S&T Committee: Written evidence FSS Forensic Science Service: 5 April 2011 FSS Author FSS Author 00 Home Office 46 Forensic Service Northern Ireland 01 Professor Brian Caddy 47 Anne Chapman-Damms 02 Dr Peter Dean 48 Lis Harris, Gemma Escott, Nicola Taylor, Michelle Walton 03 Allan McCullagh 49 Miss S A Warnakulasuriya 04 Geoffrey Hanson 50 Dr Richard J C Barron PhD BSc 05 Mrs Jennifer Button 51 Hilary Kingston 06 Justin Scott 52 Dr Susan Pope 07 Andrea Grout 53 Emma Wilson 08 John Millington 54 S Hearsum 09 Mrs Marylyn Godber 55 Lisa Webb-Salter 10 Alan M Calverd 56 Dr Steven R Baker 11 W Folkard 57 Colin Osmond 12 John Haley 58 Ian Parkinson 13 G Burton 59 Jeffrey and Sara Gray 14 Mrs Carol Hannam 60 Neville Isles and Lynn Bower 15 Mr Roderick Hannam 61 Dr Kevin Sullivan 16 Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys 62 Robert Green OBE 17 Dr Denise Syndercombe Court 63 LGC Forensics 18 Graham Owen 64 Abigail Snasdell 19 Professor Peter Gill 65 The Forensic Institute 19a Supplementary 20 Andrew Meaby 21 Dr Fiona Perry 67 Mr Ian Kirkwood 22 Natural History Museum 68 Dr S M Willis 23 FSS Firearms Staff 69 British Medical Association 24 Professor Ronald C Denney 70 Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science 25 David Baldwin 71 Statistics and Interpretation Group 26 Amanda Meaby 72 Katy Rowe and Laura Davis 27 Mike Chan 73 Cellmark Forensic Services 28 Pat Best 74 Terry Kent 29 Prospect 75 The Biochemical Society 30 Edward Braxton Reynolds 76 Forensic Science Regulator 31 Dr S P Day 77 Mike Silverman 32 Andy Willis, Forest Forensic Services 78 Shailes Jagatiya 33 Antonio Queenan 79 Centre for Forensic Investigation, Teesside University 34 David Sawney 80 FSS Gunshot Residue Staff 35 Claire Franklin 81 Axiom International Ltd 36 D J X Halliday 82 Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science 37 Andrea Stanton 83 Criminal Cases Review Commission 38 Mr Peter S B Minty 84 Catherine Turner Orland Elmhirst 39 Royal Statistical Society 85 Forensic Science Society 40 Deborah Weeks 86 Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine 41 Mr Peter Grant 87 Forensic Science Service 87a Supplementary 87b Supplementary 42 FSS London Toxicology Team 88 Royal Society of Chemistry 43 Mrs Florence Heap 89 Crown Prosecution Service 44 S J Griffith 90 Gary Pugh, Director Forensic Services, Metropolitan Police Service 45 Key Forensic Services Ltd 91 University of Strathclyde 92 Research Councils UK 93 GeneWatch UK [93A&93B] 94 Mike Barber 95 Alan Field 96 National Policing Improvement Agency 97 Alan Whittle Written evidence submitted by the Home Office (FSS 00) Mr Andrew Miller Chairman, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Thank you for the invitation to give evidence to your inquiry into the Science and Technology Committee’s Inquiry into the Forensic Science Service (FSS). The Home Office is committed to ensuring the continued provision of effective forensics to the Criminal Justice System, and I am pleased to provide a written evidence submission on the managed wind-down of the Forensic Science Service, which I announced on 14 December 2010. JAMES BROKENSHIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE Home Office Written Evidence Submission 1. The Government believes that the managed wind-down of the FSS was the right choice, both financially and for the Criminal Justice System. 2. We want to see the UK forensic science industry operating as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. This will preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help to drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, that is what everyone in the Criminal Justice System wants to see. Declaration of interest: 3. The Home Office is the lead government department for immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, counter-terrorism and police. The Home Office is the 100% Shareholder of FSS Ltd, and provides central government grants to police authorities in England and Wales. Question 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? Impact of the wind-down on forensic science 4. The forensics market has been shrinking for some time and this had put the FSS in serious financial difficulty, with operating losses of around £2m per month within a market expected to contract further. 5. The FSS was not securing as many contracts as hoped for through the police procurement process. Other competent companies (assessed as such in order to be on the procurement framework) are successfully winning police contracts and are meeting performance requirements. There are 11 other companies on the procurement framework (of varying sizes and with some focussing on specialist areas of forensic science). 6. The Home Office’s Forensic Transition Board is overseeing the orderly wind down of the FSS and transition of work. The Board includes FSS Company Directors, ACPO, senior Home Office and CPS representatives and the Forensic Science Regulator. It has agreed a joint governance process to manage risks and issues associated with the transition and balance financial, strategic and operational decisions. In addition, ACPO and the NPIA have a comprehensive project to manage the transition of work and associated operational issues for the police service: Operation Slingshot, led by Deputy Chief Constable Ainsworth and reporting to the Forensic Transition Board. Impact of the wind-down on Research and Development 7. Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high quality, efficient, forensic science capability for the Criminal Justice System. This research has historically been undertaken by a wide range of organisations including the private sector, government-owned laboratories and academia. 8. The decision to support a managed wind-down of the Forensic Science Service took into account the need to manage the impact on forensic science research and development in the UK. Unfortunately, the financial position of the FSS had already limited the capacity for the research and development for which it had become renowned. During the managed wind-down, we are working closely with the police, the FSS, the CPS and other forensic providers to consider how the industry can build on existing expertise and continue the research and innovation for which the UK has become renowned. Innovation is by no means restricted to the FSS and other suppliers have developed important new tools. We believe that provided the procurement framework rewards new products, incentives for innovation should remain. 9. Although not directly related to the wind-down, on 26 January 2011 the Government announced a review of the UK’s current and future provision of forensic research, led by Professor Bernard Silverman and supported by Andrew Rennison (Forensic Science Regulator). The review will consult widely, via interviews and correspondence, with the National Policing Improvement Agency, forensic service providers and related organisations in the public and private sectors, academia, research funders, and customers of forensic science such as police services, the Crown Prosecution Service and the wider Criminal Justice System. 10. The aim of this review, reporting to Home Office Ministers by 30 April 2011, is to provide Ministers with advice on the current and likely future status of forensic science research and development in the UK and to make other recommendations as appropriate. Question 2: What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system? 11. The decision to proceed with the managed wind-down was heavily influenced by the need to ensure that the CJS continues to receive robust and impartial forensic services and to reduce any adverse impact on any current or future case, or historical cases on appeal. 12. Although FSS currently hold a large share of the market, this has been steadily eroded in recent years and it has been losing market share to commercial providers in recent competitive tenders. We were provided with assurances from CJS partners that capacity and capability could be provided elsewhere in the market to fill any gaps due to FSS’ exit. 13. On 13 January, the Government announced that Andrew Rennison has agreed to a second term as the forensic science regulator, assisting us in our commitment to the continued provision of effective forensic science services over the longer term. The Forensic Science Regulator’s principal role is to set and monitor quality standards for forensic science used in the Criminal Justice System. This involves identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; providing advice and guidance so that providers, including commercial laboratories and the police, will be able to demonstrate compliance with common standards, and ensuring that satisfactory arrangements exist to provide assurance and monitoring of the standards. 14. The regulator is working with the laboratories, the police, the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), the Crown Prosecution Service, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) and other stakeholders to develop and maintain the quality of forensic science services across all forensic processes from the supply of equipment used at crime scenes, the examination of scenes, the collection and storage of exhibits, the sampling from and analysis of exhibits, and the reporting of forensic science evidence . 15. An important aspect of this work is to ensure that quality standards for forensic science continue to be regulated and that the forensic science regulator plays a central and independent role in coordinated work with the Home Office, the police and other stakeholders.