Forensic Science Service
Written evidence submitted by Antonio Queenan (FSS 33)
Declaration of Interest
I am a forensic scientist who has been employed by the FSS for the past thirteen years. I am making this submission as an individual and any views expressed in it are not as a representative of the FSS.
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?
1.1 Already the announcement of the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) has had an impact upon the cost and speed of providing DNA results to the police. For commercial confidentiality reasons I am unable to go into detail but all training in a particular area has now been cancelled and is unlikely to be restarted.
1.2 Niche services are often unprofitable but are widely offered by the FSS in the interests of the justice system. I believe that these services will suffer once the FSS closes. For example, one niche service which has routinely been completed by scientists based at the London laboratory of the FSS, this was discontinued within a few weeks of the closure announcement; the FSS withdrew from this line of work as the cost of moving equipment and retraining staff was deemed too high. Due to commercial confidentiality I am unable to name this niche service in this submission.
1.3 If the private companies take up the call to innovate and conduct research, as a result of the demise of the FSS, it is unlikely that they would be willing to make the results of this research freely available to their competitors in the manner that the FSS has done in the past. This may lead to a situation whereby a person charged with an offence may find the evidence presented against them dependent upon which company the local police force uses for its forensic work. This surely cannot be in the interests of justice.
1.4 The FSS are the only organisation with a long standing forensic science research department and are a world leader in this field, especially in the development of DNA analysis and interpretation. Virtually every advance in forensic science in the UK has been through the work of the FSS. Over the past few years the FSS has undertaken a number of collaborative research projects with several universities which have proved useful. Should all the research presently carried out by the FSS be placed in the hands of the universities, I strongly believe that the quality will decline. Without the direct guidance and input of working forensic scientists there is a danger that the research will not answer the questions that are required by the scientist. Whilst universities are good at conducting experiments they often fail to see the bigger picture and how it impacts on the justice system.
1.5 The London FSS laboratory has the widest breadth of specialists in the UK and are able to cover the full range of services required in complex, high profile cases such as the 7/7 bombings; whilst many of the private companies may be capable of completing this work, I believe that none have the range of specialists based on a single site as is required in a fast moving anti-terrorist case. Once this team in London is broken up it will prove difficult, if not impossible, to replicate it.
1.6 The current forensic market is generally loss making and companies currently cannot afford to invest. The police continue to call for quicker and cheaper forensic solutions but without the ability to make a reasonable profit the market will not work. The introduction of competition to the FSS has resulted in a reduction in prices and faster results for the police. However, I feel that the present failure of the FSS, due to cuts in the police forensic budget, will prove to be a precursor to a catastrophic collapse in the forensic market and the failure of other companies.
1.7 The renowned pioneering scientist Sir Alex Jefferies, who introduced DNA fingerprinting in 1985, has (along with numerous other eminent scientists) denounced the decision to close the FSS in a letter published in The Times and I wholeheartedly support his position.
2. What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?
2.1 Over the last few years the volume of forensic work carried out in-house by the police has rapidly expanded. I believe that there is an inherent danger in this in that it may not be viewed as impartial. In-house pre screening by police departments has also led to a decline in the quality of some submissions to the FSS. This may, at times, be due to a failure on the part of the FSS to communicate effectively with the submitting officer on best practice but often is due to a desire for the cheapest possible cost. For example, cases involving footwear marks left at a scene are often screened prior to submission and a single shoe will be submitted to the laboratory for comparison rather than a pair. On occasion the wrong shoe in the pair has been submitted causing delay and increased cost to the police.
2.2 All the work carried out by the FSS and other private companies is quality assured through standards set by UKAS, specifically ISO 17025. However, much of the in-sourced forensic work carried out by the police is not. The police laboratories have been working hard to achieve this accreditation but I feel their efforts may be hampered if they undertake a wider range and greater volume of forensic work following the closure of the FSS. This accreditation is required under European law and this is due to be enforced in 2015; should the police laboratories fail to gain accreditation they will be unable to present their evidence in court. I would like to make clear that I am not questioning the competency of the staff within the police laboratories merely their ability to fulfil the requirements of UKAS within a short timeframe particularly if their volume of work rises.
2.3 The FSS currently carries out numerous cold case reviews every year. Much of this work is only possible due to the FSS’ foresight in retaining samples from cases in a secure manner for many years. This retention policy has been carried out, in most instances, at no cost to the police. This huge archive of samples and files will need to transfer to another provider, or to the police, and I feel there is a real danger that evidence will be inadvertently lost.
2.4 The closure of the FSS will diminish the influence of the UK in Europe and throughout the world in the field of forensic science. This is due to the high regard that the FSS is held as evidenced by the letter to The Times, as previously mentioned, and in a letter to the Home Secretary by Joseph P Bono President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
3. What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?
3.1 Prior to the closure announcement the FSS was undergoing a major transformation which was ahead of schedule and below budget; this was on course to deliver a profitable, sustainable business. With the decision to drastically cut the police budget, there has been a collapse in revenue at the FSS rendering the business unviable. Whilst the cuts to the police budget will not come in to effect until the new financial year their forensic spend has already declined. The situation has been compounded by the increase in police in-sourcing. Other forensic providers are also in financial distress. For example, Key Forensics’ accounts for 2010 were filed late and contained a shareholders warning that they may not be financially viable; LGC Forensics also continue to be unprofitable and are rumoured to be for sale for a £1.
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 the police forces?
4.1 The forensic market is failing; it is immature and appears to be in danger of total collapse. The FSS has 60% of the forensic market; this is a huge amount of work to expect private companies to pick up in such a short space of time. I believe that this poses a huge risk to the justice system, as without a clear viable market place companies are unlikely to be willing to invest in equipment, premises and staff to take over from the FSS. With the current fragile state of the forensic market many of the staff at the FSS are not prepared or are in a position to move to the private companies unless it is under TUPE conditions or after receiving a redundancy payment from the FSS. Furthermore, many staff members are actively planning to leave forensic science as they see no future for themselves in this field. I believe that this loss of highly skilled scientists will be to the detriment of the Criminal Justice System (CJS).
4.2 Anti-terrorist work is traditionally done by the FSS; in future this will be completed by private companies. As previously stated I believe that none of the private companies, in their present format, will be able to undertake this work within the timescales required.
5. What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?
5.1 All forensic scientists are ultimately responsible to the courts and therefore should come under their jurisdiction. I believe that in order to demonstrate total impartiality and to ensure that profit does not impede justice this should be the way forward. Furthermore, police in-sourcing of forensic work should also be limited to increase the perception of impartiality. This would have the added benefit of helping to stabilise the companies presently delivering forensic science to the CJS and reduce the likelihood of one or more exiting the market.
5.2 The FSS has undergone a radical transformation over the past 18 months, at great expense to the public purse. This was on course to deliver a profitable, sustainable business despite the fact that the government has limited the ability of the FSS to freely compete in the market place. Other companies are free to decline to bid for work but the FSS are expected to be provider of last resort. Despite this the market, as it stands, does not work, with all providers struggling. I feel that the market should undergo a full, independent review in order to determine the best outcome for the justice system.
6. So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?
6.1 There appears to have been no pre-planning by the government and it has only been since the announcement that several steering groups have been formed to look at the best way to achieve an orderly wind down of the FSS. I strongly feel that there should have been a detailed independent review of the market and alternatives to the closure prior to its announcement.
6.2 The timescale is also too short. In order to close fully by the of end March 2012 the FSS needs to stop taking new cases from the police by approximately the end of June 2011, with certain case types ceasing much earlier (for example murder enquires often run for longer than a year and it would not be ideal to have to change scientists and forensic provider mid way through an enquiry). Having already closed three laboratories (and nearly finished closing a fourth) in the past twelve months it has become clear that several months are required to close a site once operational work has ceased. Therefore, it should be obvious that casework will cease mid way through this year. Unfortunately, this appears to have come as a surprise to both the police and the government who believed casework would continue much later; this was relayed to staff at the FSS by senior managers on a number of occasions.
6.3 When the closure announcement was made the FSS was nearing the end of an ambitious transformation programme. As part of this, the laboratory at Chorley will close this March. A particular case type is mainly run from this laboratory and as part of the transformation the equipment was due to transfer to the London Laboratory and staff were to be trained to undertake the work. However, with the closure announcement this is on hold, awaiting a decision as to whether the transfer and retraining is cost effective. If this work does not transfer to the London Laboratory, or an alternative private company, by the end of February I believe that a huge backlog will quickly develop in the CJS, causing chaos as trials are delayed or discontinued due to forensic evidence not being available when required by the courts. This is, I believe, being urgently looked at by the steering groups but should have been considered prior to the closure announcement. Due to commercial confidentiality I am unable to state, in this submission, the nature of this case type. I also believe that this situation will be repeated many times over the coming months.
Conclusion
I am grateful that the Science and Technology Committee have agreed to hold this short enquiry and I appreciate the opportunity to make this submission.
I believe that the government has failed to properly consider the implications of the closure of the FSS and have ignored the calls of both the FSS and numerous private forensic companies for an independent review of the forensic market. I hope that the Committee will see fit to call for a temporary suspension in the winding-down of the FSS whilst a full, independent review of the forensic market place is undertaken.
Antonio Queenan
9 February 2011
|
