Written evidence submiited by Prospect (FSS006)
Introduction
1. Prospect is a trade union representing 120,000 professionals, managers and specialists across all sectors of the economy. We represent 50,000 professional scientists and engineers in the UK. These included more than 1,000 employed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS). At the time of the Select Committee’s initial inquiry we expressed considerable concerns about the merits of the decision to wind-down the FSS and the impact that it may have on the criminal justice system and forensic science in the UK.
2. Prospect therefore strongly welcomes the Select Committee’s decision to investigate the aftermath of the closure decision. To inform our submission we have consulted with our members who were made redundant from the FSS. Their comments do not make for happy reading: In summary ‘We were world leaders in forensic science, something this country and our Prime Minister should have been proud of. Now we have a forensic archive that costs the taxpayer just as much to fund as having the FSS. The FSS was starting to make a small profit as closure loomed but the full effect of our transformation project was never given time to prove itself’.
3. 39% of our members who provided feedback for this inquiry are still working in forensic science, though this may be an over-estimation of continued forensic employment since these are the members most motivated to stay in contact with Prospect. Other anecdotal evidence suggests around 10% of FSS staff have been employed by private forensic providers. Just one third of those located in London or Birmingham have managed to find alternative employment of any kind on a permanent basis. As one member commented ‘It is the minority of FSS staff who have continued in forensics. The majority have vast amounts of expertise which is simply lying dormant as they remain unemployed or have moved to other fields’. More than one member perceives that they have been ‘kicked out’ of their forensic science career only to ‘end up in an unskilled, low paid job with no prospects’. Some of those who have managed to stay in forensic science are paying a very high personal price to do so: ‘I am now travelling more than 120 miles a day … to a private forensic company’. Others have expressed concern and frustration stemming from the insecurity of employment in the private forensic sector, with a number facing redundancy for a second time.
4. Our responses to the questions posed by the Select Committee are set out below.
Does the Government have an effective strategy for forensic science in the UK and is it sufficient to support forensic science R&D and criminal justice?
5. As suggested by the international shock and dismay at the decision to close, the FSS was previously the only UK organisation that featured in the survey of Top 25 institutions (2001-2011) both for citations and impact http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/11julaugFea/ spending significant amounts (2009-10 £4.11m, 2010-2011 £3.3.m) on R&D annually. This spending has of course ceased and we are concerned that the UK has lost its position in this scientific sector. This certainly seems to be the case in relation to forensic science developments elsewhere in Europe. For example there is now a European Standard Set for DNA profiling. The FSS was ready to use this system but it would have required a significant upgrade to the National DNA Database (NDNAD) software to allow profiles to be loaded. There is no sign of current FSPs moving to the ESS or of funding for the NDNAD to move forward to facilitate this.
6. We understand that other providers (FSPs) continue to undertake their own R&D, but believe that this merits further investigation. Fairly broad statements were made to the Select Committee’s previous inquiry about the amount of spending and number of research projects being undertaken by FSPs, but this information needs to be updated in the light of experience. The Silverman Review (June 2011) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/fsr/forensic-science-review/forensic-science-review-report?view=Binary suggested that consideration be given to establishing forensic science as a strategic priority for Research Councils and proposed that the Home Office facilitated an exploration of this. In our view the Select Committee should examine whether this has actually taken place. It would also be useful to explore what applied research is being undertaken currently as this is of key importance in assessing the direct and immediate impact of R&D to the CJS.
7. Prospect further recommends that the Select Committee revisits the restrictions to market that discourages investment and, conversely, what competitive advantage there is for investment in this sector. We remain concerned that in a fragile market there is no perceived commercial value of developing technologies beyond the business cycle of tendering for short-term contracts, predominantly with police forces as the major customers.
8. In summary this information should provide the evidence to assess whether the closure of the FSS precipitated a significant overall drop in UK spending on forensic science R&D and, if so, in which areas that reduction has been most acute.
Did the FSS transition and closure run smoothly and within budget?
9. Less than half of our members report that the transition and closure ran smoothly. We received views from members formerly employed at all the main FSS locations: London, Birmingham, Chorley, Huntingdon, Chepstow, Wetherby and Manchester. Experiences of the transfer of work were particularly problematic in London. Overall four out of ten members consider that communications were poor, with some unfair treatment of staff.
10. There appears to have been prolonged uncertainty among staff about whether they would be transferred to another provider or made redundant. These concerns are explored in more detail in paragraphs 18 to 20 below. Even where staff were transferred, there are concerns that their full skills are not being utilised. For example, members report that the homicide staff transferred to the Metropolitan Police Service no longer use their DNA interpretation skills or their case assessment and interpretation skills. A year after transfer many of them are still not back to reporting cases or are doing so in a very limited capacity. Other homicide staff in the sexually motivate crimes unit were initially included in this transfer but this decision was reversed and they were subsequently made redundant.
11. Feedback we have received from members indicates that FSPs were most interest in taking on FSS staff either with skills that are expensive to train or those that were recently qualified with little or no reporting experience. Conversely, there was little interest in recruiting the most experienced (and therefore higher paid) scientists. Consequently at least one generation of reporting scientists has been lost. Specifically, our members highlight a loss of experience in marks and traces work – including shoe marks, gunshot residues, DNA, fibres and toxicology.
12. It is perhaps important to distinguish between a smooth closure, in the sense of winding up the assets of the organisation, and ensuring a smooth legacy – both in terms of physical and intellectual capital. Much emphasis has been placed on the custody of the FSS archive, and rightly so, but this does not account for the many databases collected over the years, such as the 10,000 record Chorley analytical glass database, which have been lost to the forensic community. Neither does it account for the large scale loss of specialist equipment sold at auction, including the robotics platforms that had been in operation in London for barely one year. It is also worth noting that there was a wealth of intellectual property sold by the FSS – DNA Boost, Kwikmix (DNA mixture statistics software), DNA Insight. All of these were validated and used by the FSS before closure, but none are currently being used.
What impacts have the FSS’s closure had on (i) the criminal justice system and (ii) forensic science R&D and training? In particular, have the appropriate quality standards and accreditation been rigorously maintained? (please provide evidence/examples)
13. We believe that questions need to be asked about quality of work currently being undertaken in comparison with that produced by the FSS, and that an honest appraisal by police forces would be most instructive. Specific issues that should be explored include whether work has been further sub-contracted from FSPs lacking in capacity and the possible implications for contamination. Another issue arises from the disparity in quality standards required from police labs and FSPs. Our understanding is that experienced staff working for defendants are succeeding in getting cases dropped before they reach court on the basis of challenges to the quality of work undertaken.
14. We understand that CAST (Centre for Applied and Science and Technology), part of Home Office Science, advertised to set up a Forensic DNA Expert Community to support its ‘growing capacity’. We would be interested to know what the take up on this has been given the reductions in professionals working in the field http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science/cast/forensic-dna-expert-community?view=Binary
15. Finally, while the FSS was declining in number of employees, particularly with the closure of the Chepstow, Chorley and one of the Birmingham sites, we believe that other providers and agencies benefited extensively prior to and immediately after the closure from being able to draw upon skilled and experienced scientists who had had the opportunity to develop their expertise at the FSS. While this pool of available specialists may have been increased greatly at the time of closure, we remain concerned that overall capacity has since been lost to the sector. We also remain concerned about the diminution in ability to evaluate evidence on a ‘joined up’ basis. Our members note that the way that findings of scientific examinations is now reported to courts has in many cases changed significantly. Often the work in a single case is split between providers. This means that there is no single scientist in possession of all the information required to make a full and robust examination of the findings in the context of the case. Ultimately, this means that the court is left to make this evaluation itself, which carries high risks. Put simply, courts will not be able to tell that a fuller job could have been done if the work had been managed differently and the reporting scientists will not be equipped to answer questions that should be asked. Further, it is to be expected that costs incurred by police services and the CPS will have increased given that even simple cases now involve scientists in at least two sites, creating duplication of work and an increase in timescales.
16. As all case work at FSS ceased by the end of March 2012, it is difficult to compile a full picture of what work the police may have chosen not to have transferred elsewhere. Having said this, it is doubtful that some of the more specialist work has transferred as it is expensive to maintain skills that do not need to be used frequently and the forensic procurement model does not reward private providers for offering these services. These include skills to examine illicit drugs factories, some specialist accident investigation work and sexual offences intelligence work.
Has the closure of the FSS resulted in a loss of intellectual wealth through its scientists leaving the forensic science profession, or the UK? (please provide evidence/examples)
17. Our members unanimously agree that important experience has been lost.
18. The Select Committee’s previous report noted that (page 49)
‘The FSS employs 1,000 staff. We are deeply concerned about the practicalities of transferring the FSS’s work and staff to other FSP’s by the transition deadline of March 2012. The FSS Transition Board must ensure that, whatever the outcome, forensic scientists employed by the FSS are retained within the profession and within the UK to the benefit of the criminal justice system. Transfer of staff to other providers must be conducted under TUPE regulations and in addition, care is needed to ensure that pension provision is adequately protected’.
19. We have already shown the regrettable loss of forensic scientists to the profession, so it is doubly disappointing to note that despite this call the only significant TUPE transfers that Prospect is aware of, having taken part in the formal consultation process, were transfers to the Metropolitan Police Service (c103) and to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) (11). There were small numbers transferred to CAST and NPIA also (in total 4 inclusive). As far as we are aware not a single forensic scientist transferred to another FSP under TUPE. As a result the FSS, and ultimately the UK taxpayer, was required to make all but a small number transferring within the public sector compulsorily redundant, with the loss of skills and knowledge associated with transferring roles plus, for the individuals, the loss of continuous service and contractual terms and conditions.
20. We raised concerns in our original submissions that the way in which forensic work was fragmented by ACPO to assist in FSPs avoiding TUPE. Where it was clear that there was a wholesale transfer of work which would have required TUPE regulations being observed, Prospect did engage in formal consultation with LGC/FSS for the North East forces, and the FSS Wetherby site. However, despite the emphasis of the Select Committee, individuals were advised that measures would need to be taken post transfer, which made insisting on a TUPE transfer unattractive. Instead they were given the option to become redundant having objected to being transferred, or to voluntarily transfer on varied terms and conditions which would enable the new employer to conduct a selection exercise. (This would not have been appropriate under TUPE). Despite Prospect’s support for TUPE and much work transferring over in a way that made the regulations applicable, not a single individual TUPE transferred.
21. It is also relevant to note that a high percentage of forensic scientists at FSS were women, supported by a reasonably progressive culture of working flexibly and working part-time hours to support, for example, child care commitments. It would be interesting to know what impact the closure has had on female scientists who benefited from these provisions. For all but those transferring to the Metropolitan Police a change in place of work would have been necessary. Continued commitments to flexible and part-time working could play an important part in mitigating this impact.
22. As an illustration of the difficulties faced in this area we know that at least one FSP that applies a blanket waiver to the Working Time Directive. Prospect has challenged this, advising our members that they have the right to not sign an opt-out and that they could not be disadvantaged for refusing to do so. However we have been advised that this is a standard contractual arrangement and cannot be removed.
23. Overall the view of our members is that, despite statements to the contrary, the Government had no interest in protecting UK expertise and failed to recognise the wealth of experience it had in the sector. ‘The forensic market has shrunk and may continue to do so, with the work being done in a fragmented way’. Many of the skills lost are irreplaceable.
Are current arrangements for the FSS’s archives satisfactory? How could arrangements for the retention of case files and forensic materials in the UK be improved?
24. Currently there is a funding agreement up to 2015. This is a 3-year agreement which is helpful and provides a commitment to maintain the work that the FAL does. This is reviewed triennially.
25. It seems sensible that the FSS archives should be maintained in central government, and there is a need for proper cataloguing and resourcing of this to provide access to police forces. We do not believe that the forces themselves have the capacity or expertise to do this. We would be concerned about the impact on the Criminal Justice System if, for example, another provider was to fail commercially. In such circumstances it is not at all clear what would happen to their archive, including records, quality assurances etc. Currently they archive their own forensic exhibits and reports.
26. Our members understand that there may be frustration that the archive no longer employs scientists able to provide interpretive analysis of retrieved case materials. It would be interesting to consider what views the police forces have on this and to consider whether this has added time and additional complexity to scientific support processes.
January 2013