Implications of GovCo/PPP
126. The FSS told us in its written memorandum that,
in 2003-04, it invested 12% of turnover (£18 million) on
development and business processes.[295]
However, the amount spent on scientific research was equivalent
to only 2% of turnover (£2.6 million); the remaining 10%
was spent on other product and service development activities,
the DNA automation strategy and information services strategy
development.[296] Forensic
Alliance, by comparison, invests approximately 3% of revenue on
self-funded R&D.[297]
However, Prospect and PCS noted in their memorandum that whilst
"FSS staff have authored or been co-authors of 84 scientific
papers" between 2000 and 2004, which "have been cited
a total of 300 times", Forensic Alliance has in the same
period "published only 6 scientific papers, only one of which
has been cited and then only once".[298]
127. There is no consensus on how PPP is likely to
affect the amount or quality of R&D conducted by the FSS.
Prospect and PCS trade unions told us: "As a trading fund
the FSS has targets set with respect to investment in research
and development [
] As a private sector company the FSS will
no longer need to comply with these targets".[299]
The Royal Society of Edinburgh was also of the view that R&D
would be likely to suffer if the FSS became a PPP: "Investment
in R&D by the FSS is likely to fall if more emphasis is put
on purely commercial issues, and R&D can be a significant
drain on the resources of a commercial enterprise in the short
term. Any fall in R&D investment could be detrimental, but
this may only come to light in 5 years or more".[300]
However, the Home Office asserted that, as a result of Trading
Fund status, the FSS "risks being left behind in the introduction
and deployment of new technology".[301]
The Home Office also commented that "the nature of the procurement
procedures which the FSS is obliged to follow" as a Trading
Fund "not only cause delays in research projects but also
expose in the process matters of a business confidential nature
which the FSS would rather not disclose".[302]
It is not possible to predict
with any certainty the impact that development as GovCo and possibly
as a PPP will have on the amount of R&D undertaken by the
FSS. We are concerned that this impact could be negative. Should
there be any significant fall in the percentage of R&D conducted
by the FSS, the Government may need to introduce incentives to
stimulate R&D in this sector.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
128. ACPO suggested that "the police service
has been slow to see the potential cost implications arising from
the ownership of Intellectual Property Rights" and told us
that there was "a strong argument for government to retain
ownership of IPR currently owned, under government auspices, by
the FSS, or at least make provision during the PPP process, for
it to be freely available to Criminal Justice agencies",
despite the effect that this could have on the sale value of the
FSS.[303] When the
majority of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was developed
as a PPP, subsequently known as QinetiQ, most of the IPR generated
within those parts of the Agency that were transferred to QinetiQ
became QinetiQ's property. However, the Ministry of Defence retains
the right to use this IPR free of charge for defence purposes
and a procedure was put in place that compels QinetiQ to seek
clearance from the Ministry of Defence for any proposal that would
entail exploitation of sensitive technology.[304]
129. The Home Office told us that at present IPR
developed within the FSS is held by the Crown. In view of the
decision to develop the FSS as a GovCo, the Home Office said that
the FSS management, the police and police authorities would be
consulted regarding the future IPR arrangements, the objective
being "to ensure an appropriate balance between public policy
objectives, VFM [value for money] for the Police and the successful
development of GovCo".[305]
The IPR that has been developed
within the FSS must remain freely available to the police once
the FSS becomes a GovCo and potentially a PPP.
270 Home Office, Police Science and Technology Strategy
2004-09, May 2004 Back
271
As above. Back
272
As above. Back
273
As above. Back
274
Ev 207 Back
275
Ev 204 Back
276
Q 602 Back
277
Home Office, Police Science and Technology Strategy 2004-09,
May 2004 Back
278
As above. Back
279
As above. Back
280
Ev 157 Back
281
Q 382 Back
282
e.g. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Eleventh
Report of Session 2003-04, Research Assessment Exercise: a
re-assessment, HC 586 Back
283
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Cross-EPSRCActivities/CrimePreventionAndDetectionTechnologies/default.htm
Back
284
Q 368 Back
285
Q 368 Back
286
Ev 213 Back
287
Q 369 Back
288
Jim Giles, Crime prevention: The lab arm of the law, Nature
422: 13-14, 6 March 2003 Back
289
Ev 145 Back
290
Ev 202 Back
291
Q 603 Back
292
Ev 131 Back
293
Science & Crime, Report of a seminar organised jointly
by the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and
the Institute of Biology, 10 June 2004 Back
294
Q 423 Back
295
Ev 175 Back
296
Ev 175 Back
297
Ev 118 Back
298
Ev 123 Back
299
Ev 123 Back
300
Ev 136 Back
301
Ev 99 Back
302
Ev 101 Back
303
Ev 131 Back
304
HC Deb, 14 December 2004, col 1030W Back
305
Ev 158 Back