5The strategy
A ‘national approach’
64.The Forensic Science Strategy proposed a move towards “a more consistent ‘national approach’”:
A national approach to forensic science delivery, proposed and delivered by police forces, would aim to ensure greater consistency of service quality; resilient, reliable capability and with economies of scale.133
The Strategy lists seven areas through which that national approach will be delivered “by the end of this Parliament”:
a) consistent quality management and standardisation across police forces, including a clearer statutory role for the Forensic Science Regulator;
b) enhanced governance for the forensics system, including a wider role for the National DNA Database Ethics Group;
c) a review by police forces of the case for moving current fragmented provision into a Joint Forensic and Biometric Service to achieve economies of scale, increased capability and resilience;
d) ongoing oversight of the health of the supply chain, including contingency plans developed by police forces to cope with disruption to the market;
e) working closely with research councils and other public research organisations to identify new cost effective opportunities and influences for forensic science;
f) working with the College of Policing to understand the capabilities required within the forensic science workforce; and
g) nurturing a stronger partnership with industry and education to ensure that learning programmes are future proofed and aligned to the business requirements.134
65.We have discussed much of this in the Chapters above—the supply chain in Chapter 2, forensics research in Chapter 3, and standards and the proposed statutory role for the Forensic Science Regulator in Chapter 4. From our examination in those areas, we conclude that any ‘national approach’ will depend on what the police service, rather than the Government, wish to bring about. The Strategy document itself refers to measures “proposed and delivered by police forces”.135
66.The Government’s plans on procurement cast doubt on what is meant by a ‘national’’ approach. As we noted in Chapter 2, police forces have contracted for the majority of external forensic work through non-mandatory ‘NFFNG’ national forensic procurement agreements, and will now be left individually to negotiate and manage new procurement processes, including ‘partnerships’ (paragraph 19). As we noted above, the Government’s Forensics Strategy document failed to explain how the new decentralised regime would square with the Strategy’s desire for a “more consistent national approach”, or how new ‘oversight’ systems would operate. Mike Penning was clear that the ‘national’ aspect of the ‘national approach’ cited in the Strategy referred only to accreditation and their statutory enforcement by the Regulator.136
Biometrics and forensics
67.The Government’s Forensics Strategy is also unclear on the linkages between biometrics and forensics. As we noted above, in September 2015 the Government stated that two strategies—a Forensic Strategy and a Biometric Strategy—would be produced rather than the single document that had previously been envisaged (paragraph 7).137
68.In biometrics there has been a long-running issue about how individuals’ data (particularly their DNA) is collected and retained, so as to balance the effectiveness of the criminal justice system with the need to safeguard privacy. The National DNA Database Ethics Group expected the forthcoming Biometrics Strategy to put “into focus some of the key ethical challenges which society faces in the large-scale collection and storage of information about individuals”.138
69.Despite the fact that the Biometric Strategy has not yet been published, the Forensic Strategy announced “a review by police forces of the case for moving current fragmented provision into a Joint Forensic and Biometric Service to achieve economies of scale, increased capability and resilience”. The Home Office gave us more details in June 2016:
A programme of work will [ … ] ensure that those forensic and biometric capabilities currently delivered in-house are organised most effectively and shared across policing, where appropriate. A study has been commissioned of how technological advances in forensics at the frontline could best be exploited [ … ] This will focus in particular on ensuring that lessons have been learned from field trials of technology like ‘Rapid DNA’ and identity technologies and approaches that would benefit from a wider, national roll out. Chiefs and [Police and Crime Commissioners] will want to consider the case for a [Joint Forensic and Biometric Service] in the round. One likely potential benefit will be an improved ability to innovate, to send signals to suppliers about priorities for innovation, and an enhanced ability both to trial new approaches and ensure these are rolled out widely over a service supporting a large area of law enforcement.139
Oversight and governance
70.The Strategy also lacks full details on the proposed governance and oversight of forensics, which, it noted, were still to be decided:
We will review the existing governance structure in order to ensure there is a clear, simple, overarching governance structure, capitalising on the national approach.140
The Strategy proposes the expansion of the remit of the National DNA Database Ethics Group (to also cover biometrics) and the National DNA Database Strategy Board (to also cover fingerprints). The National DNA Database Ethics Group told us that it welcomed this.141 However, details of how the overall governance structure will be simplified are unclear.
71.The Forensic Strategy placed responsibility for the implementation of the Strategy on the existing Forensic Policy Group (FPG), chaired by the Home Office.142 The Regulator wanted a reformed FPG also to be the vehicle for continuing forensic governance:
The Forensic Policy Group is the only one of the existing groups that could potentially be the overarching governance mechanism. To be really effective it would need representation from all stakeholders. It would need clearly defined terms of reference and an ability to act, and it would need to meet more regularly.143
72.No changes to the FPG’s membership were indicated in the Strategy, despite the Government promising our predecessor Committee in 2013 that “[The Forensic Science Strategy] will inevitably result in the Forensic Policy Group changing into a wider, more representative group”.144 The Home Office told us in September 2016 that they had recently reviewed and expanded the membership of the FPG to “ensure that all stakeholder views are represented and a wide range of issues can be considered”, and that the Group will publish its minutes.145
73.One area in which the governance structure for forensics has improved is ministerial responsibility. Our predecessor Committee expressed its concern in its 2013 report that the Ministry of Justice had no ministerial oversight of forensic science. Since 2014, however, forensic science has fallen under the remit of the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims; a joint Home Office and Ministry of Justice role.
74.The Strategy included the aim of a “stronger engagement on forensic science with the Ministry of Justice”, but gives no indication of how this will be achieved. The Regulator welcomed the commitment, but was concerned that the envisaged governance arrangements “will follow a move to a national approach, rather than lead it”.146
An incomplete strategy?
75.The vague language in the Strategy on procurement, with its sparse detail on how locally-negotiated non-standard contracts will deliver the intended ‘more consistent national approach’ (paragraph 23), the lack of detail on the possibility of a joint biometrics and forensics service without the benefit of a published Biometrics Strategy and incomplete governance details, all raise the question of whether the Forensics Strategy is a strategy at all. The impression instead is that it is a plan to produce a Strategy in due course.
76.Home Office officials told us in April 2016 that the Strategy “is about setting out a framework and a set of principles on which [ … ] a lot of further work needs to be done”.147 Mike Penning, the minister then responsible for the Strategy, emphasised in July that it was “not a fixed entity”.148 The Specialist Capabilities Review being carried out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council—seeking to identify which operational policing capabilities are best provided at local or national level149—was, he told us, having “an ongoing effect as to where and who is going to deliver forensics”. He reported that he was “very frustrated that the police capability review is not further forward”.150
77.His successor, Brandon Lewis, indicated that there is still some way to go in completing the scoping work. He told us in September that:
Police forensic leads have been working to develop a strategic proposition to transform police forensics and biometrics, which is still in the early stages. Chief Constable Debbie Simpson [ … ] presented initial proposals to police chiefs and [Police & Crime Commissioners] on 1 July 2016. They intend to make a bid to the Police Transformation Fund later this year to further build the evidence base, test what works and develop a full business case.151
Consultation
78.The Strategy also has an air of incompleteness because ‘scoping work’ on key areas is still underway (paragraph 23), and there has been an evident failure to consult widely on the Strategy before its publication, which in turn has left many stakeholders unclear about its status and purpose.
79.When we took evidence in April, the Home Office was still undertaking a series of workshops. But key stakeholders, such as the Regulator, leaders of the forensic science profession, the Crown Prosecution Service, defence lawyers, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the judiciary had not been involved then. The Regulator told us that she had not been asked to contribute to the scoping work.152 Dr Mark Pearse of LGC Forensics told us, at the same time, that they had not been consulted on the national approach:
Because we have not been engaged and because there is a lack of clarity on what the ‘national approach’ actually means for the private sector in the Strategy as it stands, there is some uncertainty at the moment. There is a leap of faith for the private sector that the good work and partnership approach that we have tried to foster will continue and will play a prominent part in the delivery of the Strategy.153
80.Many of our witnesses also criticised the focus on policing, rather than criminal justice, in the Strategy. Anya Hunt of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences thought that the Strategy was “very police focused”.154 The Regulator believed that:
The Strategy as it stands gives no clear vision for what that national approach looks like [ … ] It is the police who commission and pay for forensic science, but ultimately it is the courts who are the end-users of forensic science, so the whole criminal justice system needs to be involved. If we are to build a sustainable and effective future for forensic science that maximises the value that it brings, we need to look from the crime scene right through to the court. That means involving policing, forensic science professionals, the CPS, defence lawyers, judges and the Ministry of Justice more widely.155
The Strategy focuses too much on policing as the leading body. [ … ] The police have a great part to play in this, but they are one part of a wider stakeholder base.156
81.After we wrote to the minister, Mike Penning MP, about the consultation process,157 he told us in July that:
The Forensic Policy Group met on 6 June to provide a wide group of stakeholders representing both the commercial market and [criminal justice system] partners with an update on the progress so far. I would like to reassure you that we will continue to engage with this group as the proposals develop.158
82.The long delay in producing the Forensic Strategy is unfortunate. But we would rather have seen further delay if that would have allowed the Government to complete essential foundation work, and to formulate a more coherent vision for forensic services and the route-map to deliver it that are missing from the Government’s document. The Government should acknowledge that the Forensics Strategy is an incomplete document which leaves too many issues and possible ways forward under-developed to constitute a coherent description of the Government’s policy and direction in this important area. The Government should now aim, on the back of the hopefully imminent publication of its long-awaited Biometrics Strategy and the conclusion of the police’s currently underway forensics service ‘scoping work’, to present a revised ‘draft Forensic Strategy’ for a full public consultation. Once that is done, we would hope to see a Strategy that justifies such a description.
133 Forensic Science Strategy, Cm 9217, para 6
134 ibid, p7
135 Ibid, para 84
136 Qq168–169
137 Science and Technology Committee, Government response: Current and future uses of biometric data and technologies, Second Special Report, Session 2015–16, HC 455
140 Forensic Science Strategy, Cm 9217, para 57
142 Forensic Science Strategy, Cm 9217, paras 19, 55
143 Q30
144 Home Office, Government response to the Second Report from the Science and Technology Committee: Forensic science, Cm 8750 (November 2013)
147 Q82
148 Q133
149 Home Affairs Committee, Letter to Home Affairs Committee from Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Chair of National Police Chiefs’ Council, 11 March 2016, evidence to the Committee’s Police and Crime Commissioners inquiry (PCC002)
150 Q134
153 Q42
154 Qq1, 31
155 Q1
156 Q31
157 Letter from the Committee to Mike Penning MP, 19 April 2016
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
16 September 2016