|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 96-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Wednesday 12 January 2005 MR ALAN KERSHAW, PROFESSOR EVELYN EBSWORTH, DR ANGELA GALLOP, MR TOM
PALMER, DR NIGEL LAW MR MIKE SPARHAM, MS HELEN
KENNY, MR JEREMY GAUTREY Evidence heard in Public Questions 144 - 289
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday 12 January 2005 Members present Dr Ian Gibson, Chairman Dr Evan Harris Dr Brian Iddon Mr Robert Key Mr Tony McWalter Dr Desmond Turner _______ _________
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Alan Kershaw, Chief Executive, and Professor Evelyn Ebsworth, Chairman, Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, Professor Jim Fraser, President, and Dr Ann Priston, Vice-President, Forensic Science Society, examined. Q144 Chairman: May I apologise profusely for being late. There is a report in which there is some dissension in the Committee - we love dissension in this Place, as you know - and, while it is not settled, we took a little longer than we thought we would have to at this stage. Thank you very, very much for coming to help us with this inquiry. I am quite sure you have been catching up with some of the issues we have been picking up on. You can tell that we are very concerned and interested in what is happening to this very worthwhile service, so we are very glad you are here. I do not know how you want to answer, but if only one of you answers it will save a lot of time. There are events happening in the House today, and we have other people to see as well. We will try to be short and sharp and perhaps you could too - that means just saying yes or no! We have had some evidence about a large number of forensic science courses not producing graduates with the skills required by employers in these particular sectors. Is that true or false? Professor Fraser: It is true. Forensic science is already a very competitive field to get into - it has been for as long as I can recall - and my understanding is that next year there will be something like 2,000 graduates produced with degrees that are notionally in forensic science. It is not employer-driven and the likelihood is that a significant proportion of them will not end up working in forensic science. Q145 Chairman: What is missing in some of the courses in terms of the basic knowledge of sciences and social science or whatever? Professor Fraser: On the basis of the SEMTA report which looked at some of the evidence - the only people to have researched it in any way - they vary greatly. Fundamentally, most employers, certainly on the laboratory side of forensic science, require a degree in science subsequently to be built on with professional skills and professional practice. The courses which are being produced vary from 100 per cent "forensic" - and I am not quite sure what that means - to something like 75 per cent science. The courses with 75 per cent science on them might well be perfectly fit for purpose, but for those with the 100 per cent forensic it is very unclear what that person's scientific skills are likely to be. Q146 Chairman: Do you think colleges and universities are taking this subject area seriously enough as part of their core activity? Professor Fraser: It looks to me as if it is driven by the HE sector. Q147 Chairman: Or is it just that a lot of people want to go to university, we have to meet targets, Amanda Burton runs a good script, and so on? What do universities think of it? Do vice-chancellors know what it is, for example? Professor Fraser: I am not sure I can speak on behalf of every university in the country but certainly from the professional side these courses are not driven by any need. Professor Ebsworth: I am quite sure that most vice-chancellors know perfectly well what these courses are but my own personal view (nothing to do with my council) is that the forensic courses ought to be built on a first degree in pure science or in some special discipline where the forensic element can be brought out. Using the label "forensic" is not a good way to teach basic science - which people moving into forensic science really ought to need. Q148 Mr McWalter: Have you not failed people by not trumpeting this? Is it not the case in respect of populist courses of this kind, which pretend to give people skills but which actually do not give them skills, that bodies like yours have a duty to the wider public to unmask these things and stop them at source? Professor Ebsworth: My council does not deal with courses. This is more a matter for the Forensic Science Society but I certainly feel that this ought to be made clearer. The great problem is that the number of people qualified in and interested in reading pure science is going down fast. It is very important that these subjects do not appear from the university curricula. Q149 Chairman: Are they under threat? Are they under threat, like chemistry at Exeter? Professor Ebsworth: Certainly. Chemistry is a key subject in this matter and that is clearly under threat in some universities. Q150 Chairman: Have you made a noise about support for chemistry, given that you have a growing subject, I guess? Professor Ebsworth: I have in a different context, of course, because I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Q151 Chairman: There are lots of them around! Professor Ebsworth: Yes. I noticed! - some very distinguished chemists, indeed. The register is focused on individuals, not on courses. I think the Forensic Science Society is in a very strong position to make these noises and I am sure it can and will and does. Professor Fraser: If I may come back to Mr McWalter's question, the society now has an accreditation programme which has gone through this. We have somewhere in the region of 20 universities interested. We have 11 who have definitely signed up and the accreditation process will be on the basis of academic practice and general science assessment by a panel of individuals. Q152 Mr McWalter: Are you going to unmask those who run courses which clearly lack the capacity to be accredited? Are you going to unmask them as effectively fraudulent? Professor Fraser: I am not sure if we would use the word "fraudulent" but we will make it plain that they cannot be accredited by the Forensic Science Society. The rights of individual HE institutions to put on individual courses is ----- Q153 Mr McWalter: Fraud is that it says this on the bottle but it does not have that inside. That is what fraud is. Professor Fraser: I accept that. There is another issue, that they may well not approach us for accreditation, and we cannot compel people to be accredited. But the serious players in this field, who want in some way to become involved in the development of forensic science, have approached the society to be accredited. Somewhere around 50 per cent of those institutions who are involved in teaching forensic science have approached the society for accreditation. Q154 Mr McWalter: You may gather that I would like you to be a bit more robust. Professor Fraser: Absolutely. Mr Kershaw: I think it is fair to say that the universities who are offering these courses would not claim to be offering them a career in forensic science, but it is very hard for an 18-year old going in not to be beguiled by the word "forensic" and to see the possibility and perhaps to waste their time at university as a result. Q155 Dr Turner: It would seem to me that forensic science lends itself to the sort of natural training structure of a basic first degree in, say, chemistry, topped off by a vocational post-graduate diploma or master's degree ----- Professor Ebsworth: Absolutely. Q156 Dr Turner: -- which would be the qualification which bodies like yours could recognise as qualifying them for registered practice. This would start to get round what seems to be happening today when kids go to university: "Look at chemistry." "Oh, no, boring" or "Too hard. Let's go and do forensic science." It is sexy but it is misleading. Professor Ebsworth: Yes. Q157 Dr Turner: It could have the double benefit of getting more people doing basic science and sorting out those who really want to do forensic science and making sure they come with the right scientific background. Professor Ebsworth: Indeed. Q158 Dr Turner: That is something you could promulgate, if you agree with it. Mr Kershaw: Yes. Our council does not have the resources to mount an inspection programme of all these courses. That would be quite beyond us. It is not part of our remit, at least in this early stage. But, if I may offer an example of the kind of thinking that is worth looking at as a model for the future: In Dundee a very distinguished forensic anthropologist, Professor Sue Black, whom you may have seen and certainly you will have heard of, is pioneering a course which is effectively a training in forensic anthropology of some ten years in total: an initial course teaching anthropology and then going on to master's and so on and then into actual practice. The ten years is not all in actual study, but, to make a competent forensic anthropologist, someone whom we would want to register, that is the kind of time scale that is maybe needed until you know someone is distinguished enough to be practising competently and so forth. Q159 Chairman: In the events of the last few weeks I notice that lots of forensic scientists have gone from this country out there. How many are we taking about? Professor Fraser: I have no idea. I am sorry. Also, the term "forensic science", when used in the press, is often used very vaguely. It is not very clear. Q160 Chairman: That is interesting. I get the impression, a mere paper-reader, that forensic science is doing the business and that this is part of the British effort. Professor Fraser: I think they are, but it is not clear exactly who is doing it and how many are doing it. Q161 Chairman: Is it worth finding out, so we can use such figures in this inquiry and so on, and show the value of it in times like this? Professor Fraser: It might well be but the approaches that have been made to the society on this issue have been on the basis of: "How can I help here?" and it has not been clear who is co-ordinating the help effort at this stage. Q162 Chairman: How do you mean? Professor Fraser: Well, we were approached after someone had approached the Home Office and the Met Police and various other government departments and agencies and they were saying, "We don't know where to go here. We don't know who is co-ordinating things, we don't know who is organising things" and so on, so it is not very clear at the moment who might provide those figures. It might well be at some later stage that those figures will be available. Q163 Chairman: It seems very relevant to this debate here. Professor Fraser: But I accept the point that it might be interesting to know who these people are and whether they are actually what we might consider to be forensic scientists. Q164 Chairman: It just gets equated with DNA testing and you and I know it is a lot more than that. Professor Ebsworth: We have started registering forensic anthropologists very much on the basis of the demand for them in dealing with some of the problems in Bosnia and the awful difficulties in identifying bodies from mass graves and so on. This is an impulse that has come through to us and to which we have responded. At least now people can find people on our register who are certified as competent to do this work. Q165 Chairman: Do you think there will be more of that? Professor Ebsworth: I think there will be. It is becoming so clear that it is vital work and a tremendous lot depends on it now. Mr Kershaw: Aside from numbers, the very fact that UK forensic scientists are at the centre of this is a measure of the regard in which forensic science from this country is held in the rest of the world. Q166 Dr Turner: It is equally important that your customers - normally police forces investigating crime - have a sufficient understanding of forensic science itself in order to make intelligent use of your services. Professor Ebsworth: Yes. Q167 Dr Turner: There is a lot of variation between the success of police forces in so doing. Who makes sure that police forces understand enough to be intelligent customers of forensic science? Who is covering this angle and educating the police and regulating their use of it? Professor Ebsworth: We work a lot with police forces. We work a lot with ACPO, who are an essential element in making sure the police are aware of what is on offer. Most police forces now have individuals who are the focus for interest and involvement in this. There are all sorts of resources; they focus their resources in different areas. We have a very mixed take-up for regulation between police forces, but as people move around from one force to another you can see how the interest in and knowledge of what goes on increases. The main vehicles are links through ACPO, and through the standards organisations and through the individual registrants who are associated with our council and the assessors, some of whom are policeman, they become aware of what is going on. In essence, it is a culture change. It is taking time but I am quite pleased with the speed at which it has gone. Remember, CRFP did not exist until June 1998. There was absolutely nothing. For the first year and a half, the only people doing it were an excellent civil servant called Jill Parry and me, so we have made quite a lot of progress in that time, and I think the extent to which the police are becoming committed to the adherence to the public definition of standards that we represent is encouraging. I am very happy with the support we have had from that. Q168 Dr Turner: Clearly there does need to be a minimum standard that can be expected. Professor Ebsworth: Yes. Q169 Dr Turner: Of all forces. I am sorry, I am asking purely because I genuinely do not have a clue about the answer, but, when the Home Office, for instance, inspects a police force, does their forensic competence form part of their inspection, do you know? Mr Kershaw: Jim has been in a police force, so he will know better than I, but certainly Her Majesty's Inspector of the Constabulary over the last five or six years have focused on this. It is part of their general inspections of forces. There have also been specific thematic inspections of the use of forensic science, and the result has shown that the take up has been patchy. Ways in which we are trying to help include the fact that when a police force is contracting out for a particular service they can know from our register that someone has been checked out in some way and assessed as competent in the field and can be dealt with if it turns out not to be so. But the driving force is probably HMIC rather than anything else. Perhaps Jim has more to say on that. Professor Fraser: The documented evidence in relation to police knowledge of forensic science, in terms of making the best use of forensic science, is consistently clear, that their knowledge needs to improve and therefore their training needs to improve. In terms of specialist elements of policing, they are generally much better served - so senior investigating officers in homicides and specialists squads are usually much better trained and much better informed - but there is a real difficulty here in how you put on the ground for the average police force the level of sophistication of some of the scientific techniques or the investigative value that is here. I think the trick is probably more about good partnerships and good liaison and good reliable advice to make sure that forensic science is exploited with sound training which obviously needs to be improved. Q170 Dr Turner: It would be useful for every force to have its own forensic advisor to whom any police officer could turn in an investigation for advice on how to proceed in the investigation with the use of forensics. Does this happen on the ground? If so, does it happen consistently? Is it a way of dealing with the issue? Professor Fraser: It does not happen consistently. There are a large number of police forces and I think - the point you made right at the outset - that there is a lot of unexplained variation. The exact reasons that does not happen, I do not think are particularly clear. There is no model for good practice, as far as I can see, in using forensic science. There is a real need, instead of everyone trying to do it their own particular way, to develop models which can be agreed as useful and good practice and they can then become benchmarks against which you test and improve. Something like that would be of considerable benefit to the effective use of forensic science across the board. Q171 Dr Turner: Would your organisation be in a position to help in the evolution and monitoring of such a good practice model? Professor Fraser: I think the Forensic Science Society would be in a position to work with other partners in developing models of good practice - particularly for the smaller suppliers, because the larger organisations would have their own stake in this but the Forensic Science Society in employer terms represents the smaller employers. We could do that and we would be very keen to do that as part of our contribution to safeguards and regulation in this field. Q172 Dr Turner: Do you think it would be a very important and useful thing to do? Professor Fraser: I do, yes. Dr Priston: Could I add ---- Q173 Chairman: Yes, Dr Priston, I was going to ask you to say something. Dr Priston: As far as I am aware, most of the major forces or all the forces should have a link into their laboratory, whichever laboratory it is. When they are carrying out any investigation they will have a close link to an advisor for that investigation, so as far as the science side of it is concerned it should not in theory be too much of a problem. Q174 Mr Key: Dr Priston, can you confirm that the Forensic Science Society requires all its reporting officers to be registered but that registration is voluntary? Dr Priston: They desire it. It is voluntary, yes. Q175 Mr Key: CFRP told us in evidence that in a free society no-one should seek to constrain the courts as to the evidence they can hear, in the context of the fact that you too have a purely voluntary arrangement. Is it not time for it to be compulsory and not voluntary? Professor Ebsworth: No, I do not think so. I do not think we can ever work on that basis because there are always going to be cases when individuals come with special expertise that will only be used once in a court. I would be very happy if all organisations employing people to give evidence regularly in courts were to insist, as employers, that people should be registered. What I hope will happen in the fullness of time is that courts will ask if someone like that is registered, and, if they are not, they will ask why not. There may be good reasons, and, if there are, fair enough. I have never seen it as feasible to insist that everyone giving expert evidence in court should be registered, partly because of the certainty that you will meet the occasional true expert, perhaps from another country, who simply cannot be expected to conform with the pattern. I want to see courts asking questions; I want to see employers insisting that people reaching a certain grade giving evidence will be on our register. Q176 Mr Key: Does the Forensic Science Society agree with that? Dr Priston: I am sure it does. Professor Fraser: Yes. Q177 Mr Key: Talking of registration, is the rate of practitioners registering speeding up or slowing down? Mr Kershaw: It is speeding up. We are now at a point where, in the mainstream specialities, where we started, close to 40 per cent of the potential take-up have taken it up already. With the police forces increasingly making it part of management policy that, for certain grades, for recruitment, for training purposes, registration would be part of someone's career progression and expected, it is becoming harder and harder for forensic staff to move between police forces if they do not have registration, so de facto it is starting to have an effect. Yes, the take up has been slow, because, as the Chairman commented earlier, it does involve quite a considerable cultural change when a professional group which has never been regulated before suddenly finds that opportunity, and if they do not actually have to then it is very slow to move. It is becoming harder to practice full time in forensic practice without registration, and I think our moves, having tested in the courts towards the end of last year, to encourage the courts to ask the question more fully, will actually drive that forward faster. Q178 Mr Key: Is it all graduate entry into the profession? Mr Kershaw: No. Professor Fraser: Fingerprint experts and scenes of crime officers who could be registered are not necessarily graduates. Q179 Mr Key: Is recruitment on the increase or decrease? You said registration is increasing. What about recruitment initially? Mr Kershaw: I cannot give you figures, but I am sure the Home office will be able to help with this. I think the numbers of full-time forensic staff in the police have been increasing, not least because of particular initiatives to increase the DNA database, and that has obviously widened the pool of people from whom we can get an application for registration. In the forensic science service I think the numbers are probably fairly stable. Dr Priston can answer that for us. Dr Priston: I cannot really answer that. I do not know the answer. I think it probably is on the increase but I do not know. Professor Fraser: In general terms the whole sector is expanding and has been expanding for the past five years or more - five to ten years - largely driven by DNA and largely driven by government funding, but my impression is that that is beginning to slow down now. Q180 Mr Key: There is not an oversupply. You are not going to find too many people coming into the profession with nothing to do. Professor Fraser: There have always been, in my experience, too many people who want into forensic science. Because it is a very small sector, typically, for a single job, you will have hundreds of applicants. Professor Ebsworth: Could I just point out that the specialities to which the register is open are increasing all the time. As we recognise new areas, for example involving digital evidence and computer crime and things of that kind, that immediately widens the pool of people who will come on to the register. I am sure it also widens the opportunities for employment. You can see how important issues connected with computer crime and mobile phones and things of that sort are becoming and how desperately important it is to define standards in these novel areas. The council is much involved in this process and we hope to open our register to some people in this context during the coming calendar year, but that is going to mean that the sector looks bigger than defined in our register anyway. Q181 Mr Key: Finally, I know that she is a pathologist but how much of this is due to Amanda Burton and Silent Witness? We have seen Time Team giving a boost to archaeology and Vets in Practice to the vets. Is this having the same impact on your profession? Professor Ebsworth: I think CSI has probably an even bigger one because you see more people doing the job. This is one of the problems: it makes it all romantic and then people without enormous qualifications go off to university and say, "I want to do this" and so the forensic courses that we were talking about earlier have a label that makes them seem - I am reminded of that marvellous remark made by Haig about Lloyd George - "always caught with a bright fly." People will gobble it up. Q182 Chairman: Do you think that is the problem with chemistry at Exeter? Professor Ebsworth: Now, I am not making any comments! I knew some excellent chemists in Exeter. Q183 Dr Harris: Before we leave this issue of registration, how usual is it for an organisation like the Forensic Science Society to be accrediting or seeking to accredit university courses and not the professional regulatory body? If we take doctors, the GMC not only credits the university undergraduate courses but also the pre-registration house officer year. The Royal Colleges/BMA - and perhaps you see yourselves as more like the Royal Colleges - are involved in postgraduate registration. I know you have said that you do individuals not courses, but I think it is a common model for you people to be accrediting the courses rather than you - that is, the registrars rather than the Forensic Science Society. Professor Fraser: I am not sure how common it is. Certainly in other professional bodies it is often the case that they will accredit individuals and organisations, but my understanding - and no doubt CRFP will comment - is that they are largely responsible for individual competence. We think - that is, ourselves and CRFP - certainly in informal discussions, that there is considerable strength in having the register of competence separate from the representation of the profession and the development of the profession. Q184 Dr Harris: I agree with that, but I am talking about the accreditation of courses leading to competence. I would like you to give an example of another profession where there is a registration scheme, where the registration people are not doing the accreditation courses that are a part and parcel of though not sufficient perhaps for registration. Mr Kershaw: There are two particular reasons why the analogy does not stand up fully. First of all, there are no courses which produce a fully fledged forensic practitioner. It is always applied and applied in actual practice. Unlike the GMC, which is registering people at the end of an undergraduate course and then pre-registration training and as a fully fledged doctor with full registration, forensic practice does not work in that way, because it is actual practice which proves your competence in the field. Secondly, we are dealing with a complete spread of professions, and we are, as it were, overlaid on a whole load of other professional arrangements anyway and it would be very easy to fall over each other. If I could carry on with the reasons, because this is starting to sound like ----- Q185 Dr Harris: No, you have satisfied me! Mr Kershaw: The GMC, of course, has statutory responsibilities over medical courses. Q186 Dr Harris: Understood. As you will one day. I would like to ask you about the issue of expert witnesses, which is very topical. To what extent is the ability of expert witnesses to appreciate the legal process and communicate forensic evidence to courts appropriately, a limitation on the effective use of forensic evidence in court? Professor Fraser: This is one of the fundamentals of forensic science that distinguishes it from, say, laboratory science or other types. Apart from understanding legal process and the ins and outs of the relevant case law, it is crucial that you can communicate it. I know, certainly from my experience, that, in the training courses which forensic scientists are involved in, they get communication in expert witness skills. I do not know, for example - and I will invite CRFP to comment with the Chairman's permission - the extent to which those expert witness skills are incorporated in the registration process. It is a fundamental aspect of forensic science that you can communicate the strengths and weaknesses of your evidence, not just carry out some kind of laboratory-based evaluation. Q187 Dr Harris: There is a problem, in that the skills are not there and that is an issue ----- Professor Fraser: I think there is a problem if you have a completely unregulated sector, but I think with the convergence of registration and professional status of the Forensic Science Society that will begin to lower the risk. I do not think you can ever completely exclude it, because the legal situation is that the courts have the right to decide who will be an expert witness and it might well be that there will be circumstances where someone will give expert evidence who is not particularly capable of communicating that. Q188 Dr Harris: So there is a problem but it might be getting better. Professor Fraser: I believe it will get better and has got consistently better. Q189 Dr Harris: To what extent are the skills in this area part of the assessment? Professor Ebsworth: You have to recognise that there are different skills involved here. There is giving oral evidence, giving evidence in person in court, and there is writing reports that become part of evidence. In the civil courts, people rarely appear in person. The assessment of written reports is a very important component of the process of judging competence to go on the register. It is much more difficult to find ways of assessing the presentation of evidence in court in person. We are anxious to develop the processes of assessment for use so as to try to bring those in. But that of course can work both ways. You can find people who are not particularly competent experts who become extremely plausible in court and can persuade people to believe things which do not stand up in detail - so one does not want to over-paint that one. But, going back to your basic question, the writing of reports is a very important component of judging whether someone should be on the register. Mr Kershaw: The thing that our assessors are looking for is the ability to communicate highly technical matters to a non-technical audience in a way that will help them to assess that as part of their overall judgment of a case. Q190 Dr Harris: After the registration process, are there schemes in the forensic science community that are working to deal with the questions and criticisms made of the poor quality of evidence or expert evidence given? Is this something that you are trying to deal with proactively? Professor Fraser: I think this is something that the forensic profession has faced for the past few decades or more. We are continually attempting to train people and respond to what are quite complex legal situations. The training has consistently improved in past years - and, again, without repeating myself too much, with registration and professional membership, that is likely to continue to improve the circumstances. But I think the situation will always be there. Q191 Dr Harris: There is one thing I cannot understand. In the miscarriages of justice cases that there have been in respect of alleged sudden infant death versus homicide is there a case that there should have been more focus on why the defence side did not bring its own expert witnesses or that the lawyers were not trained to point out the flaws in the expert evidence or that the judge was not able to direct at an early stage and intervene and say, "Hold on a sec"? Because everyone is blaming the expert witness, who is presumably, arguably, doing an honest job the best they can, and nothing has been said about the job of lawyers and defence experts. Dr Priston: I think that is absolutely right. I think there is tremendous lacking in training for lawyers at all levels - barristers and judges as well. I think any expert, whether it is a forensic scientist or medical examiner or whoever, is very constrained by the legal system and sometimes it is very difficult for them. Q192 Chairman: What would happen if that did happen, if they were all trained and up to the mark and they said, "I am not sure that band there is evidence in itself, blah, blah ..."? Suppose they were too clever by half. Dr Priston: We would not want them to become their own experts, would we? But we want from them an understanding of what is involved and an appreciation ----- Professor Ebsworth: There were quite a lot of experts called in at least one of these cases, I seem to remember. Was it not 33? It was an enormous number. It becomes quite hard to know exactly who is doing what to whom. If I may take a specific point: my vice-chairman Judge Anthony Thorpe has been involved in discussion with people from the forensic community and with people from the law to try to find a satisfactory way of making formal statements about DNA evidence in court that will stand up to the appropriate levels of scrutiny necessary both in the first court and in the Court of Appeal. I think they have made a lot of progress and it is something that I believe the council has catalysed. It is very important to get these statements clear and clearly understood by the legal profession and accepted by the scientific profession. Q193 Dr Harris: We talk about the legal profession, and there is a particular role, is there not, for judges? Professor Ebsworth: Yes, indeed. Q194 Dr Harris: You can talk about judges and juries, but it is very hard to train jurors, and judges can direct. We have been talking about barristers and lawyers, but should there be something for judges and should there be judges with specialisms dealing with these sorts of cases? Dr Priston: I do not think judges need to have particular specialisms but I do think they should have training, and I think training should be part of a lawyer's training right at the very outset, from pupil barrister upwards. Because judges are just - and I am not being rude - promoted barristers, if their training is at a fundamental level it will live with them. Q195 Dr Harris: And are judges saying, "Yes, please, we agree. We recognise the shortcomings"? Dr Priston: The judges love it. The judges have a very strict timetable and so it is difficult to get the judges, but I have run some courses in London for the circuit judges of all the London courts and some of the judges of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court, one day courses, and it is hard to get them to come but, when they do come, they love it and they all say, "We had no idea of the detail." Q196 Dr Harris: Should we be recommending that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (as the Lord Chancellor's Department now is) should be ensuring that judges are free to attend? Dr Priston: Yes. Q197 Dr Harris: And, indeed, arguably recommending it as far as they can? Dr Priston: Absolutely. Yes. Q198 Dr Harris: Do you think the defence is getting a fair hearing in respect of (a) a shortage of good expert witnesses to whom they have access, and (b) a sufficiency of forensic experts who are independent of the Forensic Science Society because of the relatively small non Forensic Science Society sector? Professor Fraser: I do not think that is the main issue. There is sufficient private sector provision for most areas to cover this. I think the barrier is often ignorance or time pressures or issues around legal aid provision. I think the fundamental barrier is around a lack of knowledge of the importance or significance of the scientific evidence in the first place. There are plenty of people from whom you can get advice. Q199 Dr Harris: You gave us written evidence on this point. Professor Ebsworth: We hope our register will make it much easier for anybody involved in the legal process, defence lawyers or whatever, to find people who can do a competent job for them, and I believe the Legal Services Commission is looking very positively at finding financial resources where experts are clearly properly qualified. Q200 Dr Harris: In your opinion - to quote a question you ask in your evidence - does the defence get as good a service as the prosecution. Professor Ebsworth: I think it has access to as good a service as the prosecution. I think now experts are able and willing to stand as much for the one side as the other. The determination of how good the service really is will depend on resources and not the ability of defence counsel. Q201 Dr Harris: Is that a yes or a no? Professor Ebsworth: The answer is yes, but under certain provisos. Q202 Dr Harris: You would agree. Professor Fraser: Yes. Mr Kershaw: If I may add, the Legal Services Commission have a proposal out for consultation at the moment where legal aid would be paid more readily in the case of a defence case bringing forward a registered expert rather than ... They could use someone who is not on the register but they would have more steps to go through in order to demonstrate the case. In other words, they are trying to use the register as a form of quality control, partly to make sure the legal aid budget is effectively spent, but I think the useful spin-off for the defence there is that they will have access to information about people who have at least been tested in some way and who could be complained about and dealt with if things went wrong. This has never existed before. Q203 Dr Iddon: I want to turn briefly to novel technologies and research and development. In some areas, for example testing chemicals, particularly pharmaceuticals, on animals, there is a long validation process, and there is a body set up, ECVAM, in Ispra, Italy, which takes years to validate those processes. Do you have any similar validation methods for new technologies? Professor Ebsworth: As far as registration is concerned, which is what we deal with, the answer is yes. Because we are at the moment in the process of setting up the appropriate definitions of standards, which is what I think we are really talking about, for the whole area of digital evidence, which struck as very important. There is an enormous number of people working in this area. Standards are not defined. We have worked with leading groups there and are in the process of defining these standards. This kind of activity is going to spread to all sorts of other new technologies and I think it is an important role that the council can play. Q204 Dr Iddon: Who decides and at what stage do you decide that the evidence available from the new technology, following analysis of the results, can be accepted by the courts? Professor Ebsworth: The courts will of course decide ultimately, but our council will set up working groups with people working from the areas but, so to speak, managed by us, working against the standards which are defined by the council - these are broad standards - and if what emerges from the work of these groups appears to meet the standards to which the council's overall functions are defined then we will run pilot studies and if those are effective then we will move towards opening the register. Q205 Dr Iddon: Is it made clear in the courts that the evidence to be presented is arising from the new technology with all that that implies? Professor Ebsworth: I cannot answer for that because I have not been present, but I have seen one or two prosecutions involving computer crime collapse because it is quite clear that the protocols did not quite work out properly. So I think the answer is yes. But it is going to become increasingly important in a whole range of cases, ranging from child pornography to terrorism, where the significance of mobile phone records, for example, becomes absolutely central to the prosecution, so I think it is desperately important to get on with this. Dr Priston: May I say that I think new techniques are subjected to the same sort of testing as experts; that is, that they are tested by cross-examination and the defence will produce their own experts and challenge, and that is the way that the techniques are introduced when they are robust enough. Mr Kershaw: In terms of science more broadly, one at least of the research councils - and I think the society refers to this in its evidence - is showing some interest in the forensic sector. Certainly it is not an area which has attracted a great deal of public funding for research purposes in the past, where the evidence you see almost every day for potential difficulties in the courts is producing pressure which is causing great scrutiny to be given to these things. But it must be a problem for the courts when a novel technique is introduced by someone who sounds plausible: if that is not effectively shot down in cross-examination, then miscarriages could occur. Q206 Dr Iddon: How can the courts assess the competency of a practitioner who is taking evidence from emerging technology to the courts? Mr Kershaw: That is difficult. If it is a speciality we are not yet registering because it has not reached a stage of maturity where we want to give it that seal of approval, then I think the court has to draw its own conclusions from that fact and accept it is moving in a new area and, I am afraid, get the best advice it can. Dr Priston: Quite often the courts will not accept evidence if it is that new that there is no peer challenge. They will not accept it; the judge will rule that that cannot go before the jury. Professor Fraser: I disagree to some extent with my colleagues. I do not think the provision of new technology should be driven exclusively by the professional sector. I think it is important, given the circumstances we were talking about earlier, where we may have serious miscarriages of justice because of scientific evidence or because of methodology or technology, that people from outside the professional sector need to be engaged. So I would like to see a much broader model that engaged the legal profession and other stakeholders in the decisions in using novel technology. The question facing the legal system is: Do we use this in the interests of justice now? The risk is that some time down the road - five, ten, 15 or 20 years - we will find out that there is a flaw in the technology. I think we need to buy into that decision by a very wide range of parties. I do not think that is here at the moment. Q207 Dr Iddon: My concern is that there may be only one person who is developing emerging technology, they go to court and give evidence for the prosecution, and there is no competent person to give evidence for the defence. How often does that happen? Dr Priston: I suspect that would not be allowed. In my experience, an expert with no possibility of a challenge who was presented by the prosecution was not accepted by the court. Q208 Dr Iddon: At what stage will the courts accept this kind of evidence if there are very few people involved in the field? It must have been true of DNA. Professor Ebsworth: It was, yes. But DNA is not all that old, of course: Alec Jeffreys discovered this not 20 years ago, so that is a very new development. In some areas it is not a problem of a lack of people, it is that there are too many people without defined standards. I think that could well apply in aspects of computer crime nowadays: there are stacks of people working in the area but no-one quite knows what they say means. That is why I think it is extremely important that standards are properly defined. I do not disagree with Jim. I think it has to be looked at by people who are not necessarily involved in the forensic side but in the science of it as well. Things have to be as right as they possibly can. On the other hand, you have to use what is there - as long as you can use it fairly. Q209 Chairman: Our last question concerns this issue of privatisation, as you might have expected. We read the papers today and we hear all the burbling and so on that is going on. Well, we are hardened politicians and it takes a lot to convince us that things are home and dry, so we are going to go ahead and ask you questions about the PPP and what you think about it and the views of your organisation. We know that the interpretation of forensic evidence is very contextual sensitive - various things come in and it has to fit in with all the other types of evidence and so on - so how would that be affected if part of it was coming from the private sector, however it was formed, and part of it from the way it is now, the public sector? Do you think that would bias it in any way? Do you think that would make it messy? Professor Fraser: From the perspective of the Forensic Science Society we do not have a position on privatisation. We already have lots of members who work in private forensic science so we do not see any fundamental issue around it. There has not been any great representation from the membership of the society in relation to this issue. Q210 Chairman: That does not mean they do not care. Professor Fraser: That does not mean they do not care - that is why I modified the end of that sentence there before I completed it. But, given that there is already a private market there, given that we have growing registration and a growing professional body, our response would be that you need growing registration in the market, growing approved accreditation and on-going vigilance really, to ensure that the courts get the standard of expert they require. Q211 Chairman: How would your organisations fit into that regulatory process, however it was set up? Professor Fraser: We would fit in in a number of areas. We would fit in, for example, in the accreditation of university courses, so that we have people coming through with the appropriate education. We provide qualifications; by professional membership, which is on the basis of clear evidence and a fairly rigorous process; by continued professional development; and by probably growing formal links with CRFP in terms of managing or regulating the sector. Q212 Chairman: What kind of powers would the regulator have to have? Would it be a hands-off, nice little cosy regulator, or would it be sharp and nasty? Professor Fraser: I think we are talking about a network of registration here rather than an individual regulatory body, so I will maybe hand over to Alan when it comes to the issues about ----- Q213 Chairman: I want to hear how complicated it might become. Professor Fraser: It is difficult to say, to be honest. I do not really know, but certainly you would need to have a pretty robust and fairly clear disciplinary process. The test of the regulation, the test of the quality of the professional body will be in their willingness to cut out the bad wood basically, and we are prepared to do that. Mr Kershaw: CRFP has no responsibilities in relation to how the service is organised and delivered and therefore we have no comment on the question of privatisation. I think it is fair to say our council will work with whatever organisations are working in the field to ensure that standards are right. The point is that it is the matter of who gives evidence in court, who is competent to do that and how to deal with them if they are not, which is our concern rather than the organisations themselves. It is not the organisations which go to court; it is the individuals who do. That is our concern. I would endorse entirely what Jim ways about network of regulation. This is not something, especially with 50-odd professions working in this field, which a body can come along and do to those professions. It has to work in partnership with the representative and the standard-setting bodies and that is why we are keen to work so closely ------ Q214 Chairman: In an area of human activity where you have so many individual regulation processes going on in how to work together, what is your paradigm? Mr Kershaw: I think we would want to make sure we are not having several bodies trying to discipline the same person. Q215 Chairman: There is a tendency to have too many of them. Mr Kershaw: We certainly would not want that. We are a small and not particularly well resourced organisation. We do not want to take on more than we need in order to do the job properly, but, so long as we can regulate individuals but there are systems in place for assessing new technologies and so on, and provided there are ways of accrediting a university course which is overdue, then I think the system will work well. Q216 Mr McWalter: But one of the ways in which private companies can sometimes get a very strong hold on the market is by having cheaper people available to them, particularly if they are turning out thousands of people who characterise themselves as graduates in forensic science. If I was going to run one of those rather sharp practice companies, I would start employing them and then arguing belligerently that the old establishment was not tuned to modern ways and that in fact these services could be provided a great deal more cheaply by my forensic science graduates rather than your accredited ones and those people are quite likely to be the only people that many private individuals could afford to represent them in court. We all know, as MPs, that our constituents often do not get justice because they cannot afford justice, so I think there is a market here for a really downgraded forensic science if the private sector gets very sharp about its act. I do think you might need to consider that in addition to that regulatory framework you are going to have to be more aggressive about those who say they are forensic scientists but who are not. It is no good just saying, "We have accredited these people and we are going to be dumb about those people over there." Those people over there are the people who, according to yourselves and the evidence you have given us, threaten your standards and, indeed, threaten the livelihood of real forensic scientists. Professor Fraser: Absolutely. Answering part of your question, the test is against the agreed standards, so whoever comes along from private practice has to meet those agreed standards, and I accept there is a possibility that if they get such a critical mass they could begin to influence them, but we still have this issue where the final arbiter will be the courts. So we cannot confirm ----- Q217 Mr McWalter: We all know there is a little bit of a loophole in here as well because sometimes agreed standards are really difficult. Whether it is cot death or brittle bone diseases, there are issues here about actually what the experts think at all. Professor Fraser: Yes. Q218 Mr McWalter: And you can rubbish the expert just as quickly as the person who knows nothing at all about bones and that also is a toe-hold for a company that is trying to say, "We are going into this market and we are much cheaper than those people over there who are the old school. Professor Ebsworth: One of the things you have to recognise, and I am sure you do, is that being a highly competent scientist does not mean you will agree with another highly competent scientist. There has to be room for difference of view, even between properly accredited experts. I hope the courts will see that someone who is on our register has been through a test of competence which will stand up and which is against objective standards. Someone who has not will have to prove themselves and have to prove themselves by showing that they can meet the same standards. There is no room in the court for cut-price evidence. I am sure no court would stand for that if the evidence itself was therefore undervalued and under-valid. It may be possible to produce services more cheaply, but, in the end, if they do not stand up under proper examination to the standards of quality determined by the needs of justice, I do not think they will be a threat. Q219 Mr McWalter: But you yourselves have said that sometimes people can sound very plausible and actually not have the scientific knowledge to back that up. Professor Ebsworth: Yes. Q220 Mr McWalter: And judges and other people do not know enough science to be able to distinguish that someone is in fact not competent. There are these dangers here which come directly from privatising the service, because we know how privatisation can drive down standards because people will provide a cheaper product than is available in the sort of gold standard system that you are advocating. Professor Ebsworth: That is certainly true, but not all failings of this kind come from private organisations. There is no defence fundamentally against failings in evidence. All I can say to that is that the system already has a lot of quality private companies, private organisations working in it; there are some that are perhaps less good. I believe that the process of registration is already making a difference there in sustaining the good and discouraging the less good. I hope it will continue to do so. Q221 Dr Iddon: The General Medical Council often discipline doctors and even strike them off their registers. Could I ask both of your organisations how often this happens in your case. Professor Ebsworth: It is a bit early to ask us because we the register has only been open for four years. But we have how many disciplinary cases running at the moment? Mr Kershaw: We have two running at the moment. Those are our first two and we are finding our way and learning as we go. It is a matter of people's consciousness of the ability to complain. But there is a major drive this year to make the register better known within the courts and elsewhere to people who Commission services, so we would expect more. I can say that the practitioners concerned are putting up a pretty robust defence and it shows the value they place on being registered. Professor Ebsworth: But it has always been an essential component of our system from the beginning that someone who breaks the rules in a serious way should be removed from the register. Q222 Dr Iddon: Does the Forensic Science Society have disciplinary procedures? Professor Fraser: We can claim to be even younger in some respects that CRFP. Only in November last year did the Forensic Science Society change from being a learned society to a professional body. Up until then pretty much anyone who was interested in forensic science could join it, whereas now there would be hurdles to get across. But we will have a strong discipline code and we will effectively kick in at those who fail to meet the standard determined. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We will be watching this arena in the press and talking to comrades in the Home Office, ministers and others, about what is happening in this arena because it is a very topical issue and it concerns many MPs as it obviously does you too. Thank you very much for taking part.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Dr Angela Gallop, Chief Executive, and Mr Tom Palmer, Managing Director, Forensic Alliance, Dr Nigel Law, Director of Group Operations, and Mr Richard Treble, Forensic Quality Manager, LGC, examined. Q223 Chairman: You have been sitting in on the session before, so you know about our inquiry, what we are interested in and why we are doing it. We are proceeding with the questions to begin with of the privatisation and how it might affect your business, for example, if it happened. Who knows. However you want to answer this - perhaps all of you could dig in at the beginning and get into the mood. Dr Law: I do not mind referring to LGC's position on this. We think, with the market as it is, with an 85 per cent market share player, the important thing is how the market is regulated such that there is a level playing field for all concerned. Whether the body is within the public sector or the private sector I think is less important than just the way that body is allowed to compete in the market place, because anyone with that level of market share has opportunities to distort the market to the disadvantage of the customers. One of the objectives, as I understand it, of the PPP is to try to attract further investment money into forensic science and that of course can be within the context of the Forensic Science Service itself but it can also be within the context of the private sector companies that are participating in this market. In order to have the confidence to invest significant amounts of money, two things have to be clear. The first is that the market will become available (that is, that the work that is currently with the Forensic Science Service in the main will be tendered) and the second is that that tendering process will itself be fair. Providing those things happen, then I think the development of the market to the advantage of the police forces will continue. Q224 Chairman: Do you do things that they do not do or do they do things you do not do? Dr Law: We have research and development projects that are unique to LGC for sure, but many of the services that we provide day in and day out will be similar services to those provided by the other players in the market. Q225 Chairman: How many companies are we talking about here in the private sector? Dr Law: I would say there are three principal players: the Forensic Science Society, the Forensic Alliance and ourselves, although there are other participants in the market also. Q226 Chairman: Do you compete? Of course you do. Dr Law: Absolutely. We are rivals. Q227 Chairman: How do you compete with each other? Fairly nicely or what? How does it work? Dr Law: Actively, I think is the right word. I think the playing field, if I may describe it as such, has developed such that three key elements determine where the work goes. One is whether or not good value is being provided. One is the speed with which the results are returned to the customer. The other is the overall level of service that encompasses the forensic offering. I think the way that the market unfolds, whether the forensic science service is public or private, each of the players I think will get as much of the market as they deserve ultimately in their ability to do well in each of those areas. Q228 Chairman: Do you think they should be privatised? Dr Law: I think there are benefits in privatising it because the regulation of such a market becomes that much simpler and clearer when you have private organisations competing for the work. Q229 Chairman: Are they successful in delivering the service that hitherto has been delivered or would it be an improvement? Dr Law: I think it would be an improvement because, as I say, if there is an objective to attract investment money into the market, confidence on the part of all the players there that the market is being controlled in a fair way is easier to achieve when the parties are in the private sector. It is less important than effective regulation of the market; it is just that regulation of that market can be more straightforward when the participants are private sector players. Q230 Chairman: Let's see if we can bring someone else in. Dr Gallop: For Forensic Alliance, I would like to underscore the principle that the playing field should be level because it has been quite difficult entering into this market. Forensic Alliance was established in 1997 and it was really established for professional and not commercial reasons. I think, had we taken a commercial view, we never, ever would have done it. It was to provide a more responsive service and more to provide a supportive and science-focused environment for scientists. They were really the drivers behind Forensic Alliance. It is absolutely right that if the playing field was more level it would be more attractive commercially, and then the market would open up more effectively than it has to date. Mr Palmer: The market has become rather more sophisticated, certainly in the last two years. The customers are getting more intelligent; the use of tendering has made quite a difference to the market place. I think the Forensic Science Society, along with us, have had to be more commercial and our promises to the police through a tender process have encouraged competition. That is going to carry on whatever the nature of the Forensic Science Society. I think the key thing is that we will need to maintain the quality of the science; we will not be able to go down the "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" route. We must keep that policy up; if not, the criminal justice system will suffer. The Forensic Science Society, along with us, will need to keep the standards of the science high so that we can provide a service that the police and the courts deserve. But I do not think really in the end it matters too much what the animal looks like, as long as it behaves properly. Mr Treble: The only point I would add to that is that the police, as customers, are becoming more aware of their role as a customer, and they can be more challenging in the requirements they place upon their suppliers by having a number of suppliers in the field. In addition to expanding the capacity that is available for their use, it means that they can take advantage of some of the benefits that have already been alluded to in terms of the overall service provision, particularly in terms of timeliness and the way the service is provided, with the standards of quality taken as a given, that have to be there before anybody can be a credible supplier in this market. Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed for that. Q231 Dr Turner: You are obviously in agreement that there needs to be a regulator. Could I ask you your feelings on (a) whether you think it is important for the regulator to be independent and (b) what powers they should have. Dr Law: There are two elements to a regulator's role. I think you need two sets of regulation. The first one would refer to standards within the sector to ensure that these need to be maintained at the highest possible level. I do not think any of the participants currently involved in the market would say anything other than that. The role of the regulator in that sense could be strengthened further. The way that needs to happen is further independence. It just does not work having the regulation of those aspects of forensic science within the hands of one of the providers - i.e., the major provider, the Forensic Science Service. That aspect of regulation has to be seen to be organisationally, geographically and emotionally independent if it is to be effective. The second area of regulation is the bit that was alluded to in the opening remarks which is to do with the level playing field and commercial aspects of how the market runs. This is more difficult because I do not think the size of the market warrants a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I would not advocate a very expensive body being set up to oversee, monitor and regulate the market. It is possible to contemplate something perhaps within the Home Office or something within the DTI where they are charged with overseeing what is going on in this market place to ensure that its future development is properly encouraged. Q232 Dr Turner: Dr Law, you have argued that large contracts should be split between suppliers which would be a nice, cosy arrangement if you manage to get them. Dr Law: Yes, or rather no. Q233 Dr Turner: What criteria would you advocate for making these decisions? Why do you suggest it is better than a private company taking the line one would expect, which is to let market forces do it? Dr Law: Market forces do do it. The experience we have is that the competition is most intense when you are looking over your shoulder at your competitor on the same account. It has big advantages for the constabularies as well because, first of all, with that proximity in terms of service provision, everyone's standards are elevated. Turn round times would be shorter with that level of competition, day in, day out. Also, if there are any difficulties in the service provision of one of the providers, it is more straightforward for the constabulary to ensure that the delivery of forensic services is not compromised because providing a sophisticated contract is set up it is possible to switch the work from one supplier to another if one, for whatever reason, is under-performing. Far from being a cosy arrangement, we find that the constabularies who operate this - the Metropolitan Police would be the most obvious example - make the competition even more intense. Q234 Dr Turner: As separate, private companies operating in the sector, what constraints do you find on information sharing between different forensic science providers? Are you able to share data with other providers where necessary without any hindrance? Dr Law: There are areas where data is shared on an open basis but others where it is not. We find our ability to participate in certain aspects of forensic science is compromised where particular pieces of intellectual property, where something is developed in one area and is not available broadly, are an issue. The way that the market develops to make such things available on a broader scale is quite an important matter. There are precedents for this. There are ways of doing it. For instance, licensing of intellectual property rights would be a typical way that industries find ways of disseminating to the public's benefit advances made in a particular organisation. Dr Gallop: Forensic science is slightly different from the LGC because it is very broadly focused. It covers the whole gamut of forensic science expertise. We find ourselves fairly frequently working with forensic science service scientists, particularly on individual cases where there is a very free and easy exchange of information and data because, after all, we are all interested in the same outcome: that the case is solved one way or another. We do not have those difficulties at that sort of level. Q235 Dr Turner: The principal objection is where intellectual property rights become involved. Can you think of examples where it has impeded the progress of investigation of cases? Dr Law: There are examples of this. One would be to do with familial searches of the national DNA database where the intellectual property resides with the Forensic Science Service and for others to participate in that is really very difficult. Q236 Chairman: Can you say something about regulation? Mr Palmer: In terms of the regulation, first of all, you can regulate by trying to get CRFPs for scientists. Probably as important is being able to control and monitor laboratories. It is not just the scientists; you can do accreditation of laboratories and that is another key way to prevent cowboys coming into the market and to make sure that there is a regular check on the quality of science that is provided. Going back to the sharing of information, we have had problems with the Forensic Science Service being the custodian of databases and we are very strongly in favour of that being moved to a separate controlling body, preferably kept in the public sector. For example, in firearms, we have been restricted from using the firearms database in terms of entering data onto the database and getting it back from it. There has been a problem in terms of data being shared. Q237 Dr Turner: That clearly is not a desirable situation so, provided a mechanism for paying a licence fee or whatever to get around any IPR considerations is put in place, is there any further reason to suspect that there may be difficulties in information sharing? Mr Treble: The example that has been developed with the national DNA database where there is one central database and a number of suppliers - certainly there are three major suppliers -- feeding information into that for the benefit of the police forces has worked exceedingly well and forms a model for what could be used in other areas where we all accept that intelligence is an increasingly important part of the work of forensic scientists in working with the investigation phase of the police's work as well as taking the cases through the court. If we have common standards for intelligence so the information is being supplied by a number of suppliers and the information resulting from that is fed on to the police forces, it can only be for the benefit of the justice system. Q238 Dr Harris: Which of your two companies is the "UK's leading private sector supplier of forensic services"? Dr Law: I think we would both say yes but you are alluding to the submission I made. I can tell you the basis on which it was made. We were looking at the last published accounts and the various forensic activities that we were involved in. Of course we provide forensic services to the police forces but we also provide them to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In our capacity as the government chemist, which is a statutory role, we also find ourselves represented in court in a referee function. It was a comparison of our relative size at the point at which published accounts data was available. Q239 Dr Harris: Does the other expert witness agree with that? Mr Palmer: No. The range of services that we provide is certainly wider and I would suggest that the volume of work that we do is greater as well. Q240 Dr Harris: You say that you are one of only two providers of full forensic services in England and Wales, the other one being the Forensic Science Service. I do not want this to be seen at this point as pejorative but you do cherry pick because there are some things that you do not do, are there not? Dr Gallop: Right from the very start, the one thing we decided we would not do is cherry pick. Although it was extremely complicated, very difficult and extraordinarily expensive, when we set up the Forensic Alliance we had the five main aspects of service provision that we need: forensic biology, chemistry, drugs, toxicology and DNA. We are the only company that has ever done that. We went right across the board, right from the very start. To that we have added more specialist areas like, for example, firearms. We have introduced a whole new discipline into forensic science. There is the discipline of forensic ecology which includes areas such as pedology, which is soil, entomology, which is insects, palenology, which is pollen grain and diatoms. We have introduced that as a new area so I think we can hardly be said to be cherry picking. The other thing we did was to say to the forces, "Give us whatever kind of work you like. You can either give us certain specific sorts of cases or you can give us geographic areas" so confident were we that we would be able to cope with anything that they cared to throw at us. That was right from the start. Q241 Dr Harris: What do you say to an independent body like the Royal Society of Chemistry who do not have an axe to grind, who say, "Currently the FSS is obliged to accept all incoming case work while other (private sector) providers can and do 'cherry pick'. By comparison this leaves the FSS vulnerable to criticism for taking longer or costing more for the more difficult work while being denied the commercial advantage of the high throughput routine work." Dr Gallop: I suppose that is correct. Private companies could come and cherry pick but we certainly never have. Dr Law: The LGC does not provide the full range of services. The last thing we would wish that to be described as is cherry picking. If you take the report from the National Audit Office on the performance of the Forensic Science Service, it was highly critical of the turn round times to return work to the police forces. Q242 Chairman: If it became private with more private companies, they are bound to cherry pick, are they not? Dr Law: No. I disagree. In terms of our participation in the market therefore, we have gone to areas where there have been problems and made quite a dramatic improvement in such areas. In terms of the rate at which we unfold our portfolio of services and add to that, that is done in consultation with the constabularies in terms of meeting whatever needs they have. As time has gone on, additional services have been provided so that we now do not have the full spectrum of services but we have a very broad spectrum of services. Q243 Dr Harris: Angela, I do not why you are so defensive about this because if I am your shareholder I would say, "Cherry pick. Specialise. Do what you are good at. Corner the market. Give us a return on our investment. That is why you are in the private sector. Behave like a private sector organisation." Dr Gallop: Our shareholders have been extremely happy with our performance. We have done extremely well and I am glad to say it has never, ever been an issue. Q244 Chairman: Do you trust your shareholders? Many chief executives do not now. Dr Gallop: We are quite content with ours. Q245 Dr Harris: On the issue of education and training, you have criticised the quality of forensic science degrees. What action have you taken? I understand there are degrees in forensic science and music at the South Bank University. There is another one at Anglia Polytechnic University, which is different from Cambridge. There is one on media studies and another one on theology. What have you done to complain about this because this is ridiculous, is it not? Dr Gallop: Absolutely. I preceded Jim as president of the Forensic Science Society and I worked very hard in setting up this university accreditation scheme. I personally have talked to employers' groups and university lecturers' groups about this very fact. There seems to be a difficulty here because the government on the one hand is exhorting the universities to fill seats, to get more and more people through their doors, and the only way it can do that is by putting on courses that are attractive to them. Forensic science at the moment is a very attractive option because of all the television programmes you were alluding to earlier. That is why universities are sticking the words "forensic science" onto almost anything and that is proving to be an excellent way of doing it. Q246 Mr McWalter: The attraction is it is a nice title but all the hard bits are removed. Would that be fair? Dr Gallop: Yes. The huge danger is that so much time is spent on teaching pseudo forensic science that all the basic, pure science that you need to operate as a really good forensic scientist is missing. Mr Palmer: The most effective way we have found to protest is not to recruit people on pseudo forensic science courses. Dr Law: You have picked some graphic examples there. I do not think we should rubbish all these courses. There are some very good people that come forward from some of them. We are concerned at the reduction in pure chemists and other scientific disciplines that are available. The model that we tend to prefer is the one that Dr Turner was alluding to earlier, where it is very good if someone has the basic analytical and scientific discipline on a pure course that is then enhanced with perhaps an MSc to learn forensic practice above and beyond that. We also have perhaps a greater need than most organisations for the pure sciences because we are broad based in the scientific services that we provide. On the one hand, we do forensic science but with the National Measurement Institute we do a lot of work in food safety, BSE testing, sheep scrapie genotyping as well, and a lot of work for pharmaceutical companies. All those disciplines tend to benefit from someone with a higher level of pure scientific skills. Q247 Dr Harris: The worrying thing is that the APU announced last November that it would cease to offer its chemistry provision except perhaps to support its forensic science degrees. We are very concerned about the loss of chemistry departments. What would you be saying on behalf of UK industry if you had the Higher Education Minister or the Education Secretary for ten minutes in a corner? Dr Law: Something has to be done to prevent the continuing flow in this way. If that requires support for the traditional skills in one form or another, I would recommend that that be put in place. I know that individual universities have their budgets to meet and that is one of the reasons why they are making these decisions, but I think there is a risk that they are short term decisions. In the longer run when there are too many forensic scientists who find themselves perhaps unable to find suitable employment because of over-supply, maybe even those courses will start to come under pressure. I think a longer term view needs to be taken from the various academic institutes and government to ensure that the traditional disciplines are not lost. Q248 Dr Harris: What training do you offer the police and other key players in the criminal justice system in the use and interpretation of forensic evidence? Do you see this as a way of getting a profit as well as providing an important service, or do you see it as a drain and something you have to do? Dr Law: The way that we try to ensure that our prospects in the sector are made to best advantage is to provide our police customers with what they need. I know it is a well worn term but the partnership approach is the one that we think works best. We find some constabularies would very much benefit from us providing training services, and we do, and others where they do not see that need. It is to do with having an effective dialogue with each of your customers to ensure you are providing what they require. Q249 Mr McWalter: You will have heard from my line of questioning to the last panel that I am very interested in the use of market forces in this sector but not necessarily whether it is private or not because we just heard about how universities will down trade standards repeatedly to get paying customers in, to get their bottom line right. They are in the public sector but they are in a market. It started off as a very regulated market and slowly those regulations all were pulled away. The concerns that we have are about privatisation and how those markets evolve because at the moment it seems to me you are saying you are almost indistinguishable from the FSS in the sense of your aspirations, your commitments to quality and your happiness at strong regulation; but a private market will allow sharp forensics. They will end up being able to cherry pick if you do not. They will end up, for instance, doing things like recruitment from overseas of cheaper people. FAL do that, do they not? Dr Gallop: Yes. Q250 Mr McWalter: Far from worrying about the resources here, you are perfectly happy to do that. Is that because they are higher quality or is there a shortage of UK scientists or is it cheaper than training them yourself? Dr Gallop: It is for a number of reasons really. It is partly because there is a shortage of UK scientists but it is also very much to enrich the scientific culture in this country because scientists coming from overseas bring with them a slightly different mix of skills and experience. This is absolutely brilliant. We have introduced some new techniques and reintroduced old techniques, interestingly, with a rather more modern cast to them that have been tremendously effective in solving some of our recent cases. It is a really good thing to do, not always comfortable in a laboratory because every scientist thinks they do things best so there are some very heated discussions about things but, at the end of the day, I think we end up with a very good model for developing best practice. Q251 Mr McWalter: We have heard there are hundreds of applicants for each place. Then you give it to somebody from overseas. That does a fat lot of good for consolidating the expertise we have in this country. Dr Gallop: It is a mix. We recruit an enormous number of graduates and put them through basic training courses, training them from scratch, but at the same time ---- Q252 Mr McWalter: 25 per cent? Dr Gallop: Yes. Probably slightly more than that now. You have to keep a balance between experienced forensic scientists and new recruits. Otherwise you have too much youth and inexperience. Q253 Mr McWalter: We have heard how important it is to have overseas people. Why do you not have them? Dr Law: We do. I would echo Angela's words. Q254 Mr McWalter: A much smaller proportion? Dr Law: I do not know. Q255 Mr McWalter: 25 per cent plus? Dr Law: Maybe it is a little less than that but certainly we have an active recruitment programme for overseas candidates. You made a point regarding a sort of cheap and cheerful potential in this market place but there are two major things that will mitigate against that. The first is that any reputable organisation's reputation is the most priceless thing they have. If that in some way becomes sullied and tarnished by having a down beat, down grade service, where the quality is in some way compromised, that would not stand them in good stead for the medium to long term. Laboratories have to be accredited to meet certain standards. If one were to drive down those standards in an attempt to foolhardily reduce costs, you would lose your accreditation and you would not be able to participate. Q256 Mr McWalter: Is there anything special about the forensic science market which is different from, say, the broadcasting market where you start up with all sorts of guarantees about quality and end up with Big Brother? Dr Law: Providing there are these effective controls, appropriate opportunities to reduce costs will be sought. That will be to the benefit of the police customers because it will mean that the same or a better service is being delivered at lower prices. Q257 Mr McWalter: In broadcasting, we had and still have a big public sector, quality driven organisation which sets a tone for that market which, as I have indicated, is now being attenuated. That is what has happened at the moment in forensic science. We are worried that the erosion of the FSS could have the effect of pushing the market down in that way and you would be faced with new challenges which compromise on quality would be a solution to. Dr Law: Maybe there are a couple of other things that will mitigate against that fear. The constabularies are now becoming increasingly sophisticated in the way that they tender their work and the scrutiny of organisations coming forward to respond to that tender is now pretty intense. As part of that process, the quality of the service will be a principal part. Q258 Mr McWalter: Chief constables are now experts in chemistry, are they? Dr Law: I do not think chief constables need to be experts in chemistry. Our experience is that the forces have some fairly sophisticated people in charge of these areas. Q259 Dr Iddon: How much does each of your organisations invest in R&D based on turnover? Mr Palmer: Three per cent for us. Dr Law: If you take the LGC as a whole, I mentioned earlier there is a broad spectrum of analytical services. It would be about 12 per cent. Some of that is contracted; some is not totally funded. If we take the forensic area, it includes both capital and operational expense and this year that would be running at about 15 per cent. Mr Palmer: Could I add a small warning? I know the FSS were saying they invested 12 per cent in R&D. If you look at their accounts, they invested about 2.6 million last year and that is 1.8 per cent of their total revenue so I am not quite sure where their 12 per cent came from. Our three per cent compares with their 1.8 per cent. Q260 Dr Iddon: If the FSS became a PPP, do you see that figure changing? Yes or no? Dr Law: There is advantage to be had in a market that can benefit from rapidly moving technologies, for organisations to develop technologies that will be to the benefit of the police forces and the public. Since those opportunities are prevalent and commonplace, I would not anticipate a reduction in R&D spend but you may even argue there could be an increase. Mr Palmer: I am not too sure because the FSS have certainly benefited from public funds to help their R&D. Most of ours is privately sourced. We have to find it ourselves so I think there would be a reduction if the FSS became a PPP. Q261 Dr Iddon: Does any of your R&D percentage go externally - for example, to universities? Mr Palmer: Yes, it certainly does. Q262 Dr Iddon: Do you invest any money in blue sky research, which is long term rather than short term? Mr Palmer: Yes. Q263 Dr Iddon: Finally, how many scientific papers do you publish or have you published? Dr Gallop: I would have to give you a written answer on that. Dr Law: Several. Q264 Dr Iddon: Is it a policy of your organisations to allow your scientists to publish? Dr Law: Absolutely. Dr Gallop: Absolutely. Q265 Chairman: You do not have an assessment of them in terms of their work and the number of papers they publish? Dr Law: We do not have that as such but to make sure that they are not inhibited by getting on with the next piece of work we find space in their budgets in order for the individuals to publish. Dr Gallop: We insist that all the work they do is written up. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and money. Chairman: Thank you very much for that information which was novel and new to us and very helpful in our inquiry. Thank you for coming and taking time to give us your professionalism.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Mike Sparham, Negotiations Officer, and Ms Helen Kenny, Prospect FSS Branch Secretary, Prospect; Mr Jeremy Gautrey, Negotiations Officer, and Mr Alan Organ, PCS FSS Branch Secretary, PCS, examined. Chairman: You are very welcome. Thank you very much for coming. You heard some of the questioning and the areas that we are interested in and your views are very important. Q266 Mr Key: Could I start by asking if you all accept that there is a need for the Forensic Science Service to increase its commercial awareness and customer focus? Mr Gautrey: We all accept that any organisation needs to improve standards. We believe the Forensic Science Service is the market world leader in the provision of forensic science service. The FSS as an organisation does not cherry pick. It provides a full range of forensic science services and does not turn any work away. The private sector organisations in the forensic market can turn that work away and have turned work away where they do not have the capacity. The FSS as a public sector organisation takes on all work and provides the customer with a full range of forensic services all the time. Q267 Mr Key: Does Prospect share that view? Mr Sparham: Yes. Q268 Mr Key: Do you have any other comment that you would like to add? Mr Sparham: We do see this argument about a market being developed as somewhat unreal. There is very limited demand for forensic science work, mostly from police forces, Customs and Excise and law enforcement agencies. The potential for growing the market therefore is very limited. Q269 Mr Key: Do you think that the FSS is constrained by its trading fund and really should have more access to external finance? Mr Sparham: We think it is constrained by general government constraints regarding the public sector borrowing requirement. That would apply whether it was a trading fund or just an ordinary government department. There are somewhat bizarre rules in the Treasury regarding what counts against the public sector borrowing requirement and what does not. There is no doubt that is a constraint. When the decision was announced to privatise the Forensic Science Service one of the man reasons given at the time was the need to raise £30 million of investment. Q270 Chairman: Do you believe that figure or was it drawn out of a hat? Ms Kenny: I do not think Prospect would deny that there is a need for investment in the Forensic Science Service but we do not know where they got the figure from. Q271 Mr Key: How do you think that would change once you become a government company and would it change again if you then become a full PPP? Mr Organ: I would argue that even if the Forensic Science Service became a private company, because it would still be primarily a public service provider, it would still be governed by much the same rules, particularly procurement rules, the same as it is now. Q272 Mr Key: Do you think that in principle increased competition between providers of forensic services could benefit the criminal justice system? Mr Sparham: No. It could well be detrimental because a lot of the work that is currently done in the Forensic Science Service relies on cooperation and team work. This was very much announced in the M25 Silver Acres case last year when the Forensic Science Service said that a lot of the work done on that relies on the different laboratories cooperating together and drawing the links that existed, that showed that apparently different cases were done by the same person. The more you get competition, you are less likely to get cooperation and sharing of information between different providers. Mr Gautrey: If the FSS was put into the private sector, there would be an organisation to make a profit and it would be very reluctant to share information with its competitors and would probably take an aggressive stance to get rid of any competitors in the market. Q273 Dr Iddon: Can you tell us why FSS staff mind whether their employer is a trading company or a PPP, because both would operate in a businesslike way and the jobs they would be doing would be essentially the same. Ms Kenny: The objection that most staff have - I use the word "objection" rather than "concern" - that has been communicated to the trade unions is the objection to carrying out this work for profit. At the moment, we carry it out as a public service. We do not carry it out to make money for shareholders. The staff have a lot of concerns around that, on how the work would change, whether they would be required to use more lucrative techniques to maximise the profit, but their objective is around the profit motive. Mr Gautrey: People working in the Forensic Science Service have chosen to work with the Forensic Science Service. They have an alternative. They can go and work for a private sector but they have chosen to work for the public sector which delivers FSS on a not for profit basis. The majority of our members object to the FSS being privatised because they believe they do their work as public servants and they want to continue as public servants. Q274 Mr McWalter: Is it not reasonable for chief constables quite often to place these contracts with the private sector because they seem to get faster turn around times, for instance, so maybe your desire to work in the public sector is partly because it is a cosy existence in which no one hassles you too much; whereas in the private sector if you do not get the job done quickly they will sling you out and get someone else. Ms Kenny: Forensic scientists working at the bench in the Forensic Science Service would dispute that they do not get hassle from their customers. The difficulty is that we are under resourced. We cannot turn work away. We take everything and it leads to backlogs. Q275 Mr McWalter: Would a recommendation that you would want this Committee to make be that the staffing levels in the FSS are looked at with a view to being significantly increased, if proper turn around times are to be achieved? Ms Kenny: I am not sure that simply recruiting staff is the answer, partly because it is all about demand. You cannot predict demand levels. Some things take longer as well and just throwing people at it is probably not going to help. Mr Gautrey: Part of the reason why sometimes there are delays is because the FSS cannot cherry pick. It has to undertake the full range of duties. It does not turn work away. The private sector competitors can do that. They can control their turn around times to a certain extent, whereas the FSS cannot. Q276 Mr McWalter: It has been said that if the FSS became a PPP that would damage public confidence in forensic science services. What evidence have you for that? Mr Sparham: If we can go back a stage, it starts from the assumption that as a PPP it would be private sector classified and dominant in the market. In that way, we would argue that it would therefore act in the same way as any private sector monopoly company would act. It would want to maximise its returns for shareholders and look at ways of doing that. One of the ways it would do that would be to increase the level of charges to a level that the market would bear and the police force would be willing to pay. That, we believe, would lead to a reduction in the number of referrals. Q277 Mr McWalter: The main force of your service is to provide evidence for the courts and justice is the ultimate outcome. What you have just said is not associated with that side of the business, is it? Mr Sparham: Yes. If the police forces decide that the charges have become too high - they already do to some extent decide what evidence to submit and what not to submit - it would not be long until a vital piece of evidence was not submitted for analysis which should have been. I do not know how you can ever prove that but we believe it is a risk. Q278 Mr McWalter: That is a better answer. Mr Organ: What we have here is an artificially produced market place that essentially profits from crime. That is what the FSS staff mostly have against this. They look at providing a service rather than making a profit. Q279 Mr McWalter: Can you tell us what your alternative model for developing the FSS as an independent, publicly owned corporation would be instead of a PPP? Mr Sparham: We believe an independent, publicly owned corporation which would still be in the public sector but would be released from the public sector borrowing requirement rules would be a much better model. It would be able to operate on a not for profit basis. It would have stakeholders who would be on a body of governance which could include staff representatives. We believe it would meet the government's requirements but without introducing the profit motive into forensic science. Mr Gautrey: A key point would be that the government would set a charter about the standards that the FSS would be working towards and the board would be responsible for delivering that charter. The government would receive reports on the progress of that throughout its term. Dr Turner: You must take some degree of satisfaction from the Home Office's statement yesterday that the immediate future of the FSS is as a GovCo. Chairman: Do you believe that? Q280 Dr Turner: That of course does not preclude at some point in the future its transmogrification into a PPP. Either way, do you think that either as a GovCo or as a PPP there will be any question of forensic material being restricted for the purposes of criminal investigation? What crucial differences do you see between the two states and how do you think that, whichever state you are faced with in the long term, you can maintain public confidence that there will be no barriers to forensic investigation to bring criminals to book? Mr Sparham: We do welcome the government's statement of yesterday. A GovCo is not that far removed from the IPOC model that we were suggesting. It does not have the same governance issues but it is a wholly owned government company and it remains in the public sector. Our concern about the statement yesterday is that it was said that this was a transitional measure and that further consideration would be given to changes in the future, although not for at least two years. We are not sure that the PPP has disappeared entirely. We believe it has not but certainly it is a better option than what we would be faced with. The difference between a GovCo and a PPP is simply in the question of ownership. A GovCo is wholly owned by government. In a PPP, the majority of shareholders are in the private sector and it is the ownership that we believe would mean a difference in the way in which the organisation behaves. Q281 Dr Harris: I read what the Home Office said. Do you think there is any real change here in respect of what the government statement was yesterday and what they have always said, which was that they would go to a GovCo, assess that and then go to a PPP? Are they just trying to keep you happy until May? Mr Sparham: I am not sure that keeping us happy is the primary aim. Mr Gautrey: There is a change. It is not an absolutely massive change because they did originally say they would go to a GovCo before a PPP. The emphasis is that it will be given an opportunity to work as a GovCo before moving to a PPP and that is quite different from what they originally said. It is going to be like a stepping stone. You could put different slants on it. It is probably not as far as we would like them to go. Q282 Dr Harris: This will be a transitional structure. I do not think personally that you could be clearer than that. I do not know what the difference is between a transitional structure and a stepping stone. I am suggesting you are looking for something here that is not here and you may even have been - I will not say "deceived" -- but perhaps spun. Mr Sparham: There is always spin in these things. The letter we received from the Minister which is the same effectively as what was in the Minister's statement does not refer to a PPP, so we do see a difference in emphasis. She does say that access to private sector capital and partnership is likely to be critical for longer term needs but the final decision to move forward will be determined in the light of the FSS performance as a GovCo. There is therefore no final decision yet. She tells us that there is no irrevocable decision to be taken for at least two years and the future form and direction will depend on agreement of key stakeholders. There is a pulling back from the very broad announcement that the previous Home Secretary made that we are going to PPP. This letter does not say we are. It clearly does not say we are not either but it is a change in emphasis. Ms Kenny: Members are slightly reassured by the stepping back that we have seen but they do hold exactly the same concerns that you do, that this is simply an attempt to quieten our protests against privatisation and not a real, genuine turn round. Q283 Dr Harris: Do you think you are a key stakeholder, referred to here, with a lock or are you a stakeholder where the government is encouraged if the unions are against it because it shows they can get the centre ground? Mr Sparham: We do not know. We have replied to the Minister and asked precisely that question. We have had meetings with the Minister. Dr Harris: Feel free to share the reply with us. Q284 Dr Turner: I am inclined to think that memories of the air traffic control saga may also have been a factor in this. Whichever structure you are going to end up with, there is clearly a need for regulation of the forensic science market because it is still going to be a forensic science market whatever the structure of the Forensic Science Service is. What are your views on the nature of the regulators and their powers? Mr Sparham: One of the things we have been very critical of is the lack in the government's previous proposals of any effective regulation. We believe there is a need for a regulator in two areas. If it was to become a PPP, we believe there would be a need for some form of economic regulation because it would be such a huge player in the market that the case for an economic regulator to oversee prices or profit or those kinds of things would be required. The other issue is standards. Ms Kenny: All our members feel very strongly about standards. We heard from the CRFP earlier. They are not going to regulate the providers. They are simply going to regulate the individuals. It is a minimum standard of competence. I have concerns. Every time we have raised this, the Home Office have referred to the CRFP as a possible regulator. Unless their role changes significantly, I do not think they would be the best people to do that and they do not think they are. Mr Gautrey: The FSS deals with highly sensitive investigations: crime, terrorism and internal police investigations. FSS staff are all security cleared. The prospect of a wholly privatised forensic market would potentially mean that there would be no checks in terms of who is undertaking some of these highly sensitive investigations. Currently, you could argue that there are people working in the private sector or forensic market that are not security cleared. The reality is that a lot of people who work in the private sector companies have already been security cleared because they worked for the Forensic Science Service previously, apart from that small, overseas contingent that you referred to, which would be a concern in some of the highly sensitive investigations that are undertaken by the FSS. Dr Iddon: When the previous witnesses were in front of us, they challenged your figure of 12 per cent investment in R&D based on turnover. Q285 Chairman: Is it your figure? Mr Sparham: I think it was in the FSS evidence. Q286 Dr Iddon: The figure of 1.8 per cent was mentioned. Are you able to challenge that? Mr Sparham: I do not think we gave a figure. Ms Kenny: There is a target to invest 11 per cent of turnover set by the Home Office. Q287 Dr Iddon: The figure of 1.8 per cent was mentioned this morning, based upon FSS turnover and accounts. I wonder if you could look at that figure which the previous witnesses gave us and agree or disagree with it? Mr Organ: Obviously that is a question for the FSS itself to answer. A substantial amount of the FSS's profit or return every year goes back to the Treasury and goes back into the system; whereas if we become a company I guess that would go to our shareholders. Q288 Chairman: Helen, you work in the service at grass roots level. What is it like in there? Do people turn over quickly? Are they demoralised? Everybody is always demoralised but would you like your son or daughter to go into the service? Does it feel as if it has a future? I know you are doing a worthwhile job and you all believe that but what do you feel about the future? Are people wary about it? Ms Kenny: There is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of staff thinking, "If I am going to have to work in the private sector I might as well join one of the competitors." Competitors are recruiting quite aggressively at times. As staff members, everybody is firmly committed to the criminal justice system. The difficulties that we are experiencing are around the uncertainty and the amount of work. It never seems to change. We feel like we have been operating in an uncertain environment since the McFarland Review was announced. Q289 Dr Iddon: You told us in your memorandum that the government would bail the FSS out if the PPP failed financially. Does that not mean there is a guaranteed future for the FSS in any case? Ms Kenny: Our belief is that the government could not allow the FSS to fail but it is not a stated fact. I believe there will always be work for forensic scientists but whether that work will be within the public sector or the private sector, within the FSS or one of the competitors or even somebody who has not entered the market yet is impossible to say. Mr Organ: I represent the non-scientific staff. We have already been through, about a year ago, a restructuring process to gear up for this. We suffered from some redundancies so that has undermined staff and they are very worried about their jobs and the future. Chairman: Obviously that has been a very important contribution because you are the people who do the essential work. I guess everybody in the country thanks you for the work that you do. We want to make sure the service continues, whatever the arguments might be over the economics and politics and so on. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and give your views to us, face to face. |