Written evidence submitted by Ray Palmer B.Sc.(Hons), M.Sc., FFSSoc (FSS021)
I am a former employee of the Forensic Science Service (1985-2010), where latterly my position was that of Principal Forensic Scientist.
I am presently employed by Northumbria University as a Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader in Forensic Science. I am also a member of the Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science (NUCFS) who I understand will be submitting a collective response.
The following response is based upon my own observations, thoughts and experience of the FSS closure and may or may not reflect the views of my colleagues.
At the time of writing I have been made aware that a major downsizing exercise has been carried out with the private sector forensic science providers. This has not yet been officially announced.
The present government’s strategy for forensic science has been ill conceived and has completely failed to understand the future impact on the criminal justice system by closing its state run provision.
Many claims were made by various private organisations regarding stable provision / gains in efficiency, value for money and ability to adequately meet the caseload demands imposed on them by the closure of the FSS. It is entirely questionable (especially given recent events) whether these claims have been fully delivered.
The concept of a ‘market’ for forensic science has been fundamentally flawed by the Government allowing police authorities to set up their own provision in the face of commercial provision. How can any commercial market survive when its customer base is also its competitor?
The recent decisions relating to major downsizing, redundancies and site closure by the private sector (not yet officially announced at the time of writing) provides evidence that forensic science as a commercial enterprise is unviable. This will result in an even greater irreplaceable loss of expertise. Many experienced scientist having gone through the upheaval of physical relocation from the FSS to a new provider are yet again facing redundancy. It is inevitable that the relentless state of flux in the provision of forensic science will result in many experienced practitioners leaving the profession and as well as making it unattractive to new graduates.
It remains to be seen how long it will be before all of the private Forensic Science providers downsize/ pull out - given the state of the so called ‘market’.
The cost of the re-emergence of police forensic science laboratories (many still unaccredited) has not been fully addressed in terms of value for money to the taxpayer and/ or what savings (from the quoted £24million/ year to fund the FSS) have been made by allowing this proliferation. (It is noteworthy that some witnesses to the previous SAT hearing were somewhat ‘cagey’ concerning the true costs of financing their facilities.)
In my opinion, given the fragility of ‘the market’, loss of capacity, loss of professional expertise and the absence of a structured program of research addressing issues relating to forensic science in the 21st century, our ability to respond to major crime investigation (especially crimes of national concern such as terrorism) in this country has been severely compromised by the governments decision/ management regarding its forensic science provision (see my comments below and also 6.)
The proposed solutions regarding the funding of research and development (following the closure of the FSS) by the government, have simply not come to pass. Much of the published research in forensic science is focused on developing the understanding of the significance of various evidence types – allowing us to make better more robust and informed interpretations of scientific findings for use by the courts and CJS as a whole. Such research is unattractive to private providers, as it is time consuming and non- revenue generating.
In addition, the question of how research deemed ‘commercial in confidence’ is likely to benefit the taxpayer and CJS as a whole has, in my opinion, never been fully explored.
Until the establishment of ‘market’ driven forensic provision, the UK was the major provider of research, innovation and publication in forensic science. Sadly, this situation no longer exists.
My direct experience in attempting to illicit collaborative research with scientists in the private sector over the last year is; that whilst many are keen to engage in this, there is an expectation by their management that the majority of this should be done in their own time. This is clearly unacceptable if forensic science is to flourish rather than stagnate under the short term expediency of revenue generation.
Nevertheless, if forensic science is to develop and provide the best service to the CJS, it is absolutely crucial that this research not only continues, but is actively promoted and funding’ ring-fenced’ for this purpose.
Promises made by management of private forensic science providers concerning capacity, research and profitability do not appeared to have been fulfilled.
The actual cost (including that of the development of police laboratories) has yet to be published as these are likely to still be accruing. To my knowledge, no financial figures have been published illustrating how the closure of the FSS has benefited the taxpayer or the criminal justice system. Given the proliferation of police forensic science laboratories, it would not be surprising to discover that the true and continuing cost of the FSS closure would far outweigh its continued operation.
As a duty to the taxpayer, the government and police authorities should provide a transparent and honest financial account relating to forensic science provision post FSS and declare what savings or indeed additional costs have been incurred as a consequence of their decision (i.e. has a saving or loss to the taxpayer been incurred?)
See my previous remarks (1.)
The previous CRFP (Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners) was potentially a workable regulatory body, but lacked the funding and managerial will to establish a register supported by statute (e.g. such as General Medical Council). In my opinion, had this been more effectively managed and funded, it would have been more preferable than the present system.
In my opinion, the present role should be scrapped and body similar to the CRFP, but enforced in statute, should be created.
None of the private forensic providers report making profits sustainable to long term viability. The present paradigm where the customer also behaves as a competitor (i.e. increasing police ‘in-housing’) means that whatever ‘market’ now exists, is likely to shrink and it is questionable how any commercial organisation can become profitable and meet shareholder expectations in these circumstances.
At the time of writing, the private sector has now begun considerable downsizing exercises which will result in further destabilisation of the market as well as loss of expertise.
The present procurement system is essentially tender based. The main deciding factor appears to be cost, rather than quality, innovation or the experience base of the practitioners of a particular forensic provider.
The current procurement system is conducive to fragmentation of different aspects of a particular case amongst different forensic providers. In large complex cases and/ or cases of cross border crime, there is a real danger that communication breaks down and that the significance of analysis in its entirety to the prosecution or defence case is missed. There also a real danger that efficient strategy setting in complex enquiries is subverted, leading to (at best) ineffective outcomes.
At present, many of the police laboratories provide only a ‘screening’ facility in which only items deemed (by the police) to have any probative value are submitted to a forensic provider for analysis. This is a purely cost based (and arguably, prosecution biased) approach. Forensic providers are being reduced to a ‘commodity based service’ rather than ‘knowledge/ experience based’. This cost based approach is both unscientific and dangerous, as without a holistic approach, only evidence perceived to be of value to the prosecution is considered and forwarded for examination. This leads to inconsistencies in the effective utilisation of forensic science by different police authorities based upon budgets. The potential consequences are obvious; miscarriages of justice.
My understanding is that the former Home Office Forensic Science Service (precursor to the FSS) was created in response to inconsistencies in service delivery by different police authorities and accusations of prosecution bias. It seems we have come full circle.
The present procurement system in my opinion does not provide value for money to the taxpayer and should be abandoned.
The public funding for in-house police laboratories should be ceased and diverted to re-instating a state-run service.
See my previous remarks ( 1 -6.).
It is difficult to fully assess this at this time. Any problems/ issues with this need to be logged and catalogued so that any effective remedial actions required are effectively managed.
January 2013