not yet had the chance to congratulate you on your new role.

In the previous Parliament, the Science and Technology Committee looked at this issue as part of the biometrics and forensics strategy review. All of the key stakeholders recognised that a biometrics strategy that was not fit for purpose and not of the quality required to provide a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology was at the root of the issue. Can the Minister confirm whether that strategy has been updated since last April?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise concerns about the framework, and I will have to get back to him on whether the strategy has been updated. I do not think that it has, but I will check and make sure. He will be pleased to know that, at the recent general election, the Conservative party manifesto did contain a commitment that, while we wanted the police to use the ever-increasing capabilities that technology was presenting to them, we wanted them to do so within a strict legal framework. We will be giving consideration over the months to come about what form that will take.