Forensic Science Service
Written evidence submitted by Prospect (FSS 29)
Introduction
1. Prospect is a trade union representing 122,000 professionals, managers and specialists across all sectors of the economy. We represent 50,000 professional scientists and engineers in the UK, including more than 1,000 employed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS). We have considerable concerns about the merits of the decision to wind-down the FSS and the impact that it may have on the criminal justice system and forensic science in the UK. We are also concerned about the manner in which the decision was presented by the Minister: this came as a complete shock to Prospect and our members working in the FSS and contradicted indications from the Minister’s office in July that there were no plans at that stage to make radical shifts in policy or direction for the FSS. Despite Prospect requests, there has no opportunity to meet the Minister – either before his announcement or afterwards. Over one month after the original announcement on 27 January the Minister for Crime Prevention announced a review of FSS R&D. Prospect welcomes the Government’s recognition of the need for such a review and the Minister’s acknowledgement that ‘Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high quality, efficient, forensic science capability’. However, our members are understandably sceptical of the review’s intent given that a genuine review would be expected to inform a decision whereas in this case the outcome has already been announced.
2. Prospect therefore strongly welcomes this inquiry, and our responses to the questions posed by the Select Committee are set out below.
Q1. 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?
3. Prospect believes that the forensic science marketplace is extremely fragile, as evidenced by the fact that private sector contractors in the current market have all struggled financially. We understand that police spending on the external forensic market has fallen. Whilst building up in-house provision may be theoretically possible for larger forces, this would not be without risks to impartiality as explained below. It would be much more difficult for smaller forces to equip themselves with all the necessary specialisms in forensic science or provide peer-to-peer reviews. Moreover, in reality the market has contracted even in advance of the budget cuts announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. We therefore fail to see how the Government can have confidence that a sustainable market can exist in the future or how the current proposals will avoid the dangers of a supplier of this critical work failing.
4. A key test of any proposals must be to maintain the capacity needed to deal with major incidents, such as potential terrorist attacks on London, in addition to day-to-day activities. The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser agrees that Government needs its own capability in key areas, for example for security reasons, and that it is important to identify areas that will not be supported by a fully market driven approach and may therefore require Government intervention. Professor Beddington has also indicated that 'There is a need to invest in horizon scanning to identify potential future threats and opportunities that it would be in the national interest to exploit, and this may be something best led from within Government'.
5. Although we question the motivation for the recently announced review of forensic research and development, we do strongly agree that an objective assessment is needed. The case for continuous funding has been powerfully made in the letter to The Times in December 2010 by a group of world-leading scientists and it is worth quoting their views ‘It is no exaggeration to say that the FSS has led (the advance of) forensic DNA-typing to the status of precision, sensitivity and power to individualise that it now commands worldwide. These advances paved the way for the introduction of national DNA databases to routinely match crime scene material to suspects with previous convictions….. Professional expertise cannot be maintained without continuing research and education. Scientific research always includes the risk of failure, so funding for such research cannot be generated from the income made supplying services in a competitive market’.
6. It should also be noted that other less high-profile but nonetheless essential parts of forensic science provision are at risk. For example, Scenesafe is a business division of FSS that supplies evidence recovery kits including those used for sexual assault evidence, road traffic accidents, and all the kits used to sample under the PACE regulations. Scenesafe has been instrumental in setting the standards for quality and victim care in evidence collection and sampling processes. Its products are not used only by the FSS but sold to police forces: in fact there is a current framework agreement with the NPIA to provide DNA kits to the entire UK police force for at least another two years. This contract was won on the basis of quality and price and, with few alternative providers, there is a real danger that any that did take over the contract would be very well placed to become a monopoly supplier. Having secured this position, there would be a clear opportunity to dictate future quality and selling price.
Q2. What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?
7. There are dangers both for the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence. As the authors of a recent Investigative Genetics paper note: ‘notable advancements in science are often remembered for the contributions they have made. In some cases, the names of inventors or developers have become icons or hallmarks of scientific disciplines … Rarely recognised, however, is the infrastructure that facilitated developments and successes’. According to Professor MacVean ‘Handing over forensic science responsibilities to an untested privatised system will have "serious repercussions" for Britain's next major case and is not in the best interest of its citizens’. These concerns echo those expressed by the President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, whose view is that ‘The closure of the FSS is a risky and dangerous step for the Government to make. It places profit rather than fairness and impartiality at the heart of justice, which can only bring with it the potential for serious miscarriages of justice …..To take the expertise currently available to the people of the UK through the FSS and move it into an untested system is tenuous at best. Any new system "might work"; the FSS "does work"’.
8. These concerns are further reinforced by experience in the USA: In Washington D.C. a Bill has been brought forward that would have the exact opposite effect to the winding-up decision in the UK. The Bill would take control of Washington’s forensic laboratory away from the police and create a new government department of forensics that would report directly to the Mayor. The objective of this change is to ‘create higher standards, fewer errors and more reliable findings’. Politicians have taken the view that ‘The Metropolitan Police Department should not run the forensic lab. Police are collecting evidence, then analyse it and then testify. It’s more credible if police collect the evidence, give it to the scientist and then have the scientist testify
[6]
’. There have also been allegations about the quality of forensic evidence, including complaints about missing evidence and inaccurate findings. A recent two-year study by the US National Academy of Sciences found that ‘Forensic analysts sometimes face pressure or incentive to alter evidence to help the prosecution’. The Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals has stated that ‘What we are talking about is adding a culture of science to the forensic science community. From what I have seen we have a long way to go
[7]
’.
9. These are warnings that the Government should heed not least because, once dispersed, it will not be possible to simply reassemble the world-class expertise that is currently placed in the FSS. As one of Prospect’s forensic scientist members has commented, ‘Lack of funding will stifle research to the point of extinction and reduce the provision of services
[8]
’. It is therefore of the utmost concern that Ministers appear not to have given consideration to how having the police procure and host their own services could have implications for impartiality as well as to public perception of the criminal justice system. Neither is it evident that any thought has been given to the reasons that led to the UK’s forensic science service being provided by an expert organisation independent of the police.
10. Prospect also shares expert concerns about the regulatory framework for forensic science. The Director of the Centre for Forensic Science at Strathclyde University believes that FSS’ problems prior to the Government’s announcement are attributable to being forced into an unstable and fragile market without any economic regulation or clear business plan. He comments that "The role of the current forensic science regulator is confined to standards which is necessary for high quality provision but not sufficient safeguard against the vagaries of the private market’. Currently the forensic science regulator sits in the Home Office, but as Prospect understands that there are very limited powers and no statutory influence. Prospect members are concerned that ‘If we allow regulation and research to be carried out by business only, there can be no faith in the results due to bias and no research without a guaranteed commercial output’.
11. It is clear that if the Government persists with its decision to wind-down the FSS, additional regulatory powers will be needed to ensure that there is a level playing field between police forces and private contractors. It will also be essential to ensure that forensic science practitioners have recognisable and respected qualifications and a professional code of ethics. This will be particularly important if the intention is to encourage the competitive transfer of work between service providers.
Q3. What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?
12. The stated reason for the winding down the FSS is the fact that it makes a loss. This position is entirely a consequence of previous decisions to contract out an essential public service. As the signatories to The Times letter state ‘It would be erroneous to ascribe the current financial position of the FSS to inefficiencies. Instead this is the result of a privatisation strategy in a limited market with few customers that reduces the provision of state-of-the-art forensic science to the lowest bidder’. It is simply not appropriate for the UK’s forensic science capability to be run on the basis of pure commercial disciplines. As argued by Budowle, Kayser and Sajantila ‘While budget constraints do affect which services and how much of them can be provided, a cost-benefit model may jeopardise the UK Government’s responsibility to protect and secure members of its society. Consider a bank robbery in which the robber takes £8,000. The investigation, arrest and conviction of the robber could cost £50,000. On a cost-benefit basis, it would be more cost-effective for the government to give the £8,000 back to the bank instead of pursuing the robber. This scenario is hardly imaginable in real life, however, despite its economic advantage’.
13. There is a clear distinction to be made between routine analysis, which is the staple business of private forensic providers, and the full range of analysis, research and development undertaken by the FSS. As Professor Alec Jeffreys has commented in New Scientist
[1]
'The logic justifying the closure remains opaque. Providing access to the best forensic expertise will always be a drain on the public purse. Government comments that the FSS is losing money reveal an unimaginative bean-counting mentality and an inability to understand how forensic science progresses'. Similarly, the President for the International Society for Forensic Genetics has argued that 'It is clear that an organisation that offers world-leading research will never be able to compete with commercial suppliers that focus on the lowest cost and highest efficiency. Nor should it. There will always be a demand for customised tests, determined by the circumstances of individual cases. These are important for justice'.
14. Further, the winding-down decision pre-empts any benefits that may result from the Transformation Programme already underway. Indeed in response to a Parliamentary Question on this issue, the Minister confirmed that the £2m monthly loss figure used did not include any savings from this programme that we believe to have been on target to deliver the savings expected of it. The FSS is currently in the process of closing sites in Chepstow, Chorley and Birmingham, with the loss of 750 staff. These are significant changes, but nonetheless do still allow the FSS to maintain a national network of offices and expertise. Prospect believes that national coverage is critically important in providing forensic scientists to crime scene visits, such as murders and fires, in a reasonable time scale. Private forensic science contractors do not have national coverage and have previously shown little appetite to provide this when the opportunity has arisen. It would neither be profitable for them nor good value for the taxpayer to require forensic scientists travel further to crime scenes, particularly in the context of decreased police funding.
Q4. 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?
15. The current position of the Forensic Science Service stems from a failed experiment, dating back to 2003 when the then Home Secretary announced his intention that a commercial market should be developed, with companies competing with FSS for contracts with the police. The FSS, which had been part of the Home Office, was established as a Government-owned company (GoCo) in 2005 and told that it had to compete for business. This market experiment is unique in the world and it has not worked. Attempts to ‘grow the market’ have failed and forensic work is now being driven by cost and not by scientific judgement. According to the Minister ‘The police assessment is that the external forensics market will continue to fall over the next few years’. Many private sector contractors are struggling financially or have withdrawn completely from the market. Venture capitalists have rescued one forensic company. Others are reported to be failing to meet targets and loss-making.
16. Against this background, and bearing in mind that reduced funding from the police is the reason FSS’ income has fallen, it is essential to determine what safeguards will be put in place if private suppliers opt out under constant pressure from the police to cut charges. Equally, there can be no certainty that the police can do the work cheaper in-house. Forensics is not separately costed in police accounts and budgets do not necessarily allow for overheads, e.g. on procurement, HR, facilities etc.
17. One response may be to fragment service provision: Police forces increasingly favour DNA analysis, partly because it is cheaper and quicker than other techniques like fibre analysis. The logical response is for private companies to focus their resources to meet this demand, whilst axeing less profitable areas of forensic science. This means police are more likely to use several companies to examine evidence from the same crime, leading to a piecemeal approach. However, as Dr Bono has warned "Forensic science is the puzzle. It is a way to investigate the world around us to come up with the answers. This involves sitting down with colleagues and formulating answers to questions which relate to violations in the law and present that information reliably and accurately in court. If you split this process up then you won’t see the whole puzzle. If the FSS folds, you will lose the expertise from one place, and compromise justice for people in the UK."
18. It would appear that there has been no risk assessment on the continuance of unprofitable but occasionally critical work or research and development and maintenance of a world-class skills base in the UK. We fail to see how the marketplace will maintain the capacity required to deal with major incidents, such as 7/7, while continuing day-to-day activities. If it is accepted that the marketplace will not provide this capability, the expectation must be that it will be maintained in-house by police forces. Yet under this approach it is not clear what the benefits would be from moving away from the current shared services model of expertise and bringing it in-house. This would lead inevitably either to duplication of provision or, more probably, to under capacity. Neither approach would deliver more cost effective or better quality outcomes for criminal justice than the FSS.
Q5. What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?
19. Prospect’s view is that the organisation of forensic science in the UK should be appropriate to the requirements placed upon it. As demonstrated in this submission, the UK needs to:
·
Retain the independence of forensic science from the process of prosecution.
·
Provide forensic work to the police based not purely on commercial contracts but with the ability to allow for scientific judgement to be exercised.
·
Retain a national coverage of forensic laboratories.
·
Maintain support for R&D to ensure future quality of service.
·
Ensure common minimum standards at crime scenes and in laboratories, in line with internationally recognised standards.
Together, these requirements make a powerful case for a public sector FSS in the national interest.
20. It is not too late to change the Government’s decision and Prospect hopes that the Government will use the opportunity of the R&D review to re-think the flawed closure plan. As Professor Morling has argued 'Even if the decision to close down the FSS is irrevocable, the British justice system will still need research, development, advanced investigation and a source for a competent second opinion within all fields of forensic science. This could be achieved by establishing a properly funded national centre to host research and training facilities, and a laboratory that could conduct special casework investigations, hold reference data and provide a quality assurance service for other labs'. In our view this would best be achieved by re-establishing the FSS as a public centre of excellence.
Q6. So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?
|
