Select Committee on Public Accounts Fourth Report


Conclusions and recommendations

1.  In the four years since we last reported on the Agency, its timeliness performance has been disappointing, with the target for turnaround times missed in each successive year. The Agency should optimise the use and efficiency of its seven laboratories, exploiting its new operational management system and the removal of the Metropolitan Police Service's requirement that all its evidence should be dealt with at the London laboratory.

2.  Currently DNA samples found at crime scenes wait 14 days for analysis, yet the analysis itself takes just 36 hours or less. The Agency intends to fully automate this process in the next three years. The analysis of DNA from suspects has been automated and the current turnaround time for such samples is just 3.5 days. The Agency should be in a position to demonstrate similar results through the automation of crime scene sample analysis.

3.  A customer satisfaction survey by the Agency in 2002 indicated that one of the three top areas for concern was its failure to notify the police of delays in completing forensic analysis. The Agency must inform the police and the courts if an agreed delivery date is going to be missed to avoid, for example, the re-scheduling of court cases.

4.  The Agency does not receive regular feedback on the outcome of the cases in which it has been involved. The Agency should work with its partners in the criminal justice system—in particular the police and the courts—to learn the outcome of specific investigations and prosecutions. It should use this information to focus its resources on identifying any areas of weakness on meeting the needs of its customers case by case.

5.  The Agency should develop a better understanding of the training needs of its customers and tailor its training more accurately to meet their requirements. As well as surveying course delegates, the Agency should for example analyse over time the evidence handling performance of those police forces which have and have not received training. With more relevant training in place, the Agency should encourage greater take up by police forces. It should, in particular, encourage all police Scene of Crime Officers to attend.

6.  The Agency should publicise the impact of partnership projects with individual police forces across all forces and explore the feasibility of further initiatives. Projects such as the Burglary Reduction Initiative in Leeds and Safer Homes in the West Midlands have resulted in significant increases in criminal prosecutions and guilty verdicts, and reduced crime across the regions.

7.  In considering plans for the future status of the Agency, the Home Office should obtain clear and robust analysis of the merits of different options, including the financial costs and benefits. In the event of public-private partnership status, the Home Office should specify how it will manage risks emanating from the separation of the forensic science service from the rest of the criminal justice system.

8.  There will need to be adequate safeguards to protect the security and integrity of the National DNA Database, whatever form the Agency's future status takes. Access to and use of this sensitive information on over two million individuals needs to be carefully controlled. As the Home Office develops its plans for the Agency, it should identify and manage risks to the database including improper use of the data, for example for commercial purposes.

9.  The Agency's timeliness targets have changed significantly between 2001-02 and 2002-03, and again between 2002-03 and 2003-04. These changes make it difficult for the on-going performance of the Agency to be assessed with any degree of certainty. The Agency should agree targets with the Home Office which are measurable and consistent over time.

10.  The Agency presented the Committee with performance data which differed from that shown in the C&AG's Report. Departments must ensure that, where they wish to present new evidence to the Committee, they have provided this information to the C&AG in advance of the hearing, with sufficient time to assess its significance and validity. The C&AG can then advise the Committee in good time for the hearing.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 27 January 2004