Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by Professor Peter Gill (FSS 19)

Declaration of Interest

I am a forensic scientist with 30 years’ experience. I joined the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 1982. I began research into DNA in 1985, and was the first forensic scientist to collaborate closely with Sir Alec Jeffreys. After a period of Home Office supported research, in the same year we jointly published the first demonstration of the forensic application of DNA profiling. In 1987 I was given an award under the civil service inventor’s scheme for my discovery of the preferential sperm DNA extraction and the development of associated forensic tests. I was subsequently responsible for developing/introducing most of the fundamental tests used in current modern DNA analysis, including STR multiplexes and the methodologies that are used by the National DNA database. I was employed as Principal Research Scientist at the Forensic Science Service (FSS). This is the highest scientific grade within the FSS. I left in 2008 moving to Strathclyde University. I have now transferred to a new position as Professor of Forensic Genetics, Oslo University, Norway (although I retain a secondary (minor) affiliation with Strathclyde University).

I have published more than 140 papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature; the majority were published under FSS auspices. My papers have been cited in publications by other scientists more than 4,600 times over a 20 year period: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/C-3056-2009. These papers were published primarily with ex-colleagues at the FSS and form the backbone of forensic genetics in the UK and worldwide. I currently specialise in forensic genetics, statistics, interpretation of DNA evidence, and development of novel quality assurance methods. I actively work to promote the support the development of open-source software. I provide and develop training initiatives for forensic scientists.

I have been involved with a number of high profile cases, including R v Hoey (Omagh bombing). Currently I am a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and chair of the ‘methods, analysis and interpretation sub-section’. I briefly chaired the national UK DNA technical working group before the regulator’s position was formalised. I am a member of the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) and the international society of forensic genetics (ISFG) where I regularly chair the DNA commission and run international workshops on statistics and interpretation of evidence. In 2010 I was international research fellow of ESR, New Zealand, and presented a paper to a meeting of MPs. (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/celebrating-20-years-dna-forensics-new-zealand).

The International community of Forensic scientists – organisational links

1) Forensic scientists are part of an international group of scientists with very strong collaborative links. Within Europe, the primary organisation that brings scientists together is the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) http://www.enfsi.eu/. For DNA profiling evidence there is an additional (older) group – the European DNA profiling group (EDNAP) http://www.isfg.org/EDNAP which exists under the auspices of the major academic body, the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) http://www.isfg.org/ . There are strong links with counterpart organisations in the US and Australia/New Zealand jurisdictions. Because forensic science is an unusual discipline that embraces many divergent areas, there are also strong links with universities engaged in fundamental research, lawyers, and other public and commercial bodies.

2) This review is focussed on DNA profiling evidence. DNA profiling is undoubtedly the most advanced field of the forensic sciences, and widely regarded as a model for other disciplines.

3) With the sole exception of England and Wales, representation at international meetings of ENFSI/EDNAP is via public bodies, generally either government body or police laboratories for the former, including university labs for the latter.

4) At ENFSI, England and Wales are the only countries represented by two private companies (currently FSS and LGC). Scotland is represented by Strathclyde University (for historical reasons), and the Scottish Forensic laboratories (SPSA).

5) Forensic science is dominated by public sector organisations throughout the EU and beyond. This has led to a special working relationship between the EU laboratories, with an unrivalled working ethos of trust and collaboration between laboratories. The purpose is to collaborate and to share information in order to progress our field for public (not for commercial) benefit.

6) The UK research councils (EPSRC and BBSRC) do not support forensic science programmes. It has also proven extremely difficult to obtain funding via EU programmes e.g. FP7, after several unsuccessful attempts by members of the ENFSI/EDNAP/ISFG groups.

7) Since the FSS became a trading fund, there has been gradual erosion of the ‘research for public benefit ethos’ within the organisation, in favour of strong support of the commercial ethos by FSS management. This is a natural result of the (inviable) directive to privatise to the FSS.

Historical

8) Over the space of 20 years, a relatively small team of dedicated scientists (in the 1980-2000) was able to develop all of the methods used in current casework. This included the first demonstration of the principle that DNA profiling could be used in casework, the development of extraction methods to isolate sperm; the first mass screen in 1987 (Colin Pitchfork) [1] ; the first demonstration of STRs in casework; the first use of multiplexes in casework.

9) As a prime example, in the early 1990s the FSS was approached by the Russian Federation in order to analyse the remains of the Romanov family [2] . This was only possible because the FSS was one of the very few laboratories in the world that was capable of carrying out the necessary work. The Romanov example combined the use of mitochondrial analysis with the earliest examples of short tandem repeats (STRs) and demonstrated the immense power of DNA profiling on ancient remains. Subsequent work disproved the claim of Anna Anderson to be Anastasia [3] . This work was of fundamental importance since it led directly to development of the tools: multiplexed STRs that were used in the first national DNA database in the world.

10) These developments had international significance. This is the legacy that international colleagues appreciate. But this state of affairs existed ten years ago. Since then, the FSS has undergone many changes that make it unrecognisable as the institution that formerly existed.

11) Since 2005, the research output at the FSS has been in progressive decline. The current ‘research’ is mainly ‘for-profit’; disclosure is strictly regulated by FSS management and is selective. There is a conflict of interest between ENFSI membership and the ‘marketing opportunity’ ethos of a commercial organisation.

12) UK forensic science finds itself at a cross-road. The decisions to be made by government over the next year will be crucial to providing the road map for the next decade and beyond. At stake is public confidence in the criminal justice system itself including its (inseparable) component parts (especially the NDNAD).

13) The complexity of forensic science is underestimated. It is unrealistic to suppose that the necessary infrastructure can be supplied solely by private companies. It is also unrealistic to suppose that the existing accredition systems are sufficient within the UK environment. Much support is required. The following discussion is intended to provide prime examples why a cohesive public research capability is required in the UK in order to keep pace with a highly dynamic (changing) environment.

The Prüm treaty, the development of new European (ESS) markers and the National DNA database (NDNAD)

14) The Prum treaty was agreed in 2005 [4] . The stated purpose is: ‘to step up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration’ by ‘facilitation of international DNA-profile enquiries through direct access to national DNA-databases to assist in crime investigation and identification of suspects’.

15) A previous House of Commons Select Committee on forensic science [5] noted: ‘The police currently record 10 DNA markers per individual in order to generate a profile for the NDNAD. Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys asserted that this was insufficient, arguing that the number of markers collected should be raised to 15 or 16.’

16) Indeed, these recommendations were quickly adopted by the ENFSI DNA group in recognition that more and better standards were needed to facilitate Prüm. A number of new European loci were investigated and recommended [6] . I mplementation of this EU policy has been largely unfunded and poorly supported. Hence progress has been slow.

17) The existing SGM multiplex used to compile the existing c.4m samples on the current UK national DNA database (NDNAD) is now ‘out-of-date’. New markers developed in consultation with ENFSI, now supplied by Applied Biosystems and Promega Corp., are superior both in discriminating potential and in their effectiveness to provide results from highly degraded (compromised) stain material. Ten years is a long time in science. In the interim, not only has the discriminating power improved in line with ENFSI recommendations, but new buffer-systems are available that actually increase the chance of success of getting a result from a case (e.g. by reducing the effect of inhibition). Whereas many EU states plan to introduce the new ESS markers into casework over the coming year in line with an EU council recommendation [7] , there appears to be no coherent strategy within the UK to introduce the new tests within this time-frame.

18) EU efforts are currently coordinated under ENFSI auspices, to compile frequency databases and to validate them, for the new marker systems across more than 20 EU states. This study is under way and follows a previous model to compile and validate EU databases [8] . The results will be compiled into a centralised (global) resource http://strbase.org.

19) A difficulty that all national DNA databases have to contend with is the ‘lock-in’ effect. When four million samples have been processed, it is difficult to change and to engineer retrospective compatibility. This issue first arose in 2000 with the upgrade from SGM to SGM plus systems. Loci can only be added (they cannot be taken away). The best solution is to reanalyse/upgrade samples. Change is expensive, and requires much validation and specialist research support to achieve.

20) When responsibility of the NDNAD was part of FSS function, all of the necessary experts (biologists, IT specialists and others) were all under one roof, along with the original inventors of the database. The effect of devolving the NDNAD to NPIA was to divorce the expertise required to maintain and upgrade the database in a timely way.

21) It is quite clear that frequent upgrades to the NDNAD are required now and in the future, simply because science is not static. This is, however highly complex to manage. If upgrades are not carried out in timely fashion, then the result that follows is that the UK forensic science services and the associated NDNAD cannot keep pace with the new standards adopted elsewhere in the EU.

22) Currently, there is no published timescale in place to upgrade the NDNAD to the new marker system in line with the ENFSI recommendations of 2006 [9] . Being locked in the past, the inevitable consequence is that casework is carried out with less efficiency than would otherwise be the case elsewhere in the EU. Cases will effectively be ‘lost’ (i.e. they will fail to provide probative results in laboratories not equipped with the latest technology).

Importance of research to conduct risk analysis, to support the regulator function

23) The complexity of the UK network of scientific laboratories and the centralised NDNAD requires effort to ensure compatibility, to enable comparisons and to carry out risk analysis. The complexity is such that new methods are required to be implemented in order to undertake this function.

24) All scientific processes are subject to error. A pro-active approach is needed to understand and to evaluate risks inherent in the NDNAD and the suppliers to the NDNAD. It is not suggested that errors are common, rather I deal here with the rare event – but an error rate as low as of 1 in 1million may have consequences that are serious. The potential for error is important to consider, but difficult to evaluate.

25) Existing accreditation systems do not take sufficient account of variation between laboratories. In a recent study of accredited laboratories by NIST in the US, the authors found discrepancies in reported strength of evidence, between laboratories, of a staggering ten orders of magnitude difference – for the same set of samples [10] .

26) This important study demonstrates that a highly pro-active approach is required to understand the differences that exist within existing national processes, and to understand their significance. Existing accreditation systems operate at a more basic level of ‘compliance’, and are not geared up to carrying out the much deeper investigations that are described above.

27) New methods are required to provide a much deeper understanding of the diversity of processes. These are complex to design and to interpret. This is an example where a dedicated research unit is needed. It is suggested that a publicly funded lab that is modelled on NIST in the US would be suitable for the UK (if we don’t turn over the stones, we won’t find the bugs).

28) Currently there is no scientific assessment of risk – defined in terms of rates of ‘false inclusion’ (the chance that a random person will match a crime stain) and ‘false exclusion’ (the chance that an individual will fail to match a crime stain – i.e. a failure to detect a perpetrator who is on the NDNAD. Gill et al [11] . identified the main risk to be the problem of false exclusion: i.e. ‘missing a match’

29) Risk analysis is essential to undertake, again, this is not a trivial matter because novel methodology is required to evaluate the probabilty of rare events caused by errors (typing errors are caused a number of different factors e.g. contamination, transcription errors and indequate rule-sets that are used to upload profiles onto the NDNAD), for example, see Gill et al [12] . A sound research base is required to properly understand and to facilitate a complex quality assurance regime.

30) To summarise, it is argued that courts need additional information in terms of concurrent risk analysis in order to place into context the application of micro-probabilities.

31) The NDNAD still uses a simplistic approach to data-analysis that was developed more than 15 years ago by the FSS [13] . But this was in relation to the simple environment which existed in the past, where very few processes were used. A complex environment requires sophisticated solutions just to stand still.

32) The commercial ethos in the UK raises difficult challenges. As already noted, commercialisation (by definition) drives diversification. Courts require uniformity of technique, but diversification causes divergence and increases complexity. In a commercial environment, it follows that ‘enhanced’ regulation must keep pace to compare the diversity of methods that currently exist within the UK; otherwise we cannot be assured that method (a) is comparable to method (b) and we cannot be assured that the performances of laboratories are comparable. Ultimately, the courts cannot be assured that they are getting the best evidence. Ethical issues are also raised.

Role of public sector in the commercial environment

33) Private companies will usually wish to work on routine casework that can be easily costed. Laboratories are typically designed as ‘conveyor belts’ where there is little scope to vary the test or to apply tests that are outside the usual remit.

34) Because it is time consuming and expensive to validate and to implement new tests, there is little incentive to introduce tests that are rarely used.The ‘conveyor belt’ method means that there is inevitably less attention to rescuing cases that might otherwise be reported if more effort or if different approaches were applied.

35) Mitochondrial DNA tests and Y-chromosomal tests are routinely carried out in the public EU laboratories, but are comparatively rare within the UK. Unusual tests may be non-profit making and demand special techniques that are invaluable to specific cases, but because they are only required rarely, companies cannot necessarily justify the costs of implementing rarely used methods.

36) Examples of specialised tests include: use of mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome tests, red hair marker, laser-micro-dissection, application of RNA body fluid tests (MtDNA is currently only offered by the FSS; it is not clear if many of the newer specialist tests are available in the UK).

37) Of course the role of the regulator is limited by resources. The regulator can only assess techniques that are proffered by the various companies. The regulator cannot offer advice whether method (a) is better than method (b). The company’s techniques are often ‘commercial in confidence’ and there are problems/consequences that arise from this:

a. The defence expert often has great difficulty in assessing the test. Ideally, any test used in court should be both publicly available and have sufficient detail publically available so that all interested scientists have some opportunity to examine the methods that are used. This is how the scientific process works – by disclosure, mutual cooperation, interchange and peer review.

b. Commercialisation does not promote exchange of data, collaboration and convergence. Neither does it promote openness. In a recent court case (R v. T) [14] the judge criticised the FSS for using an internally developed ‘commercial in confidence’ database on footwear marks. Paragraph 84 of the judgement states:

‘There is also the further difficulty, even if it [the database] could be used for this purpose, that the data are the property of the FSS and are not routinely available to all examiners. It is only available in a particular case to an examiner appointed to consider the report of an FSS examiner.’ [15]

c. This database was not available for peer review and not available to other scientists to assess. It is not possible for peer review to operate on a restricted basis. A retrial has now been ordered.

38) This case also demonstrates that a serious mismatch exists between the government’s aspiration to privatise forensic science, versus the court requirement for openness, disclosure, and scientific peer review. It is easily demonstrated, therefore, that the framework to utilise forensic science in the UK, where the market is entirely privatised, is already fatally flawed.

39) What the courts require is ‘uniformity’ between suppliers, so that results can be easily compared between laboratories, and collaborative working is encouraged to ensure that the best techniques are in universal use. To provide an analogy, there would be public outcry if one NHS hospital was using an inefficient procedure that resulted in elevated death rates, compared to another NHS hospital that used a method that halved the death rate in patients. Imagine the situation where the second hospital refuses to allow the first hospital to use its technique because it was ‘commercial in confidence’. Yet the use of sub-optimal DNA methods in forensic science laboratories can have similar (dire) consequences.

40) We do not currently know how efficient the existing laboratories are in the UK, because there is no framework that enables this discovery. The regulator function does not include the necessary comparative studies.

41) The ISFG and the scientific societies strongly support development of open-source software and methods. This is realistically the only way forward to ensure complete transparency, openness and unfettered peer-review.

Summary

42) Some kind of public/private partnership is required, where private enterprise is underpinned and supported by the public (non-profit making) entity with a strong research function. This entity will also interact with the scientific societies without the embarrassing encumbrance of commercial profit making ethos.

43) For a publicly funded organisation to be accepted by the international community, it will be important for it to abandon commercial aspirations that compromise its integrity.

44) Research must be collaborative and involve all of the suppliers, for the common good, free of patent restrictions. Courts will not accept secret tests that have not been subject to rigorous peer review and challenge. The public will not accept sub-standard tests being used in any laboratory. An exploratory framework is needed to discover whether laboratories are providing sub-standard results. The NDNAD will need close attention to ensure that it is fit for purpose within the diversified UK environment. Numeric risk analysis is essential to undertake to understand the errors in the system and whether the consequences are acceptable. Currently there is insufficient information to know the lay of the land and insufficient discovery.

45) The research group must be closely associated with specialist caseworkers. Research is of little use in our area unless the efforts are quickly translated into court-going techniques. This interaction is immensely important. This is why researchers and caseworkers must work closely with each other.

46) Research must not be confused with ‘casework validation’ or ‘implementation’. These two functions are part of the laboratory requirement to demonstrate that a test (new to the laboratory) has been properly implemented, tested and used.

47) The research laboratory exists in order to collaborate within the existing international framework, free from commercial constraints, to collaborate in open-source initiatives and to provide new tests.

48) Databases used for estimating strength of evidence must be open, and centralised and subject to peer review to allay concerns of R v. T – the ‘research group’ is a natural custodian of these centralised databases to be used for the benefit of all suppliers.

49) Continuing (centralised) education of forensic scientists is also a requirement to consider.

50) The research group will work closely with the regulator in order to develop a framework that evaluates the numerical risk of errors. This is not trivial and requires a deep understanding of all the processes within the UK system (including the NDNAD).

51) These ideas do not sit easily with the existing disparate commercialised UK framework. Whereas it is clear that the international community of forensic scientists will quickly embrace a newly formed UK public ethos forensic laboratory that overarches the standards and provides unfettered advice and contributes freely to the international research initiative. The community will quickly treat with suspicion any organisation that is motivated primarily by commercial reasons.

52) UK forensic science is therefore at a cross-road; at stake is not only the international scientific reputation of forensic science, but also a question of whether public confidence can be maintained.

Professor Peter Gill

Professor of Forensic Genetics, University of Oslo

Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde

7 February 2011

Written evidence submitted by W Folkard (FSS 11)

1. Declaration of Interest

I am currently an employee of Forensic Science Service Ltd. These views are given in my individual capacity and are not those of my employer or any other body.

2. Credentials

I have worked at the forensic science laboratory in London since 1974; was an Authorised Analyst; have written thousands of statements and given evidence in court on scores of occasions; have held quality management roles; worked on the Royal Society of Chemistry working party on level 5 NVQ for analytical chemists; have been extensively involved in expert witness training and assessment; and served for seven years as specialty assessor for the now-defunct Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners.

3. Submission

3.1 These observations are a response to question 2, What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

3.2 By way of illustration, let me make a wholly rhetorical proposal for a change to the criminal justice system:

"A judge is required to be impartial but, if he or she is a Crown appointee, must be biased in favour of the prosecution. To avoid this, we should make the judge an independent practitioner, available for hire like any other professional. The judge for any particular case would be chosen by and on contract to the prosecution, who would be free to pick another judge in future if they did not like the way he or she did the job."

3.3 It is, of course, the security of the judge’s position which makes it possible for him or her to be impartial: the argument set out in 3.2 is flawed to the point of being preposterous. Those flaws are unchanged if we substitute "forensic scientist" for "judge"; yet this version of the argument has been accepted as the basis of government policy on a ‘market’ in forensic science for the best part of two decades.

3.4 The idea of a market in forensic science provision seems to enjoy wide political support. It is an idea whose success might be measured by the fact that no jurisdiction outside the UK has adopted it (and neither has Scotland). It has meant that the main focus of forensic science providers has been on winning contracts from the police rather than on providing high-quality evidence for the courts. The intense pressure to please clients is at odds with the duty to the court now codified in the Criminal Procedure Rules. Resources which should be spent on scientists, equipment and support staff go instead on consultants and management fads, to people who keep spreadsheets, attend meetings or brief the press. Decisions are made by those whose understanding of scientific and professional matters is – where it exists at all - secondary to commercial skills. Forensic science will continue to suffer from waste and falling standards until the ‘market’ experiment is abandoned.

3.5 This point is unrelated to the foregoing but it would be useful to add it here. Many recent recruits to forensic science have first degrees in ‘forensic science’. Paradoxically, a degree in forensic science is not a suitable qualification to be a forensic scientist (or, I would suggest, for anything else). Forensic science is a collection of highly specialised disciplines and this jack-of-all-trades qualification is little use in any of them. For most disciplines, a qualification in chemistry or a branch of the biological sciences is greatly to be preferred. The proliferation of forensic science courses is undermining the quality of forensic science and should be actively discouraged in the interests of forensic science and of science in general.

W Folkard BA MSc

26 January 2011

Written evidence submitted by John Haley (FSS 12)

What will be the impact of the closure of the Forensic Science Service on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

1. Without the Forensic Science Service in the market place driving things forward, the competitors to the FSS will be able to sit back and reduce spending on improvements. The only reason many of the competitors spent money on improvements in the first place was to gain market share from the FSS. Without a strong FSS leading the UK market, who will push things forward and give a semblance of sanity to a hectic market?

2. The FSS is respected the world over for its investment into new techniques and is not just driving the UK market, but also forensics throughout the world. This cannot be better demonstrated than the winning of the United Arab Emirates database project, the assistance in the database project at the NFI in Holland and the recent publishing of the worlds first fully automated miniaturised device. These projects just scratch the surface of a business that has been leading the way for more than 15 years.

3. I have worked in forensic research for over 10 years and know the importance of experience gained working directly with operational units in developing new techniques. The FSS is quite unique in the fact that all research is controlled in house and little to no help is given from external companies. Without FSS research, who will carry out the essential work required to move things forward? This work cannot be picked up by universities as it requires in depth knowledge of the day to day workings of a forensic laboratory and is not as simple as saying competitors will pick this up. Research is expensive and with prices in the market falling, there is no obvious group who can pick this up. Without a suitable replacement, the individuals who work in forensic research will leave the area and find other jobs, thereby paralysing forensic development in the UK for many years to come.

What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

4. With police in sourcing the likely beneficiary of the closure of the FSS, the movement of forensics back to the police will no doubt lead to more miscarriages of justice and mistakes will be made. You cannot expect a group such as the police to carry out work independently and deliver to the same quality as the FSS has over many years. We will see a repeat of mistakes past which led to bodies such as the Metropolitan laboratory in London joining the FSS.

5. The FSS has never declined any work from police forces in the past and has never put a monetary value on complex cases and any sector of the criminal justice system. FSS competitors have already shown their true colours in recent tenders by actively pursuing the cash cow products and either not tendering for or pricing themselves out of the market for the more complex examinations. It is sad to consider that the criminal justice system will find itself cap in hand trying to make private companies deliver work that is delivered without any questions by the FSS.

6. With so few companies in the market, a lot of start up companies could appear. This could mean many police forces putting their trust in untested companies just so they can get their work completed in what is taken as standard right now. The FSS and several of the competitors have a proven track record, but with pressures to deliver the work without a group such as the FSS around to pick up the slack, the quality in the sector will undoubtedly fall.

What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?

7. The FSS has been losing around £2m a month. A lot of this loss can be put down to a massive re-structuring process whereby redundancy payments and site closures have led to considerable costs. The main issue for the FSS is not where it sits right now, but where it could be in less than a year after the site closures have occurred and the staff numbers make the organisation a far leaner company. If the transformation process was allowed to continue, and in some forms re-shaped to make further improvements, there is no reason why the FSS could back into the black.

8. Forensic research is expensive and such things cannot be expected to always break even in a discipline where the final outcomes can have a huge impact on the criminal justice system. That said, after the transformation process the FSS has created some brilliant products that will not only push forensics across the world forward and also reap the benefits when sold outside the UK.

9. There are many products outside DNA such as fire investigation, documents etc that can actually cost more to investigate than revenue generated, The FSS has balanced this for many years using the cash rich areas such as DNA to do this. The DNA market has been eroded by competitors and the new market place in the past few years. This has meant less money to balance the books, and where many companies gave up on the niche work, the FSS continued to deliver the work at a loss.

What is the state of, and prospects for, the forensics market in the UK, specifically whether the private sector can carry out the work currently done by the Forensic Science Service and the volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces?

10. There is no real market in the UK and there never has been. You cannot privatise a service, much like you would not privatise the police. You cannot put a value on the criminal justice system. No country in the world has privatised its forensic, and works on a more successful model whereby private sector companies can help pick up any back logs and can be used for defence work.

11. Two of the major forensic companies in the market have either been close to pulling the plug on their forensic division or going into insolvency. With this sort of "market", it could lead to old style back logs as companies go out of business and also force these companies to cherry pick even more.

12. The FSS has around 60% of the market in the UK. The other companies have taken FSS share over a 4-5 year period, and in this period they have only managed to pick up 40% of what was a controlled situation. How can these companies pick up 60% of the market in just over a year? Its not a simple case of moving production facilities, we are talking about setting up validated laboratories, moving staff and putting controls in place to ensure quality does not suffer.

What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?

13. Allow the FSS to complete its transformation process, closing all but two sites. After this point ensure the FSS closes at least one further site, which would still leave coverage in the North, Midlands and South of England. Reducing large quantities of the support business such as HR, IT etc would reduce the cost to process a sample and allow the FSS to continue to invest in R&D.

14. Certain services should not be put out to tender. The FSS should continue to be subsidised by the government for areas of work that cannot make a profit, and will always make a loss such as fire investigation etc. The rest of the FSS could then be free to compete on a level playing field with the other companies.

15. Ensure police forces do not continue with their in sourcing plans. This would improve impartiality in the criminal justice system and also increase the available work that everyone could tender for.

So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?

16. Details are still very sketchy on what will happen to both staff and the company assets. To set a closure date without a plan for such an important business is crazy at best. How can you control the distribution of talent and work without a well thought out plan more than a year ahead of expected closure.

17. One can only imagine a version of a fire sale will occur to ensure timelines are met. The longer things continue without a structured plan, the more staff will leave the forensic sector and the greater the loss will be felt in coming years. Certain units within the FSS are starting to feel the effects of staff leaving, and its surely just a matter of time before the FSS will fail to deliver the current work load.

18. You cannot put a value on the assets within the FSS. Years have been spent developing software, techniques and training staff. Any value received for these assets will not give the tax payer value for money or encourage those staff remaining that forensics is the career path they once fought for.

Declaration of interests:

19. I, John Haley, am a forensic scientist, working for The Forensic Science Service Birmingham (Trident Court laboratory) since 2001. The views expressed in this document are of the individual and do not represent the views of the Forensic Science Service.

John Haley

31 January 2011

Written evidence submitted by G Burton (FSS 13)

I am writing to register my concern about the proposal by the government to close the Forensic Science Service and I have listed some points below.

1. The Forensic Science Service has always led the field in terms of quality, training and research and it will England and Wales as the only country in the world that will not have a Government or state funded forensic science laboratory. The Government and ACPO say they will ensure security of supply in future and that "continued provision of effective forensics is their priority". Unless they are planning to create a new government or Police funded forensic service they will have no control over how much work the private sector will take on.

2. The independent Forensic providers have always been selective about which services they will cover taking only those which will be most profitable and will not take on difficult and lengthy time consuming tasks. In addition the F.S.S. is the only company which undertakes security clearance a condition of employment which is vital in this increasing risk of terrorist activity.

3. I do not think you can run a forensic service purely based on making a profit as it it is a service to the community to protect it and as important as the NHS. the Police have been dictating which tests they want to try and save them money and these are not always sufficient to secure a guaranteed conviction and they have negotiated lower and lower fees, but the private side will dictate the rate of fees and it could end up being more expensive as happened when the railways were privatised.

4. What will be done to ensure the private firms offer the full range of forensic services in the future? If they decide to stop forensic work the Government and ACPO will be powerless to stop them and they will have relinquished any control over forensic services in this Country. Furthermore none of the Private Companies or the Police have invested in any significant research or technical advances. The FSS has been responsible for every DNA technique advancement to date. Since the McFarland Review which advocated the commercialising of forensic science in 2003 there has been virtually no development in forensic DNA.

5. I am sure some efficiency savings could be made to the FSS and more investment in more up to date equipment would speed up testing times and increase the throughput. Since the Police have reduced the number of submissions and increasing the competition may have brought down prices but all forensic providers have struggled in recent years and they may not be in a position to expand to take on all the extra work if the FSS closes and there could be a shortage of forensic science providers and then the police will struggle to get the work done, demand will exceed supply and this will increase prices.

I trust this decision will be rediscussed and a more suitable alternative to complete privatisation found.

I am a retired Medical Practitioner.

G. Burton

31 January 2011

Written evidence submitted by Mrs Carol Hannam (FSS 14)

1. Introduction: I abhor the closing of yet again another centre of excellence. Once again the standards which we knew as children and young adults are being dismantled and replaced by an inferior substitute. When will the institutions which are world wide recognised for their excellence be freed from the deliberate acts of decimation?

2. I would like to declare my interest. My daughter is employed by the Forensic Science Service at their London laboratory as a Senior Forensic Scientist. She specialises in the examination of firearms, ammunition and related items and in the interpretation of firearms related damage and gunshot wounds. She has specialised continuously and exclusively in this field since November 2001. She works under her maiden name of Abigail Hannam.

3. The Forensic Science Service has a world wide reputation for excellence, impartiality and expertise. The petition set up to draw attention to the travesty of the closure of the Forensic Science Service has been signed by people from all over the world. The letter to The Times was signed by leading scientists again from all over the world. These thoughts, based on clear common sense, need taking into consideration.

4. At the moment the Forensic Science Service deals with 60% [approx] of the forensic marketplace. When this body of excellence is closed down who will do the work? Where firearms are concerned it is no good claiming that it will be the Metropolitan Police Service Forensic Firearms Unit. They are not competent to do the work as they do not have the required competences to carry out post mortem and 24 hour scene work. Since the Metropolitan Police Service Forensic Firearms Unit - ie in house - decided to take over the Met firearms casework they have in fact sent back to the Forensic Science Service up to 20 cases per week. Is this because they do not have the manpower to deal with the workload or is it, as I suspect, because they do not have the ability, determination and competence to carry it out. As a mere lay person I find it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that a relatively new department at the Met cannot achieve the outcomes which were expected of it. What will happen when the Forensic Science Service can no longer bail them out?

5. Private companies do not seem able to deal with the problems either. No doubt they will take on the cheap and marketable areas like DNA and drugs. However when LGC had to take on staff from the Forensic Science Service London drugs department they took them on with all their rights of employment and then promptly made them redundant on their first day at work. It does not seem that the private companies have the ability to absorb the excellence of the Forensic Science Service. Why continue to try? If such a big company as LGC cannot do it hoping for the remainder to take it on is a pie in the sky idea.

6. Without the Forensic Science Service who will maintain the excellence of the service, its reputation not only of excellence but of impartiality, the deployment of new and advanced techniques and the world class training services?

7. Somebody somewhere has to pay the bill. Out there are the muggers, murderers, rapists, fraudsters and criminals of every description. These people have to be brought to court and given a fair trial. Who pays for the expertise of the examiners to go into the dock and give evidence? I do, together with all the other millions of tax payers in this country. What do I want? Evidence. I want the evidence to stand up to any barrister either of defence or prosecution from the lowest to the highest courts of the land. How do I and the other millions get this impartial evidence? The only way is to make sure that the evidence is delivered by an expert and the only experts who have this ‘clout’ are those from the Forensic Science Service.

8. Independent, authoritative and impartial provision of expert forensic science evidence and analysis is essential to the proper investigation of crime and the effective prosecution of its perpetrators. One of the dangers of allegedly expert analysis is that many people claim to be expert in aspects of forensic science when, in fact, they are not or, if they are, they have a private interest to protect. In court the prosecution scrutinises carefully whether or not the defence expert is accurately described as such and vice versa. If the expert is an employee of the Forensic Science Service such probing will fail. If an expert is put up to give evidence by the Forensic Science Service it can be taken as read that the expert will have the qualifications, training and experience to justify the title. In the case of the four young cadets at the Deepcut Army Barracks in Surrey who had died from gunshot wounds between 1995 and 2002, the idea was touted by an "expert" instructed by the families of the deceased that these deaths were homicide. The families were of course distressed out of their minds. The media responded and clamour ensued. The true experts from the Forensic Science Service were able to show quite conclusively that each death was a suicide. Their conclusions showed that the "expert" was no such thing, distraught people were played upon and that the problem was not who did it, but why had the cadets felt compelled to take their own lives. The lesson here is clear. It is better to rely on a true expert who can conclusively prove his point, both to judge and jury; that by using a proper expert and not a jumped up quack a conviction can be maintained and secured; that an expert can manifestly be seen to be an expert and that his evidence is completely impartial. When it comes to finances and money saving it is not economically sound to have failed prosecutions and when it comes to the safety of the community it is not sound to have villains on the streets because prosecutions have failed. Let the expert truly be an expert, seen and accepted as such by all right thinking men.

9. Speaking from a personal point of view when my child or grandchild is murdered I want justice to be done. I want the offender punished according to law. This is best served by police attempting to solve the crime. When they do it is essential that they get prompt answers to their enquiries, speed sometimes being of the essence. They need to speak in conference to all the experts under the same roof and at the same time. The exhibits which they wish to submit need to be in investigated quickly and efficiently. If a gun is submitted it needs to be analysed for all sorts of things, I would imagine, not only the bullets and their patterns but for DNA, fibres etc .This cannot happen if a policeman has to walk around submitting the same item to different companies in the private sector. Who and how will it be protected from contamination? How speedy will the analysis be? Who is competent to go to the scene and retrieve the bullets and go to the post mortem and gather the evidence? It is the Forensic Science Service and only the Forensic Science Service that can deliver these goods and satisfy my requirements and those, I hasten to add once again, of any right thinking person.

10. People are human and have human frailties. If a policeman works in the same force as the experts working on his case there will come a time when they stop for coffee together and maybe become friends. Judgements become warped and false evidence is given. This may never happen, but surely it must be seen to be apparent that it will not happen because the experts employed in a case are not paid from the same purse. Impartiality must be seen to be happening.

11. The older employees at the Forensic Science Service have such a wealth of knowledge and experience which is found in neither books nor on the internet. It is passed on down the generations of employees in a mentoring service. Where will the next generation of experience come from? Who will mentor the teams outside the Forensic Science Service to make sure that standards are maintained?

12. With the closure of the Forensic Science Service who will hold the vast databases? On who’s disc in who’s computer will they be lost from? This is the track record of databases held and carried in places other than the Forensic Science Service. Will there be yet another ‘we are very sorry’ message put out when data is lost and maybe picked up by the unscrupulous? Which privately owned company will benefit from selling the data and the information which has been inherited from the Forensic Science Service? Who will hold the national collection of guns?

13. On the question of cutting costs, the expertise of the service is obviously in the laboratories where the experts are paid poor salaries, whilst the expense of the service is in the management layers who spend their time in interminable committee meetings and take home huge salaries for spending their days talking and talking some more. What are their targets I wonder and how are they measured. The expertise of the laboratories, once lost, cannot be replaced whereas the middle managers have no particular skills in this area and therefore are very expendable and easily replaced. I would be surprised if the axe fell where it clearly should, because of who wealds the axe.

14. Some aspects of a civilised society should and need to be above finance and profit and loss. Some aspects of our culture, democracy and civilisation depend on service. Some parts of our life are not and should not be costed out. The provision of an impartial, excellent, world renowned Forensic Science Service must be preserved. We must take our place on the world’s stage with our experts instead of lurking away behind doors of economics and balanced books. The books of a service will not and should never balance. A service is a cost and the populace, in this instance, will be prepared to pay. The only people likely to benefit from the break up of the Forensic Science Service are the villains.

15. In conclusion the Forensic Science Service is a jewel in the nation’s scientific crown. It provides impartial, quality and expert opinion for the criminal justice system and remains a recognised world leader within the sphere of forensic science. Its independence has allowed it to innovate and to develop fresh areas of scientific knowledge which has been world-changing. I implore you to preserve it.

Mrs Carol Hannam

2 February 2011

Written evidence submitted by Mr Roderick Hannam (FSS 15)

1 My interest in the proposed closure of the Forensic Science Service is that my daughter is employed by the FSS in London as a Senior Forensic Scientist specialising in firearms.

2 You will have received many detailed submissions opposing the closure of the FSS and I am sure that I shall agree with all of them. I do not intend to reiterate all the points but to tell you how I feel as a native of this country.

3 I see no reason why an organisation such as the FSS has to make a profit. Monitor its expenses, yes, but have to make a profit, no. The £2 million a month loss that has been talked about seems small change to me in the scale of things. You cannot run effective criminal investigations using all the complicated and expensive tests available to obtain either a conviction or an acquittal if you are constantly watching the bottom line. Which tests do you leave out? I want to live in a country where all criminals are convicted but where they all have a fair trial. The solving of crime should be regarded as a cost that we all have to pay.

4 However, the cost can be reduced. With better marketing the expertise of the FSS can be sold more effectively worldwide. The FSS contains world class players and is seen internationally as a place of excellence. I do not think that the potential for exporting their skills has been exploited sufficiently. Recently, my daughter went to give forensic evidence in a trial in the British Virgin Islands. Obviously the laboratory work had been done by the FSS, but all future work in the BVI will now be done in the USA. Why?

5 I strongly believe that the FSS should remain independent from the police. The Metropolitan Police Force do run their own laboratories but do not have the expertise of the FSS, particularly in firearms, and cannot cope with their own workload so have to farm some of it out to the FSS. What will happen when the FSS is no longer there? The private companies that are expected to buy the profitable parts of the FSS, but not the unprofitable parts, cannot be guaranteed to be independent. They cannot be guaranteed to invest in the expensive tests. If you are tendering to get a contract, you keep the quote as low as possible because of competition. This is not how to solve criminal cases. The danger of not having an independent service was highlighted recently in the case of the undercover police officer who found evidence that was favourable to the defence in a trial of green agitators. This evidence was suppressed by the police as it did not suit them. What is to stop them from suppressing inconvenient forensic evidence?

6 As the Government pays for the Metropolitan Police as well, why not close their labs instead? That saving would go a long ay to funding the FSS. After all, the Met labs are no help to the other police forces.

7 I believe that it is for the good of the Country that all the disciplines that make up forensic science be housed under one roof and not be spread between several private companies at different locations. If the different pieces of evidence cannot be discussed by people working together and together with the police officers involved then links may be missed.

8 It worries me what will happen if we have a terrorist attack in London or elsewhere. After the last London bombings the forensic work was done by the FSS. The biologists camped out in the hotel next to the labs and worked round the clock to do the work efficiently and quickly. I cannot imagine that a private firm who has given a tight tender will be able or willing to behave like that.

9 My son is a barrister. He has acted in several cases when the so called expert witness from a private firm is anything but expert. The case then falls apart because the jury do not believe the evidence He says that when an expert is from the FSS then you can totally rely on the evidence. More guilty people will escape punishment if the FSS is disbanded.

10 Who will be qualified to deal with police shootings if the FSS is not there. The police cannot examine themselves. Private companies will not have the authority of a long established well-respected company such as the FSS.

11 The company is currently going through a planned and Home Office approved transformation process. This has lead to streamlining of the company and the closure of four sites. This was agreed by the previous government who also gave grants to achieve this transformation. This work is on track and would, I believe, have put the company in the black by next month.. Why could the FSS not have been given the time to show that this had worked?

12 There is so much expertise and experience going to be lost. Some of the younger ones may get jobs in the private companies as they are cheaper to employ. But not the older ones and not those trained in firearms as that work is not profitable. Who are these younger ones going to get their training from and who is going to fund it?

13 Finally, myself, and all I have spoken to about this, find it incomprehensible that a government can smash an institution of such world renown as the FSS for a couple of million pounds a month. It is a tragedy for those involved but is an even bigger tragedy for the country. Justice in the courts is ill served by this decision and the country is less safe. You cannot send a boy or a girl to do a man or a woman’s job. This government, for all its talk and reputation for law and order, seems to be on a slippery slope downwards.

Roderick W Hannam

3 February 2011

Written evidence submitted by Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys (FSS 16)

In response to the specific questions posed by the Inquiry, I would like to make the following comments on the proposed closure of FSS. These comments are made from my personal experience as an academic and the developer of forensic DNA testing, and from my association with the FSS and police laboratories over the last 25 years.

1. What will be the impact of the closure of the Forensic Science Service on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

1a Potentially disastrous. The FSS serves as the natural national focus for forensic R&D, taking in basic developments arising in academia from the biological, medical, chemical, physical and mathematical/IT sciences and, where appropriate, adapting and refining them for use in forensic analysis. Some of these refinements might occur in the academic sector but this is unpredictable and again, the natural conduit prior to forensic implementation should be through the FSS. Forensic developments are now becoming less common in the academic sector given that the Research Councils and Charities are reluctant to fund forensic science, seeing this instead as the responsibility of the Home Office (reflecting the origins of the FSS).

1b The FSS R&D staff have the range and depth of experience needed for this horizon scanning and for the multi-disciplinary work needed to move basic research into forensic utility. The loss of this expertise would rule out the UK as a significant contributor to forensic science development, making us dependent on new technologies developed abroad. There are five consequences: (1) delay in implementing the latest technologies, (2) lack of national expertise required to evaluate and implement new methodologies, (3) lack of representation in those organisations that are actually doing the science, (4) lack of a central organisation required to standardise, validate and ensure quality control, and (5) potential loss of IP and downstream revenues.

1c Let me give an example from my own work on DNA, considering what would have happened to DNA fingerprinting if the FSS had not existed in 1985. While the routine and commercially profitable applications in paternity and immigration testing would have proceeded unhindered, the effects on criminal investigations would have been profound. Colleagues at the FSS collaborated with me very early on, providing casework samples and experimentation that established that DNA testing of evidence was feasible and leading to the first murder investigation. Our subsequent work in 1989 on new sensitive systems using DNA amplification was speedily taken up by the FSS, who did an outstanding job in refining these techniques to allow high-throughput automated analyses so crucial in establishing the National DNA Database, thus keeping the UK absolutely at the forefront of DNA testing worldwide. Without the FSS, forensic applications would have emerged piecemeal, and almost certainly abroad, and would have left the UK in no position to influence subsequent developments such as databasing and the international sharing of DNA information.

1d Closure of the FSS will also make the more complex and interdisciplinary forensic analyses impossible within the UK, since no commercial provider can give this breadth of service, nor would wish to given that such investigations are unprofitable. The implication is that complex cases either will not be investigated, leading to potentially serious miscarriages of justice, or will have to be outsourced overseas (assuming that such outsourcing is legal and ethically acceptable).

1e The FSS also plays a key role in developing systems for quality assurance in the private sector. Loss of such oversight will lead to the real risk of quality deterioration, an issue of major concern given the weight of importance often attached to forensic evidence

1f The FSS has a major international reputation, as evidenced by two commentaries recently published in the Journal of Investigative Genetics 1,2 (already sent to Xameerah Malik of the Science and Technology Committee), and plays a lead role on international committees that focus on standardization of DNA testing and databases. It also provides an important source of expertise, training and testing for countries who do not have the expertise or resources to create their own forensic science service. The UK’s reputation in all these areas would be totally destroyed with the closure of the FSS.

1g Finally, I note that closure would leave the UK as the only major country worldwide without an impartial national forensic service.

2. What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

2a As noted above, the range and perhaps quality of forensic evidence will diminish, some complex cases may well not be analysed and not go to trial, and there will be a major loss of forensic expertise needed to present evidence appropriately in court. If police were to establish their own in-house DNA testing facilities, then this would give them the power of arrest and sampling, the ability to test, plus potentially free access to DNA databases, all of which raises issues of impartiality.

4. What is the state of, and prospects for, the forensics market in the UK, specifically whether the private sector can carry out the work currently done by the Forensic Science Service and the volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces?

4a The private sector quite rightly contributes to forensic testing in the UK. However, they will only run with tried and trusted techniques that can be adapted to routine high-volume and profitable testing. They cannot be expected to contribute to the R&D aspects of forensics and in general do not have the personnel, experience, culture and financial resources to so contribute; horizon scanning and R&D are resource-intensive activities that cannot be supported by companies working in a competitive market. Exactly the same comments apply to police laboratories, though there might be an argument in favour of police having their own DNA labs provided (1) it makes economic sense, which I doubt, (2) there is proper independent training, oversight and quality control, and (3) there is no expectation of any R&D activities.

5. What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?

5a The FSS as presently constituted is far from perfect. Part of the problem dates back to 2005 when it was privatised, profoundly shifting the ethos from service to profit-making, but there were earlier issues. In particular, the FSS has long tended to be somewhat inward-looking and isolationist rather than being fully interfaced with the academic community; this was not helped by the Birmingham location that lacked juxtaposition with Universities. Since privatisation, the situation has substantially worsened, with lack of transparency about R&D activities and a culture of IP-driven secrecy that must impede open scientific development.

5b The FSS is however a major national repository of forensic expertise. Once closed, these experts will disappear, with many going abroad. Should the decision be made in the future to open a new national forensic service, there would be the huge issue of recruitment from a limited pool of UK expertise. Put bluntly, the closure decision is largely irreversible.

5c So how to move forward? I would recommend retaining the FSS but in a greatly altered and substantially downsized state. I would maximise the transfer of profitable activity to the private sector, and place the remaining FSS back under the direct control of the Home Office, removing its pernicious privatised status. The focus of activities would be (1) R&D, (2) training, (3) retention of broad expertise and appropriate facilities to allow complex casework to be undertaken, (4) an oversight, quality-control and regulatory function with respect to the private sector, and (5) an international role in establishing standards and protocols. I would also like to see far better interfacing between FSS and academia, perhaps through relocation away from the Birmingham site. Finally, I would like to see a clear concordat between the Home Office and RCUK agreeing an indicative national budget for forensic R&D and with a clear understanding of which organisations would be responsible for funding, together with coherent plans for how national research priorities will be set and how funding will be allocated.

I hope these comments will be of help in assisting the Committee in its important deliberations.

References:

1. Budowle, B., Kayser, M. and Sajantila, A. The demise of the United Kingdom's Forensic Science Service (FSS): loss of world-leading engine of innovation and development in the forensic sciences. Investigative Genetics 2, 4 (2011).

2. Jobling, M.A. Elementary, my dear Cameron. Investigative Genetics 2, 5 (2011).

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys FRS

4 February 2011

Written evidence submitted by Dr Denise Syndercombe Court
(FSS 17)

What will be the impact of the closure of the Forensic Science Service on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

1. The FSS has, over the years, had considerable influence on the development and practice of forensic science, not only in the UK, but also internationally, offering training and consultancy support to many countries worldwide. They have a large R&D section employing extremely experienced research scientists who are unlikely, in the main, to be re-employed in the case-work vacuum that will need to be filled.

2. In Europe, most forensic services have grown from university departments of legal medicine. These have never existed in the UK, and there was never the need because of the government funded FSS.

3. This has also meant that there has never been opportunities for funding forensic science research in university departments throughout England and Wales through the Research Councils. Most universities with an interest in forensic science offer taught courses only with limited research taking place as part of student projects. I conduct research in forensic science and fund this, and employ scientists and fund PhDs entirely through forensic work that I bring into my institution as there is no charitable funding available to me. This research is much more limited than I would want because of the need to provide the necessary funds.

4. Other commercial companies working in the UK developed out of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and organisations involved in DNA testing for immigration and other purposes and about five years ago the FSS also became a private government owned company. Others will need to come into the market rapidly if the approximately 60% of the FSS contracts are to be redeployed to other institutions within the planned closure time.

5. The loss to the future of forensic science stems from this decision, more than its closure now, because any research that was done was not used to benefit forensic science particularly in the UK, or worldwide, but kept in house and promoted for commercial gain.

6. To their credit, I believe that the FSS continued to understand the importance of research in this area and maintained a significant R&D department, although slimmed down and constrained by commercial propriety.

7. I believe that other countries, across Europe and the US, will take the lead in forensic science innovation in the future as they are better and more freely funded - through university funding across Europe and through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US.

What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

8. The need for other organisations to take on the major part of existing contracts will provide a considerable challenge. Simply increasing capacity by the companies already in the market will, in my opinion, not be possible.

9. New companies entering the market will need to set up systems that will need to be accredited before they can be considered reliable providers of a forensic service. Even though these institutions might benefit from the large number of trained FSS scientists now on the job market it will not simply be a case of them being employed using the same systems currently in place in the FSS. They will all need retraining and the set up costs of a new or expanding organisation, and the time and cost of accreditation, are not small.

10. The availability of trained staff will depend on where new commercial institutions are going to be based. Staff who will be about to lose their jobs will not wait too long for forensic-related opportunities to become available and they also may have commitments and ties that mean they are not easily able to move to other areas in the country.

11. Quality will inevitably suffer in the interim, not only because of timing issues, because investigation of crime does not stop and the work cannot simply be put on hold. There will also be an increase in crime that will need forensic examination associated with the Olympics in 2012 and the UK is unlikely to have a fully efficient service by then. One of the difficulties here will be pressure applied through the criminal justice system that may result in work not being done to the highest quality levels, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice.

12. The efficient transfer of ongoing cases is a major problem. There is a considerable amount of documentation that is held by the FSS over many years that may need to be re-examined if a case is to be reopened. Where is this material going to be held? I have already personal experience of needing to conduct a forensic examination in which the case is due to start in one week's time and the paperwork has not yet been located since the closure of one of the FSS sites at the end of the year. This problem may also result in the case being delayed at considerable additional expense to all concerned - this is just a single example and there are likely to be many others.

13. Commercialisation does influence impartiality, in my opinion. A forensic scientist has the duty to the court to give evidence only within their expertise but I see some scientists working in commercial institutions who are more interested in 'helping' the court by providing 'expert' evidence, so as not to allow criticism of their organisation by being unable to answer the relevant questions, than concern over the accuracy of their expert opinion, or even acknowledging this is an area that they do not have the appropriate expertise. I would emphasise that this is not something that always occurs, but it does happen and I would be unaware of the extent.

14. Commercialisation produces products (techniques, ideas, software) for use in forensic science that are not open for examination by others, because they are proprietary and have been developed for financial gain in the market place. That does not fit well with the fair examination of the science which may lead to conviction of a suspect.

15. All that does not mean to say that this work will not be revealed to a scientist who is properly conducting a defence, but it is extremely difficult for someone working outside an organisation to get hold of it, or even be aware of its existence in what is often a very short time after instruction. It is sometimes necessary to make compromises in order to meet the constraints of the court requirements, but then have to reveal to the court that one was not able to consider the matter fully because of the confidential nature of the material that needs to be considered. This may result in the case not being fairly considered by the court, or can result in further delays as the information is sought from the provider. Peer reviewed publication of techniques and processes is a way forward but, even when this does happen, it is often several years after the application has been implemented in case work.

What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?

16. I have no doubt that the FSS is currently costing the government a lot of money. I do not believe that a forensic science service can be properly and fully run as a profit, or even as a non-profit making organisation. Forensic science is a service to the criminal justice system and we do not expect, nor should we, expect to run such a service as an entirely commercial venture.

17. Of course it is right and proper that any organisation should be scrutinised and processes should be set up to ensure that it is run in an efficient and cost-effective way. 'Cost-effective' is not simply about being able to process the current case-work. Science strives to do things better, but that requires investment.

18. My understanding of the FSS is that, as a government owned organisation, it had already been tasked with producing an organisation that was efficient. There was apparently a programme in place that would make it a better organisation in commercial terms, and closures had already been implemented in order to achieve that end. The new government, however, apparently has taken the view that the current losses must be dealt with by closure, rather than allowing the FSS to achieve its aims in the previously planned time-scale.

19. My belief is that, in the end, this will prove more costly in other ways to the country, although these costs may prove difficult to document - a delayed case here, a miscarriage of justice there, a loss of conviction elsewhere.

What is the state of, and prospects for, the forensics market in the UK, specifically whether the private sector can carry out the work currently done by the Forensic Science Service and the volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces?

20. Few, if any of the Police Forces will be offering forensic services at the required ISO 17025 or equivalent standard at the moment and development of an accredited service can take one to two years

21. As mentioned above, current providers are unlikely to be able to rapidly expand to take up the approximate 60% of the market share and new staff will have to undergo training

22. New organisations will take much longer to get off the ground

23. The current forensics market responds to calls for contracts by aiming to be cheaper and faster than their competitors. They will do that through the hiring of less experienced staff who they do not value as much in their role as scientists, simply as individuals to process the work. There is, correctly, research that goes on to reduce cost and speed up the process, and competition is helpful in driving that, but if it results in 'black box technology' that cannot be fully evaluated, that will produce additional and unseen costs to the criminal justice system, while increasing the profits to the private organisation. That can never be to the benefit of the UK tax payer.

What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?

24. They could be allowed to continue with the process put in place by the last government but that is not the only answer

25. What is essential is the commitment by the government to provide for sufficient funds so that forensic science research can be done in the UK. The UK has been at the forefront of forensic research worldwide but that position is rapidly declining and soon we will have no voice in an area where I, for one, have been proud of the achievements and the high esteem with which UK forensic science has been viewed.

26. Case-work will, in my opinion, suffer in the short term, with inevitable delays and likely miscarriages, but will in the end pick up. But the fair and just forensic science that has been prosecuted in the UK will no longer continue and will be limited to what can be done easily.

27. Cases that demand more experienced scientific work will no longer be able to be undertaken and it may be that experience will have to be gained, at greater cost, from scientists outside the UK.

So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?

28. I would hope that someone is considering this, but it is not something that I would be aware of. I am aware that current staff are simply looking for jobs and have no idea where their future lies and do not appear to have received any information that is useful to them.

29. I understand that, as part of the management plans of the FSS, a considerable amount of money has been spent on robotic and expert systems in order to reduce staff costs, with the staff presumably being lost gradually through natural wastage and voluntary redundancy schemes. While some of these assets may benefit a new organisation, again they may not fit into companies that have their own systems already in place, and may not suit the requirements of a new organisation, and so there may be a significant loss here as well.

Dr Denise Syndercombe Court

6 February 2011

Declaration of interests:

I am an academic working in a UK university that undertakes teaching and research in the area of forensic science and medicine. I run an ISO17025 accredited laboratory undertaking analysis of tissue for human identification. I have never been employed by the FSS or any of the other commercial laboratories although I have undertaken specialist consultancy or case work on occasions.

Written evidence submitted by Graham Owen (FSS 18)

1. I was employed in the Metropolitan Police Forensic Services for 38 years until my retirement in 2010, and have a lot of experience in using the services of the FSS, and forensic issues in general.

2. The reason the Government is citing for the closure of the FSS is that it is loosing money. However, the importance of the underlying reasons as to why this situation has come about has not been explored. If there were no monetary losses, this Committee would not have the FSS on its agenda. The fiscal losses are as a result of the combination of government policy and FSS management. The Government has created the situation by commercialising forensic science services in the UK and the FSS management has lacked vision and has set out to milk the forensic budget of police forces. To simply close the FSS is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. If the FSS is closed down the Criminal Justice System in the UK will collapse.

3. I can offer an insight from the customer’s point of view of how this situation has developed. I have tried to keep this as brief as possible by generalising. More detail could be added if required. This is not laid out in a totally chronological order, but represents a broad overview.

4. Prior to the Government creating a market place for forensic services there were no real monetary issues from either the police side, or the FSS side.

5. FSS management failed to anticipate the volume of DNA work that this new (at the time) technology would create. Consequently, the DNA departments were not expanded, presumably on cost grounds. It was not long before their systems could not cope with the workload, and the dates and timetables imposed by government for court appearances could not be met both for results of DNA work and the statements from the scientists.

6. To get around this, the FSS introduced a premium DNA service to ensure that important dates could be met. This service cost £5000 extra for every premium submission of up to five exhibits. Most of the users of this service were of the opinion that we were paying for the inefficiencies of the FSS, as if the premium service was not requested, the work would not be completed in time for the court dates could to be met.

7. It was not long before the FSS management realised that police forces were a cashcow, and as a result, the managers would push various services that were available regardless of if they would actually make a positive contribution to the case in question. Also, the hourly rate charged by the FSS for their scientists services, both in the laboratory and in the field was expensive. This was between £90 and £130 per hour in 2009. This would be charged for travel time to and from crime scenes, meetings, as well as time spent on cases in the laboratory.

8. The Metropolitan Police Service realised that the forensic spend was out of control and began to introduce control measures to reduce forensic costs. I suspect that Provincial Police Forces did the same. The FSS retaliated by introducing new procedural hoops that their customers had to jump through – at more cost, of course, with the threat that if they were not taken up, the FSS would not participate in the court process or if they did, would bring out in court that their recommended procedures had not been observed. This did not happen overnight. As the police introduced a new control measure, the FSS would find a way to introduce a new procedure or process that restored their fiscal margins. The relationship between the FSS and the police deteriorated from a partnership fighting crime, to the FSS looking to maximise their income and the police seeking the best value for money method of achieving the required result.

9. It became obvious that it would be more economical for the Metropolitan Police Service to form its own forensic science division to perform many of the functions previously undertaken by the FSS and the training for the MPS forensic practitioners and managers was enhanced so as to be able to formulate submission strategies that would provide the evidence needed at the most economical cost. It also enabled the management and examination of all crime scenes including the most serious scenes previously examined by the FSS. The MPS personnel would call on specialist sections of the FSS when necessary, but their involvement in scene work in the London area was much reduced.

10. The current situation is that now much of the forensic work from the MPS and some Provincial Forces is carried out by LGC Forensics. They came onto the scene with a different attitude to the FSS. They worked WITH the investigators not only to get the best outcome, but with the most cost effective methods. Options were offered with their respective pros and cons. In comparison, the FSS was seen to be ‘milking’ the police to extract the most money for every case regardless of the relevance of the results.

11. No one provider can, in my view, cope with the whole of the UK forensic workload, and to make it a commercial, market driven industry is not the way forward. If the FSS is closed, someone will have to take up the work or forensic services in the UK will collapse, and the Criminal Justice System will follow.

12. The FSS is revered around the world for forensic excellence and it has unrivalled expertise. Sadly, many of the specialist divisions have been closed or combined with other departments on economic grounds, diluting knowledge and effectiveness.

13. The criminal justice system is not suitable to be run as a commercial enterprise. The major forensic providers get most of their income from police enquiries, and their money comes from government. Government are limiting the money given to the UK police forces, so, in turn, they do not have the money to pay for market driven forensic services.

Examples

14. When the London Laboratory of the FSS was the Metropolitan Police forensic Laboratory, (prior to it becoming part of the FSS) there were many submissions that were rejected for various reasons. This could range from the requested work not achieving the required or expected outcome to incorrectly packaged exhibits or impossible timescales. The FSS never rejected anything as no money can be made from a rejected submission.

15. The FSS encouraged the submission of all of the exhibits in every case so that they could charge storage and handling fees.

16. FSS scientists would never say ‘the positive results from this technique are so low as to make it not worth doing’ when a technique or process was on the table. They would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for an investigator not to agree to the work as it could lead to him or her being accused in court of not pursuing every line of enquiry. Senior forensic managers in the Metropolitan police did take these decisions with a documented rationale and also taking account of what impact any results would have on the case. For instance, the result would either be an already known fact or would not prove or disprove any facet of the prosecution case.

17. The FSS also act as a suppler for forensic equipment for the use of Scenes of Crime Officers and other forensic practitioners. These items used to be available in kits, for the use of, for instance, divisional surgeons, or in bulk for police forensic practitioners. Then the FSS decided not to supply the items in bulk, only in kit form. This meant that a preserved blood bottle that as a bulk item cost 40p each could only be obtained if a blood/alcohol kit was purchased. This kit contained items that were of no use to the forensic practitioner as they had supplies of some of the other items in the kit anyway, and there were further items that would not be used by the forensic practitioner, only a divisional surgeon. The kits cost approximately £10. A clear example of the FSS not working to accommodate the customer needs, but boosting FSS income at the expense of the customer. This resulted in the Metropolitan Police – and maybe other police forces – looking elsewhere for their forensic supplies, and the FFS loosing income.

18. The identification results from the DNA database were – and maybe still are – being vastly inflated by the inclusion in the identification figures of previous identifications that have already been notified. In the Metropolitan Police Fingerprint Branch, if someone was identified at a crime scene, the identified marks were withdrawn from the database so that in the event of the offender being re-arrested for a different crime, no duplicate identifications would be made. Any identification made as a result of fingerprint identification could be acted on with the knowledge that the offender had not been previously identified and dealt with for that offence. The FSS do not routinely remove identified stains from their database, so a repeat offender will get identified for all previous offences, as well as any new offences every time he or she is searched. This means that the number of DNA identifications claimed by the FSS for the DNA database is grossly over inflated. This has made police forces over-reliant on DNA results to justify various initiatives and has encouraged more prioritisation of DNA submissions than perhaps would have been made if the true statistics were known. This, in turn has exacerbated the logjam in the DNA system.

19. I hope that the above assists in understanding how the FSS losses have come about. Had the FSS not put profit above all other considerations, they would have maintained or increased the work submitted to them and they would not have made losses. I am convinced that with the right management and government policies in place that the situation could be rectified, but this might mean the revision of the forensic market place. I think that all of us who were ‘in the trade’ can trace problems on all sides back to this point. The whole forensic system in the UK could be made far more efficient if given the correct funding and management that worked for justice rather than profit. Government money is used to provide forensic services, whether it is directly or indirectly. The current indirect route reduces the amount available to pay for forensic services as it has to also fund layers of management and fiscal control that are only necessary due the forensic market place.

20. As an aside, there is also a lot of unnecessary expense and workload generated by the Crown Prosecution Service demanding work to be done that in some instances has absolutely no impact on the case, and in many cases has already been considered by the Forensic Management Team and rejected with a documented rationale. This not only increases the costs, but also imposes more work on an already over stretched industry. All unnecessary work has a negative impact on the delivery times of the necessary work.

Graham Owen

7 February 2011

Written evidence submitted by Alan Calverd (FSS 10)

The importance of a public forensic science service

1. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

2. Forensic science, however meticulous, can only yield an opinion. Where that opinion is bought, the big money is likely to dominate in Court.

3. Where there is a market and a premium on success in Court, regular purchasers will tend to buy from those who win, regardless of the truth. Success breeds reputation and further success. The behaviour of the General Chiropractic Council is a clear example.

4. Thus in the ongoing battle between the accused private individual and the zealous prosecuting institution, whose financial resources are unlimited, justice will be ever more set aside in favour of power.

5. In an era of growing public distrust in corporations and political institutions, and the increasing use of the police force to defend policy rather than life and property, the abolition of a publicly accountable, publicly funded, and genuinely disinterested expert opinion service, cannot be in the public interest.

6. If the system is inefficient, by all means review it and improve it, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

7. Never trust a front-bench politician. Ignore the given reasons (the Forensic Science Service deficit is a fraction of the MEPs’ expenses budget) and ask "What possible corruption lies behind this?" "Which MPs’ wives have shares in private forensic laboratories?" "Would the CPS achieve a greater conviction rate against so-called terrorists if the forensic evidence were ‘stronger’?"

Alan M Calverd PhD

20 January 2011