Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by Dr Fiona Perry (FSS 21)

Please find below my written submission to the Committee:

Point 1

1i) Closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) will leave England and Wales as being the only countries in the world that have a totally privatised forensic science market. No other country has even come close to considering this as an option and forensic communities throughout the world widely regard privatisation as ‘madness’ and not in the public’s best interest.

1ii) Neither the Government, ACPO nor any other organisation have any control (either now or in the future) over how much work the other forensic providers will take over from the FSS, which forensic areas they will cover or how long they will provide forensic services. If these companies decide to exit the forensic market in future years, the Government, ACPO etc. will be powerless to stop them. By closing the FSS, the Government will have relinquished any control over forensic science provision in England and Wales.

1iii) The private forensic laboratories have no ties or loyalty to forensic science. If they are making insufficient profit, they will simply exit the market. This is a very real concern considering that the police are forecasting decreasing submissions and with the pressure of the rapid expansion required to take over the FSS work. There is a considerable risk that the country will find itself with a drastic shortage of forensic providers and a Criminal Justice System in crisis. The Government would have no choice but to have to step in and build a new forensic laboratory which would cost hundreds of millions of pounds (on top of the millions already being spent to investigate and close down the FSS).

1iv) Forensic science should be kept as a public service and should not be run for (or judged by) profit alone. Forensic provision should be about who does the job best and most efficiently, not about who can do it the cheapest or quickest.

1v) With the closure of the FSS, there will be a considerable loss of experienced, knowledgeable and well trained forensic scientists. There will not be enough jobs at the other providers to employ all FSS staff; some will be unable (or unwilling) to relocate; others will become disillusioned with a forensic career and pursue other careers and a significant number are likely to move abroad where there is a more healthy (i.e. non-privatised) forensic market with better opportunities. This staff departure has already been demonstrated (and raised as a concern) following closure of the FSS Birmingham, Chepstow and Chorley Laboratories (along with earlier FSS redundancies).

1vi) Closing the FSS will kill the forensic market. LGC Alliance will become the new monopoly - they have already taken over Forensic Alliance and The Horseracing Forensic Laboratory, thus significantly reducing the number of competitors in the market.

1vii) The Government’s intention is to ‘drive down prices and improve turnaround times’. Closing down a company that as a 60% share of a market (i.e. making demand vastly exceed supply) will do exactly the opposite. It will be a seller’s market where the remaining forensic providers will be free to charge the police whatever price they like. In addition, the remaining forensic providers are likely to have to increase their charges to fund their expansions.

1viii) The FSS has been responsible for every DNA technique advancement to date, along with several other important areas of research. None of the other forensic laboratories (or the police) have shown any interest in investing in such advancements (presumably due to its high costs). It is essential that research and development is considered an essential part of forensics.

1ix) The FSS has an international reputation and is a world leader in forensic science. There is very little scientific achievement in the UK but the Country should definitely be proud of the FSS. It is one of the few scientific achievements that other countries envy about the UK. Closing the FSS will destroy our forensic reputation. It will take decades for another company to build up a similar reputation and there is no guarantee that they will ever be able to gain a reputation as good as the FSS.

1x) There are likely to be serious implications for specialist areas such as Cold Case Reviews. What experience do the other forensic providers have in doing such reviews and are they able to prove that they have sufficient resources and sufficiently experienced staff?

1xi) The FSS has vast amounts of information and databases that none of the other forensic providers possess - it would take them years to build up a similar depth of data. The FSS also performs advisory functions to Government departments on several areas.

Point 2

2i) The Forensic Science Service has always led the field in terms of quality, training and research. It is a model that has been copied by several of the other companies.

2ii) The FSS has been in the UK forensic field, in one form or the other, for decades. None of the other companies have the same depth of the experience.

2iii) Forensic Science is not just about producing analytical results. Just as important is interpretation of the evidence in the context of the case, comparison to the most appropriate data and awareness of contamination issues and other pitfalls. Experience is invaluable and all FSS staff benefit from having many other more experienced colleagues for continued advice and mentoring. The FSS has tried and tested methods and must have encountered every type of case, situation and problem in its decades of existence. New companies simply do not have the breadth of experience to offer this level of assurance. Closure of the FSS would mean that the Country is moving into a system where a number of the forensic providers will be unfamiliar, untested and their competency and reliability as yet unknown.

2iv) The FSS is a well known and familiar name in the legal field. They can be assured of its quality and well-trained staff. All analysts and reporting officers undergo rigorous training programmes and no reporting officers give evidence in court until they have passed a course on giving evidence as an expert witness. Do all other forensic providers train their staff to this standard?

2v) The forensic market is essentially unregulated, the forensic regulator having only been in existence for a few years. The forensic regulator has concentrated on regulating the analytic side of forensics (to ISO 17025). Not all forensic providers are accredited to this standard. The reporting side of forensics is essentially unregulated since the abolishment of CRFP (Council for the Regulation of Forensic Practitioners). At the time of abolishment, virtually all court going scientists with the FSS were CRFP registered. There is therefore no reliable system by which the police and legal profession can check the quality of forensic providers, particularly any new companies entering the market. Dilution in forensic quality has obvious consequences, not least an increase in defence challenges and legal aid requests.

2vi) The reporting styles vary between different forensic providers. Some provide a ‘one page’ analytical or diagnostic report with little or minimal forensic interpretation. This leaves the police and legal field free to interpret the results themselves which is extremely dangerous. The old adage ‘You get what you pay for’ can be aptly applied.

2vii) The Forensic Science Service is the only company which makes security clearance a condition of employment which is important in security sensitive cases such as organised crime and terrorism. Furthermore, what provisions to the other providers have to ensure secure storage of controlled drugs and sensitive data?

2viii) If other forensic providers are unable, or unwilling, to take over all of the FSS’s work, then there will be a deficit in forensic provision, causing backlogs in cases. The consequences of this for the Criminal Justice System are obvious – cases failing to get to court, reduction in the number of crimes solved, increase in compensation claims etc.

Point 3

3i) The FSS has been unfairly judged on profit alone. Until the Government decided to create a forensic market in 2005, the FSS was a successful company with a reasonable turnover. Its major shareholder (The Government) then actively reduced the company’s income by encouraging police forces to submit their forensic work to other providers. This may have been justified in the interests of creating a forensic market but it is not fair for the Government to then blame the Company for its losses (to which the income reduction and inevitable redundancies contributed). This situation would not have happened in any other market and the FSS has become a victim of a very dangerous and ill thought out Government experiment. The FSS and its staff have tirelessly provided forensic services, despite these difficulties, only to be thrown aside with no regard or respect.

3ii) The media coverage has concentrated on the fact that the FSS is losing £2 million a month.  However, the FSS has undergone a radical restructuring over the last year and will have closed 3 laboratories between Dec 2010 and March 2011.  Once this has happened and as long as our income remains steady, the company should no longer be losing money.

Point 4

4i) The closure of the FSS is not simply about a transfer of work to other providers. No other forensic provider is an equivalent replacement as none provide the wide scope of forensic areas provided by the FSS. They ‘cherry pick’ the simple and high profit areas and the country risks having a simplified and 2nd rate forensic field in future. Furthermore, there is a reasonable choice of laboratories for DNA analysis but very limited choice in some other areas. The police will have virtually no choice of where to send some of their work. For example, even with a simple analysis such as Road Traffic Act alcohol determinations, there is only one other laboratory (LGC Alliance) apart from the FSS that is able to take on the work. I understand that even LGC Alliance do not have the capacity to take on this work in the foreseeable future.

4ii) Without the FSS, it is impossible to envisage how the other forensic providers will be able to cope with the required increase from their current 40% of the market to 100%. Such rapid expansion, and the costs required, is financially risky for any business but even more so in a market where prices have been driven so low that they fail to cover the analytical cost of some types of work.

4iii) All forensic providers have struggled in the last few years against the police driving down prices and reduced volume of submissions. Furthermore, it is difficult to attract private investors into this market, as demonstrated by the French company Eurofins who exited the market last year after 6 months stating that there was no money in the UK forensic market.

4iv) The other forensic providers have relied heavily on recruiting ex-FSS staff who have left or been made redundant. They will have to carry out the training of all future staff from scratch which will be expensive and time consuming.

4v) In the Science and Technology Committee’s report to the Government on Forensic Science in 2005 regarding the prospect of the FSS forming a Public Private Partnership ( http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/forensic-science-on-trial ?), when discussing the possibility that the FSS might fail if it became a PPP, ACPO commented that "a destabilised and rapidly failing FSS, currently widely regarded as the leading forensic provider in the World and with up to 90% of market share at present, is potentially a disaster, which we would prefer not to contemplate." Whilst the market share has changed somewhat since 2005, I find it hard to believe that ACPO’s opinion has (honestly!) changed so much that they are happy to support the break-up of the FSS.

Point 5

5i) The FSS should be given time to finish their transformation programme and turn its financial situation around following the closure of the Birmingham, Chepstow and Chorley Laboratories by March 2011. This should make it a profitable company but, if not, then the prospect of a PPP should be investigated.

5ii) It is staggering that this decision has been made without considering the financial savings that will be made from closure of the Birmingham, Chepstow and Chorley Laboratories by March 2011 (c.f. James Brokenshire’s answer to Diana Johnson’s parliamentary written question on 1st February 2011). Surely this is a fundamental rule of business and the responsibility of a Company’s shareholders to consider all the information affecting its financial position.

5iii) The independent forensic providers should no longer be allowed to ‘cherry pick’ from the market, taking only those areas which are most profitable. This would allow the FSS to compete on a level playing field and to be judged fairly.

5iv) The McFarland Review in 2002 stated that the market would implode and fail if police forces started to ‘in-source’ their forensic sources. This is exactly what has happened and is in danger of forcing the failure of other forensic providers if it continues. Police in-sourcing should be prevented or controlled in future.

5v) The Government should be prepared to support the FSS until the end of the transformation programme. The amount of money required is tiny compared to the billions used to bail out the banks and subsidise transport. Otherwise, this short-sighted decision to close the FSS will cost the Country a lot more over the next few years. I’m sure the majority of the public would agree that this would be a good use of Tax Payer’s money.

5vi) The public are already outraged at the decision to close the FSS. If the Government continues, then there will be a huge backlash once the full consequences of this decision are realised in a year or so. Furthermore, Victim Support Groups will be carefully monitoring the situation once the FSS closes. Any case that does not make it into the court system, or whose forensic work is shown to be lacking, will make it into the human domain. The Government will, quite rightly, be directly blamed for this. ACPO and CPS will also have to share the blame if they support the decision to close the FSS.

Point 6

6i) Any arrangements made to date have not been made public.

Dr Fiona Perry

Forensic Toxicologist

The Forensic Science Service, London Laboratory (with over 16 years experience).

7 February 2011