Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by Anne Chapman-Damms (FSS 47)

1) I have been employed as a Forensic Scientist since 3rd September 1979, when I joined the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL). In 1996 the MPFSL merged with the Home Office Forensic Science Service to provide a national service to the Criminal Justice System. I have in total 31 years of dedicated service to the Criminal Justice System. I have received a commendation from the Head of the Anti-Terrorist branch, in recognition of some of that work.

2) I do not believe I am qualified to answer many of the questions before you - however I strongly believe that these questions should have been answered before the closure was announced. It seems to me that the stable door has shut after the horse has bolted. Not only bolted but in the abattoir!

3) I would, however, like to address your final question.

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

4a) We have been told by our CEO that "The Home Office have asked us to look at our redundancy terms going forward." Although I understand that one of my colleagues had a meeting with the Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, who was not aware that we were being asked to review our redundancy package. The FSS has been going through a process of transformation, some sites have been earmarked for closure, while staff at the remaining sites, have gone through an assessment/re-grading in order to retain our jobs within the ‘transforming F.S.S.’. Those who didn’t make the grade-for whatever reason-have left, or have been promised, the current package. I believe it is grossly unfair and morally wrong to attempt to alter the redundancy package for the remaining staff at the FSS. Given this, there is potentially a huge cost associated with making the 1600 staff, still within the organisation redundant, a cost that may take many years to recover, if it is ever to be recovered.

4b) It is clear that neither Police insourcing nor the alternative Forensic Providers are currently in a position to take on the 60% of the work currently performed by the FSS, there is therefore an immense risk to the Criminal Justice System. I understand that many of these private companies are loss-making and that the future provision of Forensic Science is therefore not secure. It takes many years of training to reach the levels of experience required for complex Criminal or Terrorist investigations, the assumption that new providers can enter the marketplace, within the 12 to 15 month timescale the FSS has been given, completely ignores this.

4c) Unless the company is transferred to another owner, effectively as a going concern, there are insufficient facilities available to perform the functions we currently perform. Setting up a new Laboratory is not just a matter of renting office space, and wheeling in a few graduates. However, while it is the Minister’s " firm ambition is that there will be no continuing state interest in a forensics provider by March 2012.", this takes no account of the Police insourcing of Forensic Science , and the effect this has on the commercial market by upsetting the level playing field.

4d) My colleagues and I need to focus our attention on completing the work in hand and "to ensure an orderly transition", of the FSS out of the Forensic Market. Instead everyone is worrying about whether we will get what is rightfully ours. Forensic Science is a highly specialised industry and after spending 31 years (I joined at 18) working in this field I will need to be re-trained and then I will have to start at the bottom again. An acknowledgement that our compensation package will not be reduced might enable me to start all over again and would at least give my family and me some financial and emotional security whilst I go through this process.

4e) These thoughts and opinions are my own, they are not necessarily those of my employer. This letter is not authorized by or sent on behalf of the sender’s employer. It is the personal responsibility of the sender.

Anne Chapman-Damms

26 January 2011