17
Examination of witnesses
Professor Claude Roux and Fiona Douglas.
Q43 The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We are conducting an inquiry on forensic science and the criminal justice system. We are very pleased to have two witnesses. Professor Claude Roux is coming in online from Sydney. He is director at the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Technology Sydney. We have Fiona Douglas, who is director at the Scottish Police Authority Forensic Services.
As you both will know, this inquiry follows up on our 2018 inquiry, which we reported on in 2019. As part of this, we are interested in how the forensic science system works in other countries, as well as how the situation is changing in England and Wales. As a start, could you each briefly set out how forensic science is provided in your respective countries and what you feel have been major changes since 2018? We are very interested in the perspective you each have on how the forensic science system in England and Wales has developed over the last few years.
Professor Claude Roux: Australia is a federal country, so you have different states and territories, and they all have their own police forces and jurisdictions. In all jurisdictions, forensic science services are provided predominantly by government organisations. Broadly speaking, you have two models. One model is what I would call the integrated case-based model, which is what is happening with the Australian Federal Police, so commonwealth jurisdiction, Victoria, Northern Territory and to some extent Tasmania. Here you have a holistic approach across all specialties or disciplines and it is under one roof under police governance.
Then you have a fragmented model for other states, such as New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, where you have split responsibilities between police and lab. Usually, police forces provide what has been historically forensic services provided by the police, such as tool marks, firearms and so on, while the labs are providing the more analytical services, and they are another government department usually.
In terms of changes, there has not been any major structural reform since 2018. However, I can observe that the digital transformation of society has brought this area of digital forensic science to the fore. It creates huge changes. CCTV footage, phone data, AI, gen AI and all that is becoming more and more common in investigation.
Since 2018, we have held a major conference in Australia: the International Association of Forensic Sciences and Education conference in 2023. As part of that, we developed what we call the Sydney declaration, where we try to identify what forensic science is and identify a number of fundamental principles for forensic science. We also identify a number of core challenges for the discipline and the broad forensic science system as part of that conference. I can say more about that, but I know we are pressed for time so I will be driven by you on that.
The Chair: Before we come to Fiona Douglas, do you have any views as to how things have changed in England and Wales since you gave evidence in 2018? Do you have any views on that?
Professor Claude Roux: Yes, I have. I will be very cautious because, as I mentioned previously, I have never practised in your country and I am from afar, so I can only observe what I see myself or learn through discussions with colleagues.
The system is still very fragmented and underfunded. To me, it seems that you have been a bit stuck in a vortex of a lot of reports and reviews over the years, but I have not seen significant changes. It is overly market-driven. It is unclear how the current market can operate with only one major provider. Private providers can cherry-pick what is profitable in terms of work, so mainly DNA and maybe drugs. It leaves gaps in specialist areas.
I can see a lack of a system-wide approach and a lot of focus on cost and turnaround time, rather than trying to maximise the information-rich content that forensic traces have. It is all about the question between forensic effectiveness and forensic efficiency. In my humble opinion, I do not think that things have changed. From my vantage point, I am afraid to say that the market approach seems more like a failure than a success.
The Chair: Thank you. That is really helpful as a start. We obviously have a lot more questions.
Fiona Douglas: Good morning, everyone. If you would indulge me, I would go back a little bit further than 2018 to give you a flavour of how forensic science in Scotland has grown up. In 2007, the first iteration of Forensic Services in Scotland came into being. That is nearly 20 years that we have had one national forensic science service within Scotland. At that time, the eight scene examination units within the eight legacy police forces in Scotland came together with the four fingerprint bureaus and the four laboratories, and that became a national organisation. It did not truly work nationally until 2011, when a period of forensic modernisation took place and national structures replaced geographical structures.
In 2013, with the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act, Police Scotland came into being and the Scottish Police Authority was created. That set out in statute the clear role of Forensic Services to provide science support to Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. It also created the sterile corridor between the police investigation and the forensic investigation at that time.
We became a national organisation. We have standardised quality systems, scientific structures and services so that there is not a postcode lottery across the country and we have consistent science that is available to support policing. From the 2018 period onwards, we have looked at structures and responded to how policing is changing within Scotland. It is certainly a lot more of a straightforward landscape with one police service that we are providing support to, along with the legal system.
We have now changed the structure of Forensic Services again to make sure that we are agile and robust, and can respond to policing needs in Scotland. There has been an awful lot of change over that near-20-year period in terms of the scientific support that is provided. We now have one single consistent organisation working for one police force, servicing the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, but also maintaining that independence and integrity of the science in a different structure to how forensic science, as you will be aware, is delivered within England and Wales.
Looking from Scotland to England and Wales, and what I see has changed since 2018, it is really the fragmentation and the fragility of how forensic science is delivered. It is clear that that becomes even more of a risk and a challenge in England and Wales. With public sector single forensic provision in Scotland, there is a lot more stability and robustness in terms of how forensic science is delivered. It is not without its challenges and I am sure we will come on to talk to some of those.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Thank you very much.
Q44 Baroness Willis of Summertown: Professor Roux, in your evidence that you gave to the 2018 inquiry, you highlighted Australia as having two very good examples of successful holistic models or provision within the policing, with the Australian Federal Police and the Victoria Police. Can you give us a brief summary of these two examples? Also, I was very interested in your opening comments about having a holistic approach and a fragmented model. Do you have a view as to whether one of these is better than the other?
Professor Claude Roux: I mentioned AFP and the Victoria Police because both of them are under a police umbrella. They provide integrated services from crime scene to the most advanced lab specialties. It helps to have a holistic approach, so less fragmentation, fewer people between the different fields or the different specialties, and a more common approach, if you want. I will take the AFP especially as an example here, because I think that it is considered as best practice.
Baroness Willis of Summertown: Can you just clarify what you mean by AFP?
Professor Claude Roux: Sorry, that is the Australian Federal Police. It is considered best practice. It has developed, over the years, a model that it sometimes calls a consultancy-based or problem-orientated model. It is a model whereby the problem on hand or the questions being asked are absolutely central and it tries to align its capabilities with the questions that are being asked. The forensic lab in that model is not simply a testing lab. It is more a facility where you have a lot of hypothesis development, critical thinking and so on. Teams and specialties are called upon depending on the problem at hand.
The physical facility itself and the organisation have been designed to maximise transdisciplinarity, information sharing and a collective approach. For example, when exhibits come in, it is not the traditional approach where you have one specific team opening the exhibit bag, closing the bag, going to another team, opening the bag again, and each time you have to go through a chain of custody, paperwork and so on. There is now one central area where the bags can be opened and different people from different teams can approach that as a problem. The findings can serve not only investigation and court but also intelligence, so you really optimise the effectiveness of forensic science.
More recently, the AFP has looked at what it had developed and how it mapped against what we developed as the Sydney declaration, and realised that it could retrofit the Sydney declaration to its model, so there is a good alignment between its operational model and fundamental principles.
Victoria also has a similar system. It is under a police umbrella, as I mentioned. It is probably fair to say that it is less comprehensive than the Australian Federal Police, but it is still integrated for crime scene DNA and fingerprints.
To me, that shows that in-house provision can succeed, but here the success, in my view, really depends on leadership and maintaining a scientific culture. It is not just a structure and management.
Baroness Willis of Summertown: Who co-ordinates all this? It sounds like it is fantastic but there needs to be incredible co-ordination. Is there a dedicated person within the police force who does that?
Professor Claude Roux: There are forensic science case officers. If you want to go a bit more into the detail, I will have to take that on notice and get more information. To go back to your question about whether I had a preferred model, definitely, personally, I prefer the integrated model. When we add layers between investigators and scientists, we increase bureaucracy and risk of misunderstanding. An integrated system can help reduce this. I agree that it has its challenges but, on balance, it is a much more effective system.
Q45 Baroness Walmsley: Fiona, my question is for you. We are hoping that, having worked in both England and Scotland, you will be able to tell us how the system in Scotland works. Some of our witnesses have said that it would be ideal in the long run for forensic science services to be provided independently of the police. You have told us about the sterile corridor between the two. How is operational independence from the police achieved in practice while maintaining that close working relationship that we have just heard about from Professor Roux? I noticed that, in your introductory comments, you mentioned a system focusing on policing needs. Could you also say how the needs of the defence are provided for?
Fiona Douglas: Within Scotland, we have all the main types of forensic science under one roof within our organisation, from crime scene to court, with a few exceptions of very niche services. Having the fully integrated approach to all the scientific disciplines in one place makes it much more straightforward and allows us to look at maximising the value that forensic science can add to answer a police investigator’s questions.
From an operational independence perspective, there are very separate governance structures in place. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act set out my position within that governance structure, reporting to the chair of the Scottish Police Authority in the same way that the chief constable reports to the chair of the Scottish Police Authority. There is operational independence of forensic science that is established through that structure.
I am held accountable for the delivery of forensic science through the Scottish Police Authority and the forensic services committee structure that operates within that, but it does not operate in isolation. Police Scotland, the Crown Office and other interested parties, such as the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, will participate within those structures to make sure that the service is delivered as it should be, but also that the strategic thinking and plans for the future are where they need to be to make sure that we have that joined-up alignment across the justice system, in line with the Scottish Government’s justice priorities. We have a very clear governance structure that allows the service to keep pace with where it needs to be, as well as making sure that the service is being delivered as it should be and holding me and my team accountable for the services that we provide.
Operationally, we work very closely and collaboratively with our partners to make sure that we are delivering what needs to be done, so the different types of forensic science that are required in a particular investigation, be that deployment of specialist scientific staff and scene examination staff at complex and even very routine crime scenes or the passage of the evidence that is collected at those scenes all the way through the various disciplines, through the laboratory, and making sure that that evidence is presented into the court. Collaboration is absolutely at the heart of it. The operational independence and the sterile corridor is important in terms of quality and impartiality, but it does not work unless you are talking and have strong relationships between each independent part of that sector so that we are delivering what needs to be done at the right time, with the right people, in the right place.
Baroness Walmsley: To be clear, am I right in thinking that you are saying that, from scene of crime right the way through, it is all provided by the independent service, in close collaboration with the police? Is that right?
Fiona Douglas: That is absolutely right, yes.
Baroness Walmsley: Money is always an issue, is it not? Can you give us some insight into how costs and demand are managed? How is Forensic Services funded in Scotland? How do you decide which cases and which tests to run and on what principles? Who sets the overall budget, or perhaps negotiates which element of it is allocated to Forensic Services? How does the whole funding system work?
Fiona Douglas: That is an excellent question and the biggest challenge of the model that we have in Scotland. I would absolutely say that at the outset of answering your question. The way that the budgets are set within Scotland is that Forensic Services, as part of the Scottish Police Authority, will work with the Scottish Government in terms of the setting of the overall policing budget in Scotland as part of the Scottish Government’s budget-setting process. Forensic Services, the corporate part of the authority and then Police Scotland will look at the distribution of that budget. The accountable officer for the policing budget is the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority.
On an annualised basis, the overall policing budget is split, with the lion’s share of course being for Police Scotland. It is around about 3.6% of the overall policing budget that is allocated to Forensic Services. It is small in the scheme of the overall policing budget. “Small but mighty” is the way I like to look at it.
In terms of how we set that budget, we build it up on an annual basis. Annualised budget setting cycles are not ideal. However, we live within that system. We would set our budget based on what we anticipate the demand to be on an annual basis. That is fraught with all sorts of challenges in terms of understanding what the future demand for forensic science looks like.
Most recently, we have developed an approach to strategic workforce planning, which is very much in its infancy. That will allow us to be a lot more medium and long term in terms of our budget planning and to set medium and longer-term financial forecasts for how we need forensic science to grow in line with Police Scotland’s 2030 vision and what the Scottish Government want to see in terms of justice outcomes. We can look at how forensic science needs to contribute to that, and then shape and build our budget. Clearly, that is a little idealistic, in that money is tight and we need to cut our cloth accordingly, so there is compromise within the ambitions of the service and maximising the value that forensic science can bring and the art of the possible within the budgets that we have.
Baroness Walmsley: How practicable do you think it could be for England and Wales to adopt a system like Scotland’s, given that we have 43 police services in the UK?
Fiona Douglas: It is absolutely a challenge. The cultural challenge is probably one of the most significant that I would reflect upon. I have been in Scotland for getting on for 15 years and you can still see the history of the organisation and where the different constituent parts of it have come from in terms of organisational culture. It absolutely is a challenge.
Professor Roux set out quite clearly the importance of leadership. The collaborative leadership element of it, so the positioning, the relationships and having the right settings where good conversations can happen, is incredibly important. Having a complicated landscape such as what exists in England and Wales makes that extremely challenging. It is not impossible, but there would have to be various stepping stones to achieving a more co-ordinated approach within that fragmented market that exists.
Q46 Lord Berkeley: Before I ask you my main question, I have a follow-up on one question from Baroness Walmsley. British Transport Police operates in Scotland. We have had 10 years of debate as to how it should work and how it should be related to the Scottish Government and everyone else. All the answers you gave to Baroness Walmsley were basically, “We are all working together”. Does that include British Transport Police?
Fiona Douglas: Forensic Services will work with British Transport Police.
Lord Berkeley: Is that anywhere?
Fiona Douglas: We do. We do not work trackside with British Transport Police, but we do.
Lord Berkeley: Super, you have sorted that one out.
Fiona Douglas: We do work closely with it, yes.
Lord Berkeley: My main question is to both witnesses. The present system is reported to be leading to a depletion or extinction of the various specialisms in forensic science, such as fibre analysis, marks and traces, criminal casework and toxicology. Is there a model, in either Scotland or Australia, where these can be sustained and taken forward in a way that would be better than many people think it is at the moment?
Professor Claude Roux: This is a real challenge. This is really important because it is a classic “use it or lose it” problem. If we start to over rely on a single type of trace, namely DNA, it can be quite dangerous because we quite often need a multi-trace approach for robust interpretations. I do not want to go too much into details, but, for example, there is a lot of debate at the moment around activity‑level interpretation, especially in DNA. When people do some mathematical modelling here, they realise that the value drops significantly when they go from a source level to an activity-level interpretation. Because of that, there is a need to combine different types of traces or evidence.
We need to have a transversal approach. Otherwise, the risk is that we will be able to say less and less about less and less, up to the point that the whole system may become irrelevant. The solutions are not easy, but it is important to keep in mind transversal fundamentals in education, research and operations.
It requires some centralised body. There was a mention of a national institute of forensic science. Australia has a National Institute of Forensic Science and it is a body that definitely helps co-ordinate R&D and knowledge sharing. It mitigates that risk of decline in some disciplines. Under that National Institute of Forensic Science, there are a number of specialist advisory groups, so, in essence, various experts within one discipline. They meet at least once a year and talk about their work. There are different types of standards they use and different case studies they want to talk about. It helps to build collaborative networks and maintain expertise.
There is a need for commitment and more policy-driven retention of certain capabilities. Partnerships with universities, especially for research or to address surge capacity, are also a good way to mitigate that problem, and, in some cases, cross-border resource sharing can be appropriate. I do not think that there is a magic bullet, but it is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed.
Lord Berkeley: Fiona, what do you think? Do we need a national institute of forensic science?
Fiona Douglas: There absolutely could be a place for that.
Lord Berkeley: I meant the UK as opposed to England and Wales, I suppose.
Fiona Douglas: I really agree with you on that point, because I sometimes think that jurisdictional boundaries get in the way where they need not. Particularly in this space, where we are talking about some very specialist types of forensic science, it is never going to turn a profit in terms of the commercial marketplace, but it is an absolutely necessary forensic discipline that we need to maintain, I believe, across the United Kingdom. Whether it is a forensic institute or other structures that would allow Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Ireland as well, to work together to make sure that we keep these tools and techniques alive, there is absolutely a place for that. We cannot let them die out. Once we lose them, we will never get them back.
Lord Berkeley: And Australia.
Fiona Douglas: Yes, and Australia. It is a little bit further afield, but absolutely.
Q47 The Chair: There is a question for our two witnesses about evidence storage and the issue about forensic archiving. We would like to ask whether, very briefly, you could give an indication of how evidence storage is handled in Australia and Scotland. Professor Roux, how is evidence storage handled in Australia?
Professor Claude Roux: It is definitely a problem. There is no central repository in Australia. Each jurisdiction manages its own storage, so it is definitely resource‑intensive. There are some risk-based policies that are applied, but not necessarily in a very consistent way. Common issues are about bulky exhibits, because quite often police do not have the capacity in the long term to store everything.
I do not think that there is anything really special in terms of an answer here. It illustrates the complexity of a modern forensic laboratory and what is lost when we have a highly fragmented model.
The Chair: Fiona, what about evidence storage in Scotland?
Fiona Douglas: It is very straightforward. All the evidence retention is undertaken by Police Scotland. Exhibits would be submitted into the laboratory. The work is undertaken. They are returned, along with any products that have been created through the examination, to Police Scotland. They are held dependent on retention schedules and it is ultimately the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that will instruct Police Scotland when exhibits are to be destroyed, once the case is concluded, along with any appeals process.
Q48 Lord Burnett of Maldon: I would like, if I may, to follow up a point that was raised by Baroness Walmsley about defence access to forensic science services. We will be interested to hear what happens in both Scotland and Australia. My question is in two parts. First, in broad terms, how do defendants, through their lawyers, get access to good forensic science in Australia and Scotland?
Secondly, we have heard about particular problems in England and Wales that the defence encounter. First, they need to persuade the Legal Aid Agency that they should have a forensic scientist at all in whatever discipline is in question. Secondly, those acting for the defence get paid a good deal less than those acting for the prosecution, so it can be difficult to find people to do the work. I wonder whether you could give us an insight, touching on both sides of that question, first from Australia and then I will come to Fiona Douglas second.
Professor Claude Roux: Because we have a number of forensic science laboratories in the country, it is not uncommon, or it is even common, for a jurisdiction to re-examine exhibits from another jurisdiction. The defence can request the re-examination or examination from another government forensic laboratory, for example. However, the defence, or the defendant, must pay, so I guess that is where it creates some inequality.
There are a few private experts in Australia, but it is mostly consultancy for case reviews, to work on reports or in very niche areas. There is no government-funded innocence project, for example. It is mainly through re-examination with another forensic lab.
Lord Burnett of Maldon: Is there public funding for that for defendants who do not have the means to pay?
Professor Claude Roux: There is a legal aid service, but it depends. If it is another government laboratory, I suspect that that can probably work out. If it is a private examiner, it all depends what the private examiner is prepared to do.
Fiona Douglas: Within Scotland, applications for use of an expert scientist for the defence can be made through the defence solicitor. That can be paid for privately from various defence forensic organisations or an application can be made to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The Scottish Legal Aid Board would consider the request based on reasonableness, proportionality and what is being requested.
It would consider the costs of what is being proposed, and then consider that in the context of the questions that need to be answered and the type of case it is. It would make a decision in relation to funding on that basis. It works slightly differently from England and Wales in that context, in that there is not a set price schedule. It is considered on a case-by-case basis.
It is absolutely critical that there is access to high-quality defence scientists so that the justice system can work as it should. Particularly with the advent of innovation and new technology in some of the faster-moving areas of forensic science, such as DNA in particular, where you see a lot of change and complexity, it is really important that we work with defence expert colleagues to make sure that the skills and expertise exist across the system for both the defence and the prosecution. Otherwise the system does not work as it should.
Lord Burnett of Maldon: Is the view in Scotland that the remuneration offered to those providing forensic science services to defendants is adequate?
Fiona Douglas: I am probably not the best person to answer that question. I would suspect that, if I was to ask defence expert colleagues, the answer would be no. I suspect that the same challenges exist in Scotland as in England and Wales in terms of the funding that is available from a legal aid perspective. We know that there are financial challenges across the system and legal aid has suffered probably more than most.
Q49 Lord Drayson: My questions are around recent trends in research and development in forensic science, and the need, potentially, for a national institute. Back in 2018, our report recommended the establishment of such an institute, but it would be really helpful to get your up-to-date sense as to where you both see the main research and development challenges today in forensic science. How, in Scotland and Australia, do you address those challenges at present?
Professor Claude Roux: There is definitely still a strong case for a national institute of forensic science in the UK. From where I sit, we have had a NIFS in Australia since 1990 or 1991. It has been extremely successful. It has its challenges, but overall it has been extremely successful. It sets R&D priorities, acts as an honest broker and fosters collaboration. It is definitely a positive, but it needs dedicated funding.
In terms of research priorities, without going into the details, R&D needs funding. In my view, there are big gaps between the forensic science research needs and the funding realities. Traditional funding bodies would more easily fund technology and highly innovative research than the research that is actually needed for forensic science, for example gathering empirical data that can assist with interpretation. These are all big problems, which we have in Australia too.
We are talking about NIFS. NIFS in Australia had a research roadmap, which clearly identified topics and forensic fundamentals, so again going back to what the fundamentals of forensic science are. It has topics around data and datasets, new tools, forensic intelligence—which, in my view, is a very important topic for making forensic science more effective—and human factors.
More recently, with the advent of digital forensic science, there is significant research needed in that space to try to understand how we can deal with those types of traces and bring that field in, not as a silo or siloed area but rather within the forensic science framework, and understand the value, challenges and limitations of digital traces and evidence. This is definitely rocking the boat. Especially now, with AI and generative AI, it becomes more and more important.
Lord Drayson: Fiona Douglas, what are the R&D priorities in Scotland?
Fiona Douglas: We are lucky in Scotland that we have a rich landscape of forensic researchers. We have the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science. I believe that Professor Nic Daeid gave evidence to the committee. In Scotland we have access to a huge number of academic and research professionals, which is really helpful, and do a lot of partnership working with them.
We have very recently published—in fact in October—a research, development and innovation strategy for forensic science in Scotland. Within that strategy, we set out four key research priority areas. One of those is looking at how we do more at the scene or at the roadside, looking at how we work more in partnership around digital forensics, which still sits in Police Scotland, so that we maximise digital and physical forensics working closer together. That is really important.
Also, there is how we look at public health and reducing public harm. This is an area that forensic science has huge potential to stretch into. The criminal side of the work that we do is incredibly important, but, in terms of the complexity of and the risk around drugs and drug taking, forensic science has an application to not only keep people safe, but also to drive public education so that we can help people, particularly with the high rate of drugs deaths in Scotland. Forensic science has a broader role to play outside of criminal justice.
We have a good feel for the areas that we need to stretch forensic science into. A national forensic institute has a lot of potential. The access to funding is an absolutely critical area. It is traditionally very difficult to access specific funding in relation to forensic science within that broader scientific funding that may be available. Some sort of dedicated funding to support research priorities specifically into forensic science and brigading those on a national basis would be extremely helpful.
Lord Drayson: You have given us a clear sense that Scotland is relatively well placed in terms of the research capabilities that you have. Can you give us a sense of how you would see England and Wales in comparison?
Fiona Douglas: There are a lot more people in the mix in England and Wales, which, in many senses, is a huge opportunity. Within Scotland, the more straightforward landscape makes it easier to get things done but, at the same time, I would reflect that in England and Wales there is a hugely expert and passionate forensic scientific community that exists. The ability to brigade all that knowledge, expertise and energy that exists around wanting to make forensic science better is a huge opportunity.
It is making sure that there is that collaborative leadership from a research perspective that brings that community together and focuses it in on the right things. An institute absolutely could do that, but it would need the funding to translate that into practical outcomes. We must never lose sight of not just expanding the science for the sake of the science, but making sure that there are practical tools that are going to help, ultimately, to keep the public safe.
Q50 Lord Borwick: On digital forensics and AI, is the R&D being done on AI and how it will affect forensic science? Is there the regulatory oversight on this subject? Does it exist in Scotland?
Fiona Douglas: We are novices in terms of understanding the applications of AI into forensic science. There is huge potential of AI to revolutionise how we do forensic science, but also to make the service more efficient, which is important in terms of making sure we are delivering best value to the taxpayer. Absolutely, AI is a key part of our research, development and innovation strategy.
It needs to be thought about carefully, particularly from a quality management and regulation perspective. The regulation will need to change as AI comes into the forensic laboratories and forensic techniques. It is a completely different way of looking at things, but we need to make sure that we keep public trust and confidence in forensic science as we explore artificial intelligence.
We need to think very carefully about the ethics of how we utilise those techniques, and the statutory regulatory framework and quality standards that apply. We will need to look very carefully at that before we make that leap into using AI in the actual work that we do. That does not mean to say that artificial intelligence cannot play a part in advance of that, in terms of making forensic science more efficient and effective.
Lord Borwick: What is the Australian perspective on this?
Professor Claude Roux: I would concur. To be honest, everyone is flying blind in that space. Not only AI but digital forensic science is moving so quickly. It is growing so rapidly that current systems are pretty much unsustainable. It is forcing us to rethink our model.
The main consensus is that the risk management of using AI must be done. The transparency must be addressed. When it is used, everyone using it must be extremely transparent about it, as well as being responsible and taking responsibility for using it. You are not going to get a black box AI machine in the witness box, so the expert who has used such a system must be responsible for what they have done.
It needs international standards, education and a lot of research. It is not just regulation. It needs collaboration between government, academia and the tech industry. To repeat what I said before, it is absolutely crucial that there is integration of that space under a forensic science framework. Otherwise, we run the risk of going more and more towards what I would call pseudoscience. We need to look at that carefully.
Q51 Lord Stern of Brentford: These are questions for both of you about markets and funding. Some witnesses told us that, while it has faced challenges in recent years, in the early years of the forensic science market in England and Wales there were advantages in terms of the provision of R&D. Is what happened to the market in the UK inevitable? Do you think that there is a way that a forensic science market could be run effectively if well regulated and resourced?
Fiona Douglas: My short answer to your question would be that it is not inevitable. There are absolutely benefits of having a competitive market. I would agree with the evidence that has been previously provided in terms of a lot of the successes, particularly in the early days, around the privatisation of the market.
You can look directly and compare that with Scotland in terms of the speed, so the turnaround times for the work that is provided. Forensic intelligence needs to be provided quickly to have the most value. There are a lot of early successes around privatisation, in that it really drove improved timeliness. That is a challenge in Scotland because you do not have the same level of control around demand and you do not have demand and capacity always meeting each other. That was a challenge in the Forensic Science Service, as it was, so there are a lot of successes.
One key reason why the forensic market is challenged is around resourcing and funding. It is because you have that disconnect between policing and delivery of forensic science. There is the wholesale question, which is incredibly difficult to answer, about what the value of forensic science is. If we had a better answer, collectively, to that question, it might help in terms of those funding decisions. Sometimes policing makes decisions not to use forensic science because it is seen to be expensive, whereas it is the cheapest way of achieving an outcome often, in particular circumstances. It is about thinking about that.
That fragmentation between forensic science in the laboratory, forensic science in policing and the financial challenges that policing has been under over that period is what has resulted in that disconnect and the fragility of the market. There is not the funding to underpin private forensic science providers, alongside a complete absence of demand forecasting and the ability of private organisations to plan capital investment opportunities. If there had been better joined-up planning and a collaborative strategy about where we want forensic science to go, there was no reason for the market to become as fragile as it has. It is the absence of those things that has led to it.
Lord Stern of Brentford: Good funding and good strategy could make the market work.
Fiona Douglas: I think so.
Lord Stern of Brentford: Professor Roux, could you share your thoughts on that, please?
Professor Claude Roux: I agree that good strategy and enough funding can go a long way to address some of the issues you see. I am still a bit more sceptical probably about the overall results, simply because there are areas of forensic science that will never be commercially viable. If it is only a market-driven system, these areas will be cut and it will create gaps, as we know. It can enhance some risk, as I mentioned before, with fragmentation and loss of expertise. I guess that it is a question of how you are going to deal with these areas that are not commercially viable.
Lord Stern of Brentford: That takes us very naturally to the funding model. It seems, from both your comments and our earlier evidence, that it is not working terribly well, to put it mildly, in England and Wales. Who should fund it and who should take responsibility for provision?
Fiona Douglas: It is a challenging question, in that it depends on the structures that you are working within. If you were to look at the model that exists in England and Wales right now, the funding model needs to be more nuanced than the way it is. That is to account for those less profitable techniques that Professor Roux was just talking to. There needs to be a different structure of funding those types of activities that are not commercially viable.
Within policing budgets, one of the challenges, and indeed a challenge in Scotland in relation to digital forensics, is that it can get lost in and among all the other challenges that police forces have, in terms of keeping the communities that they serve safe. Some sort of ring-fencing around funding for forensic science may well be helpful in making sure that there is viability in the market moving forward.
England and Wales is now in a more challenging situation given the dominance of one provider. It is not a competitive market, as it was. That needs a good look, in terms of how England and Wales maximises the value of that structure that is now there. Is there a different way of working, across policing and with the private providers that exist, to get the best out of the situation, making sure that we are getting value for money, but also leveraging the private sector investment?
There is no doubt that the private sector is much more fleet of foot in terms of investing in new technology and making change happen more quickly than the public sector. There is a real opportunity there but the funding of that, sitting piecemeal within policing, which can ebb and flow along with different policing priorities, is not consistent with having a good healthy marketplace. It needs a new look, given where England and Wales is now.
Lord Stern of Brentford: Do you see good international examples that we could learn from? We have Scotland and Australia here but it is both those and beyond really.
Fiona Douglas: There are lots of different models of forensic science delivery. The Netherlands is one that is talked about quite a lot and is quite a good comparator, but no model is perfect. There has been a lot of discussion about some of the benefits of the Scottish model, which is not perfect, but each has its own pros and cons. There is absolutely an opportunity here to have a look at what exists elsewhere.
As a dominant provider within the forensic marketplace, Eurofins—I believe that you took evidence from the director—has a footprint across a number of countries. There is a real opportunity there to take that expertise and leverage it so it could work better across the whole of England and Wales, given the position that the market is in.
There are a lot of countries that have different models and it is probably something unique for England and Wales, which pulls on the things that work and the best practice that exists elsewhere, that will be fit for purpose.
Lord Stern of Brentford: Professor Roux, who should fund? Are there really good international examples?
Professor Claude Roux: I concur with a lot of what has been said. There are a lot of different models. One thing that is absolutely certain is that, if we want the justice system well served, we need to realise that forensic science is not a commodity. It is a public good and has to be funded appropriately and significantly.
My personal favoured option would be central government funding and integrated services. That is no surprise, given what I mentioned before about the example of Australia and the Australian Federal Police. If the market model persists, at the very least there is a need for a shift to a more partnership model rather than just a commodity model. Scientists should be close to the decision-making for complex cases. That is only possible when there is a very strong partnership model and not all this fragmentation that we see too often.
Q52 Baroness Neuberger: Thank you both very much. You are now going to advise us on what the three main recommendations are that you would say that we should be making to our Government. I know that you have probably both been involved in doing that. Professor Roux, would you like to start? What would they be? Would they include the institute that seems to have come through very strongly today?
Professor Claude Roux: First, pretty much from what I just said before, fund forensic science properly. It is a central government responsibility. Without adequate funding, no service model will succeed. I am conscious that funding is always an issue, but it must be very clear.
The other point is to create an integrated forensic service for complex cases at least, to reduce fragmentation, improve co-ordination and maintain a scientific culture. Establish a national institute for forensic science with dedicated R&D funding and mechanisms for collaborations with academia and providers. In Australia, we have shown, especially with quite effective partnership and collaborations between operations and academia, that that can work, but, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I have never lived or worked in the UK, so it is only my recommendation.
Baroness Neuberger: Thank you. That is really helpful. Fiona Douglas, you know it well, so what would you say?
Fiona Douglas: That is a great question to be asked. The first thing is to create a vision for what we want forensic science to be in England and Wales that talks to all the different stakeholders: the public, the defence, the prosecution, the legal system, justice. Think beyond that in terms of what actual value and opportunity forensic science offers. We scratch at the surface and focus on the problems, but you have a wonderful, vibrant forensic science community in this country. If there was a clear vision that would pull all those different parties together, it would really leverage the potential that exists. That vision sits above policing and forensic science: what is it that we want to achieve? In Scotland, our vision is scientific excellence for safer communities. That talks very clearly, for me, about the reach that forensic science has the potential to get to.
Sitting beneath that, the strategy around how we want to deliver forensic science across the UK, and specifically in England and Wales, needs to be beyond policing and beyond policing owned. There is a real opportunity to look at collaborative leadership in driving it forward, getting the right people around the table and having a clear strategy around what needs to be done.
Then clearly there is funding. That is not just operational funding in terms of fixing the structural problems that exist and delivering on the operational challenges. It is around the research, development, innovation and underpinning financial plans that need to exist. For me, it is as simple as going back to basics of vision and strategy, and having a clear plan that is properly resourced and funded, both operationally and from a research and development perspective, which clearly an institute would really support.
The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We are very grateful to our two witnesses, Fiona Douglas and Professor Roux. It has been excellent for us to get perspectives from Scotland and Australia. Professor Roux, thank you so much also for joining us very late in the evening for you in Australia. We are grateful to you both. Thank you so much.
