| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Jun 2009 : Column 41WH—continued
“If a positive DNA or blood or fibre match is found, the agency says, then the fee would be higher than for negative results. For example, if dozens of cigarette-ends were found at a crime scene, the police may not think it worthwhile to test them all”,
because of the cost of testing every one of, say, three dozen cigarette ends. But if the police were told that they would have a small fee to pay for a negative result but a larger fee to pay if one or two of the cigarette ends led to the conviction of the criminal involved, the services of the FSS would be more attractive.
Surely we should not be looking at a system whereby when the police and the justice system are investigating a case, they are driven to decide not whether they can catch a criminal by testing the evidence, but whether it is cheaper not to test the evidence or whether the FSS or private competitors would offer cheap rates for doing it this way or that way. The driving force should be catching criminals, not the accountant’s bottom line in a profit-and-loss ledger. It would be interesting to hear the Minister explain exactly why the Government appear so confident that taking the accountant’s cost or profit-motive approach is better for criminal justice than the current or the previous workings of the police and the FSS.
I have three explicit questions for the Minister. Can he explain why the Government are sure that just four geographical centres, after three of the seven have been closed, can cope without affecting response time, which is crucial when dealing with a crime scene? We have heard many detailed examples of that. What detailed assessment has been undertaken to justify the clear assessment that four geographical centres can cope, when previously there were six or seven?
Secondly, how will the 40 per cent. job losses—800 people—be decided? Will the jobs be those of staff who are involved in marketing, business development, account management, logistics, quality and policy, or will they be those of precisely the expert scientific staff who do what the FSS is supposed to be all about—catching criminals? Thirdly, has any evaluation been carried out of the deterrent effect on crime investigation of applying cost factors to what should be a decision to investigate based purely on evidence and the chance of catching criminals, rather than on cost?
The FSS has played an essential role in our criminal justice system. It should be above making profit and outside commercial interference. The job losses will have a large impact on the FSS’s ability to do its job. Large swathes of the country will be left without public sector service provision. The FSS has rightly played a valuable role in our criminal justice system. Any attempt to move it from the public to the private domain is likely to have a drastic impact on our criminal justice system and on public confidence in it as a whole.
12.9 pm
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) not just on securing the debate, but on the passionate, powerful way in which he highlighted the concerns of the 200 members of staff at the Forensic Science Service base at Washington Hall in his constituency, and the
concerns about the wider issues arising from the changes to the service and the proposed cuts that will, potentially, lead to the loss of 800 jobs over the next two years.
The debate is important, not only in terms of the jobs at risk, and not only because of the future of the FSS, but because of the questions that it raises about the forensic science capabilities for law enforcement to solve increasingly complex crimes, where the use of forensic data is becoming ever more essential in bringing serious crimes to justice.
As we have heard, the FSS has a proud history, tracing its roots back to the 1930s, when the use of forensics in dealing with certain types of material was in its infancy. I pay tribute to the FSS for its work in bringing crimes to justice and ensuring that serious crimes are solved. However, its position in recent years has become increasingly challenged and challenging, with its turnover slumping by £70 million, based on its last audited accounts.
The catalyst for the debate was the Minister’s written ministerial statement on 8 June 2009, and the proposed changes that underlay it, which raised more questions than it answered. Given the scale and seriousness of the proposed changes, it is incumbent on the Minister to answer the questions raised by hon. Members, including my questions about the strategic approach that is being taken. In his statement, the Minister confirmed that the FSS is embarking on a Government-backed transformation programme after six months of wranglings between the Home Office and the Treasury, which he elegantly described as “rigorous consultation”. The upshot is a reduction of 40 per cent. of the skilled work force, the closure of a number of facilities and the adoption of what is described as a new business model. As we have heard, there has been a lack of discussion and certainty surrounding the announcement.
Will the Minister provide further details of the new business model, because it is at the heart of finding out about the intentions? How will that business model deliver the same integrated service more quickly and efficiently, as was claimed in the announcement? The key issue is to find out how the ability to provide the same services will be advanced by the proposed changes. Will he confirm that there will be no diminution in the speed, quality and capabilities of forensics facilities available to police and other law enforcement agencies?
In its 2007-08 financial statement, published in January, the FSS executive chairman, Bill Griffiths, described the uncertainties faced by FSS employees, saying that
“we have maintained that we must motivate and nurture our staff, since they are in effect ‘our business.’”
The financial statements also highlight one of the key challenges in the company’s successful transformation, which is
“retaining key skills and maintaining staff morale”.
Will the Minister explain how the reorganisation proposals that he has announced help to deliver those goals and how those key skills will be maintained as a consequence of the changes that are envisaged?
In a statement to the Press Association on 8 June 2009, an unnamed Home Office official was quoted as saying:
“The forensics market is changing with increased competition, reduced business volumes and a higher cost base.”
The key is in the words “reduced business volumes”. Does the Minister agree with that analysis and, if so, is he therefore expecting cuts or other reductions in police budgets on forensics, giving rise to the expected reduced volumes? We need to understand how the market and the demand may change in the years ahead and from where the reduced business volumes will come.
The Minister’s statement on 8 June had a number of other important points wrapped up in it. He confirmed that the FSS would remain as a Government-owned company “for the foreseeable future”, but added:
“GovCo status has provided a suitable platform on which the FSS can transition to a commercially effective and robustly competitive organisation.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 22WS.]
We need to understand the Minister’s intentions. Will he confirm that it remains the Government’s intention that the FSS should eventually transfer to become a private-public partnership or some other more arm’s length vehicle, as was previously suggested?
The Minister reaffirmed his commitment to the criteria established by then Under-Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for Health, in December 2005 on the potential for transition to a public-private partnership. It should be noted that the needs of the Home Office as shareholder were to be considered as part of that requirement. In his written ministerial statement of 29 March 2006, the right hon. Gentleman clarified the matter further stating:
“As a Government-owned business, the FSS has to compete with other calls on public funds and consequently the Home Office's investment in it needs to demonstrate an appropriate risk/return profile.
In coming to the relative merits of GovCo vs PPP, the Home Office will need to consider: (i) assessment of the financial value of the FSS; (ii) the financial risks to the Home Office associated with ownership of FSS; and (iii) Home Office’s funding priorities.”
What assessment has the Minister made against those tests and what agreement has he reached with the Treasury about financial value, financial risk and Home Office funding priorities? Again, the key to all that is where the policy priorities lie and the direction of travel.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that delivery of the vision for the FSS’s business would require
“substantial investment, both in physical and human capital, development of new and existing capabilities and exercising strong implementation skills.”—[Official Report, 29 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 69-70WS.]
Will the Minister confirm how his proposals for the FSS will advance the vision outlined, which underpins the approach to the future of the FSS, and from where he expects this investment to come?
The future of the Forensic Science Service is also closely linked to the regulatory environment in which it sits. A new forensic science regulator has been appointed in the last year and a Forensic Science Advisory Council has been established. Will the Minister provide an update on the work of the regulator and the council and say how he sees those roles developing? The FSS, in its report and financial statements in January, described the developing role of the Forensic Science Regulator as a contributory factor in providing continued uncertainties
surrounding the development of the competitive forensics marketplace in the UK. Will the Minister explain why those uncertainties persist and what urgent steps he is taking to provide the necessary clarification? Will he confirm that we will not end up in some parallel situation, where in-house capabilities are built up within police services at the cost of the FSS, because we would not be creating the market that the Minister appears to want to create, which obviously underpins the direction of travel?
One of the uncertainties in the market relates to the future regulation of forensic practitioners. The regulator is currently considering proposals for a new regulatory scheme. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) said, it is ironic that the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, which the Government established as the regulatory body for those giving forensic evidence in court, was allowed to collapse nine days before the end of the consultation period. Why was support withdrawn from the CRFP at such a critical time? Will the Minister confirm reports that the regulator may take up to four years to implement the new regulatory scheme? Will he confirm that the regulation of the conduct of forensic science evidence will include the independent regulation of individuals involved in the provision of such services?
For the sake of the future of the FSS and the livelihoods of the constituents of many hon. Members who have spoken, I trust that the Minister will be able to provide answers to the real questions that linger about the Home Office’s commitment to, and vision for, the future of forensic sciences in this country now and in the years to come. It is important that those issues are put on the record today, so that all of us involved in the debate can understand better where we are going, because it is clear from the comments made that people simply do not know.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate. Let me say briefly what I will not do. First, I do not intend to say, “Not me, guv.” Secondly, I do not intend to be anything other than honest in my comments, and you would expect nothing else, Mr. Jones. Thirdly, I stand by what the Home Secretary said—that my hon. Friend and others could have expected better service when the announcement was made, but I will give the context of how it happened.
The announcement on 8 June was an attempt by the Forensic Science Service to bring Members of Parliament and others into the loop of consultation and to seek their views on management’s proposed model for the future of the FSS which has been discussed with Ministers. It was not about informing Members of Parliament or anyone else about decisions that have been made, because no decisions have been made. That is the point of the consultation exercise.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is missing the point. The media were told before Members of Parliament. Does he agree that that is not how we should do business?
Mr. Campbell:
I am trying to explain that the FSS tried to involve Members of Parliament in the consultation, and I hope not only that the comments that have been
made today will inform that debate, but that every hon. Member, whether or not they have a laboratory in their area, will take part in the consultation.
Mr. Campbell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue for a moment?
The matter has continued not for months, but for years. It would be wrong to give the impression—I am sure that my hon. Friend was not trying to do so—that the FSS’s transformation is a surprise. People might have been critical if there had been no consultation and we had moved to a decision, whether by the FSS or the Government. Phrases such as “bully boys in suits” are not only depressing, but misplaced. I want to put on the record the fact that the Government’s record in tackling crime and dealing with paedophiles, murderers and so on is second to none. The suggestion that that would be put at risk in any way, shape or form by not addressing the FSS’s needs is ludicrous. This is not about saving money. The FSS’s losses must be addressed, because they involve taxpayers’ money, but I assure my hon. Friend and others that that is far outweighed by the Government’s investment in the FSS.
In a telling and measured speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that investment has been delayed for a long time. We are trying to bring that investment forward, and the consultation is about management proposing the model that it believes is the way forward, and testing that.
Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give an undertaking that none of the management, or even the new management to be appointed, have been or will be offered equity in the Forensic Science Service should a sale or part-privatisation be made?
Mr. Campbell: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, because he made it as if the decision on privatisation were a fait accompli. His questions might be relevant in that context, but that is not what we are talking about. I shall explain where we are in the debate about the FSS’s future if he will allow me to do so.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and others referred to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman asks for and secures a debate on that, because I would be happy to respond to it. He referred to a scheme that was entirely voluntary, that never reached the targets that were set for it, and from which, in its latter days, the police pulled their funding. When members of the CRFP came to my office to talk about its future and asked for a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money, I turned them down, because that would not have been the best use of taxpayers’ money. We should be investing in, for example, the Forensic Science Service. The hon. Gentleman may ask about the regulator’s role, but he praised Andrew Rennison, the regulator, who is charged with putting a better scheme in place.
Mr. Vaizey:
I praised Andrew Rennison for engaging in discussion. I did not praise the decision to close the CRFP. Will the Minister explain whether he supports
the United Kingdom Accreditation Service’s system, which seems to have replaced it in a hand-to-mouth way?
Mr. Campbell: I suggested that the hon. Gentleman apply for an Adjournment debate so that we would have more time. That matter is not central to the issue that we are debating today.
I want to set out the background to the many issues that have been raised and to where we are today. The FSS has for many years provided a first-class service to the police and the wider criminal justice system. It is our ambition that that continues. Until 2005, it was an Executive agency of the Home Office, and had been largely the monopoly supplier of forensic services, but the reality was that other suppliers were offering competition and it became clear that that trend would continue. An independent review in 2003 warned of the consequences of that process.
A commercial market dominated by a Home Office agency was not right for the FSS in the long term, nor was it right for competitors and the police. It was not right for customers, predominantly the police service, which is responsible for obtaining best value for money from the grants provided from public funds. We took the first step towards the creation of a market by changing the FSS’s status to a Government-owned limited company or GovCo. That change affects the dynamics of the relationship between the company, whose board now has statutory and fiduciary Companies Act responsibilities, and the Home Office shareholder.
Colin Burgon: Will my hon. Friend confirm, and does this not betray where the Government are heading, that the notes to candidates state that the creation of a GovCo
“is intended as a precursor to evolution into a private sector entity”?
Mr. Campbell: I am looking into that, because it has already been raised with me. I am told that it was made absolutely clear to the chief executive when he was appointed that there is no presumption that the FSS will move to privatisation, that that policy has not altered, and that that was the basis on which he would take the job. Time has moved on since my hon. Friend’s quotation.
The company has lost 20 per cent. of its market share and, frankly, it must change. It must address its cost structure to reflect the changed market. Its current business model of linked laboratories that are distributed largely geographically is not efficient. Nor, as several hon. Members said, is the link between some laboratories and local forces always the best way forward, because the reality is that some forces do not use their local laboratory, but put their contract elsewhere. In some areas that works well, but in others it does not.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |