Brooks on Forensic Science
During a parliamentary debate on forensic science, Brooks Newmark calls for the Forensic Science Service to remain in the public sector and improved standards in forensic science education.
3.39 pmMr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I shall focus on three areas. My first concern is the move to a public-private partnership. Coming from an ex-businessman and a Conservative, that may be surprising, but I do not particularly want to see the privatisation of these services. In the words of the Science and Technology Committee, because of their record the Government do not "inspire confidence" in their ability to make a success of the Forensic Science Service as a PPP. We should also be sceptical about tinkering with an essential public service, which does much to underpin our criminal justice system. That reason, as much as the first, is one of my primary objections to privatisation of the service.
The second area is science as a marketplace. I remain unconvinced that there is a viable market for forensic science services or that the benefits outweigh the costs to the public. That is because of the need for regulation, the need to ensure low cost, the need for access to services, the need to ensure consistent service-and the risk of failure, which was alluded to earlier.
My third concern is that of education and training, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The Committee estimated that more than 400 courses on forensic sciences are run by 57 universities. The Committee recommended that action to be taken to improve standards of training and to establish links between forensic science and chemistry departments. The Government have not done enough to ensure that that is happening, a connection that I mentioned earlier. We still hear of the closure of chemistry departments, which has been the subject of debate many times over the past few months.
The first issue is tackling public-private partnerships. The McFarland review reached the conclusion that
"by becoming private sector classified the FSS would acquire the private sector flexibilities it desires, and the Government would be relieved of responsibility for a commercial operation, as well as partly realising its investment."
I have several objections to that conclusion. The first is the belief that the Forensic Science Service should, as a matter of principle, remain in the public sector and be subject to full parliamentary oversight. The second is the possibility of failure. In light of the Government's poor track record in managing PPP projects, it is an unacceptable risk to an essential service that underpins much of the criminal justice system.
The Minister said during a follow-up sitting that
"my straight answer to you is yes; that no irrevocable decision has been taken with regard to any further development following PPP. It is my intention, and that of the Home Secretary, that the GovCo structure should be given an opportunity to succeed in its own right."
I hope that he will keep to his word. He echoed the Government's response to the Committee's report, which stated that
"no irrevocable decision about the future shape and direction of the organisation will be made until at least December 2006."
However, as our report identified, there have been no straight answers and no consistent policy since the McFarland review in 2003.
The review suggested the radical measure of a transfer of forensic science services to the private sector, yet the future of the FSS is still in limbo. I am still sceptical of the Government's commitment to the GovCo, given the relatively limited time that it has had to prove itself. Our report also recommended that the Government make public the specific criteria that will be used to evaluate the success of the GovCo and the need for progression to PPP. I welcome the Government's response that
"in the interests of transparency, careful consideration will be given to which information it would be appropriate to place in the public domain"
However, I ask the Minister to bring us all up to date on the criteria that will be used and on the progress of the assessment in general.
Leaving aside for a moment the Government's misleading and confusing presentation on the decision to move from a GovCo to PPP, we remain sceptical of the rationale for the move itself. It is not known whether the provision of forensic science will benefit from a competitive market. The Minister was hardly any more reassuring when giving evidence when he said:
"I do not think that there should be room for others to come into the market."
It does not sound like a marketplace to me.
The fact remains that opinion on the subject is sharply divided, and that there is little or no evidence in favour of the move beyond the general principle that competition in the marketplace is beneficial. However, we must continue to ask whether the provision of forensic science services falls firmly in the category of a natural monopoly. Furthermore, even if it can be shown that services will benefit from competition, will the benefits be outweighed by the need for heavy and invasive regulation of an essential public service? A degree of price control will be required to ensure that users like the police have ready, reliable and affordable access to services. Is that compatible with a competitive market?
The Government's response stated:
"A strategic analysis of the market that draws on the lessons from the early pilot areas and informs the evolution of the tendering strategy is planned."
It is not clear whether that analysis will have finished, or even have been commenced, by December 2006, which is the date for commencing further discussion on the proposed transfer to a full PPP. The Government's strategy in that respect is unsound in principle; looking at their track record on PPP, it is likely to be unsound in practice.
Finally, I turn to education and training. The Government have not given enough credence to the Committee's recommendations on the provision of forensic science education and training. We estimated that more than 400 courses are offered by 57 universities, and we highlighted our concern about their standards and the lack of remedial action from the Government. We said:
"It is disappointing that, in view of the concerns expressed to us by the police and the wider forensic science community over standards in forensic science education, the Home Office has taken no action to communicate the existence of these problems to colleagues at DfES."
One of our most important recommendations was that
"the Forensic Science Society, SEMTA and the main employers work together with the Royal Society of Chemistry to promote an understanding of the value of chemistry as a route into forensic science."
However, the Government still decline to take the lead. Their response was not only anodyne, but it abdicated responsibility for the maintenance of high quality forensic science training and more generally for the promotion of science education. In other words, the Government have simply passed the buck to the Royal Society of Chemistry by saying that it should
"as the professional body . . . take the lead."
The Government have pledged to contact the royal society, but meanwhile award- winning chemistry departments like the one at Sussex university are still being forced to close.
I was also concerned that, given the increasingly important role of forensic science to the criminal justice system, there is no compulsory training. The Judicial Studies Board and the Bar Council are left to arrange training on an ad hoc basis. That seems to be another abdication of responsibility by the Government. I was unconvinced by Lord Goldsmith's reply-the Attorney-General-when giving evidence that
"the DCA are discussing with the professional bodies whose responsibility it is to train lawyers whether part of the compulsory continuing professional development ought to include this aspect and those discussions are going on."
We ought by now to know the outcome of those discussions. More important, they should not be discussions: the Government should be taking a clear lead on the level of forensic science training required by the legal profession. It is clear to me that there is no lead at all, much less a clear one. I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.49 pm
...
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS BY BROOKS NEWMARK TO THIS DEBATE
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): The hon. Gentleman raises one important point, which is about bringing students into forensic sciences. My main concern is that there is little joined-up thinking between the encouragement that is given to students to go into the important field of forensic sciences, and the lack of resources going into sciences in general and chemistry in particular. We heard a very poor message from the Government, when they responded to the closure of the chemistry department at the university of Sussex and, before that, the closure of the chemistry department at the university of Exeter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that they give grave concern to everyone.
Mr. Willis : I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. When the predecessor Committee considered the provision of strategic science, it made it clear that unless there is a sufficient supply of chemistry, physics, maths and engineering graduates, the whole country will suffer. We have often had that discussion with the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville. It is not good enough to say that science is expanding, simply because a course has science in its title. It has to have a basis in basic science to underpin that work.
...
Mr. Newmark : Does the hon. Gentleman share a concern of mine, which is that the Government will be both judge and jury? We should be concerned about them setting the criteria. They will set the criteria, and then they will make a judgment on whether the forensic service should move to being a PPP.
Dr. Turner : I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to make that very point. I agree: the Home Office is setting itself up as judge and jury, and executioner, all at the same time, and that is unfortunate. I hope that there will be-as mentioned in the Government response-genuine scrutiny by the National Audit Office. It is essential that there is independent scrutiny of this process, and it must be transparent.
...
Mr. Newmark: I am curious. If the service remains a GovCo, and it does not undergo transition to a full PPP, does the hon. Gentleman believe that a forensic science advisory council will still be necessary? Would he still want to follow up that recommendation from the Committee?
Dr. Turner : Yes. Even if we remain with a GovCo, we still have something of a market. Many other aspects-many of which have been aired this afternoon-require the attention of a regulator. Unlike the normal regulation of a market, there are serious issues of scientific quality in this area, and there is no arbiter or authority to keep a check on them. I would go further than the report, and suggest that one role of the regulator-the advisory council, which needs to be a highly qualified body-would be to maintain a high level of scientific quality throughout the criminal justice system. There is an important role for a regulator in any event. I hope it is clear that I do not wish to see the introduction of PPP. I am convinced that, properly supported, the GovCo can work very well. But it must be properly supported.
...
Mr. Newmark : Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the broader issue of civil liberties? Of course, we must tackle crime and we should have the DNA of those who cause problems but, as she says, collecting DNA by stealth is an infringement of our civil liberties. That is the broader issue that we should be most concerned with.
Lynne Featherstone : The hon. Gentleman is right, but there are so many issues relating to the collection of DNA and the DNA database that I almost do not know where to begin.