1.  Thank you for your letter of 13 October to the Home Secretary about the future of the Forensic Science Service. He has asked me to reply as Minister responsible for forensic science and specifically for the Government's 100% shareholding in the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Ltd.

2.  You asked for clarification on five points, which you believed were not fully covered in the Home Secretary's previous reply.

SOME PRIVATE SECTOR FIRMS WORKING TO A COST CEILING

  3.  This was asserted by a trades union representative who did not, as far as I am aware, produce evidence to support the claim. As a stand alone statement, the assertion is not accurate. It conceals a wealth of detail about the process by which forensic analysis is procured by police forces.

4.  In his letter of 19 August, Alan Johnson explained the new arrangements put in place by the National Policing Improvement Agency for the procurement of forensic science by police forces in England and Wales. The key point is that it is the police customer who decides what tests should be carried out and how much expenditure can be justified. Under the National Forensics Framework Agreement (NFFA), forensics suppliers are now required to price the majority of services they perform on a unit base, as opposed to an hourly charge basis. This provides much greater clarity/visibility of pricing methodologies and allows forces a greater ability for budget forecasting. Within each specification there are multiple pricing points to cover the whole remit/progress of analysis needed for that specification, in effect breaking down the full analysis into a number of units, each with its own price. There is therefore no need for suppliers to work to a "cost ceiling", as any additional or sequential work can be catered by using multiple units. Forces themselves will either approve this additional work or not after discussion with the supplier.

  5.  I see no evidence to justify the full investigation you ask for, as there is a robust process in place, managed by the police service in consultation with suppliers, to establish the optimum results, taking proper account of value for money and overall budget constraints. The decision is for the customer, not the provider.

ALTHOUGH IT DOMINATES THE COMMERCIAL MARKET, THE FSS CANNOT MAKE MONEY

  6.  The FSS currently supports a sizeable infrastructure comprised of primary laboratories and some smaller sites. Over recent years, increased competition and changes in the way in which police forces buy their forensic service provision has resulted in a marked decline in the FSS market share. The emerging forensics market points towards a continued reduction in the amount of work available for which companies can bid competitively, as police forces increasingly scrutinise and value test forensic work that they might previously have awarded to the FSS.

7.  The FSS must adapt to meet these changes and in doing so, is fully committed to maintaining the highest possible quality of service. Indeed, the transformation is geared towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the service provided to customers, in improving turnaround times and enabling cost-effective analysis and interpretation to complement the type of work being carried out in-house by forces. Furthermore, the FSS continues to be committed to innovation and to bringing highly specialised new breakthrough techniques to the Criminal Justice System. This type of innovation can only arise where the experience and specialist approach facilitates research and development and as such, provides a counter balance to the more routine work now increasingly undertaken at force level.

  8.  Since the transformation is driven by the requirements of the customer, clearly the FSS will continue to provide those services which the customer wishes to purchase from them. The selection of services offered is therefore not dictated by profitability, but by the demands of the customer.

HOME OFFICE FUNDING AND WIDER COSTS

  9.  The four primary sites selected by the FSS from which to operate the new national business streams all currently house DNA facilities. This critical factor was one of several taken into consideration in deciding where to locate centres for the best possible service provision. However, it is not cost alone which rules out the notion of installing DNA facilities in one of the remaining three. The start up time in establishing new facilities would be at the expense of existing work and would take resource (such as staff) from the existing, well established facilities, to the detriment of ongoing casework. The FSS believes that it is well positioned to provide the necessary throughput of DNA work at the four sites chosen both now and for the foreseeable future, so there is no necessity to cost the opening of new facilities in any of the other three laboratories.

REGULATORY SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE

  10.  This concerns the operation of the National Forensics Framework Agreement. The NFFA comprises 14 Lots or Packages of Services that cover the majority of laboratory forensic services that forces would want. (Counter Terrorism and e-forensics are not included as these will be dealt with by way of separate frameworks). The NFFA contains stringent Standards, Accreditation and Quality requirements, to ensure that overall standards of forensic service provision are maintained at a high level.

11.  Ten suppliers are currently accredited under the NFFA. Four can provide services across all 14 packages. There are safeguards in the NFFA terms and conditions that ensure all suppliers must bid for "lots" or areas of work, for which they are accredited on the NFFA. This requirement is there to prevent "cherry-picking" or gaps in service provision to forces.

  12.  The NFFA also contains a User Requirement and detailed Service Specifications, agreed by all the forces, to ensure consistency of supply whichever the supplier used. Commercial principles such as benchmarking and gains sharing, which incentivise good performance, ensure service delivery remains at a high level. Such commercial principles are now common in other public sector contracts and secure value for money for the tax payer.

  13.  Competitive tendering in this market has led to greater choice of suppliers for the forces; more competition between suppliers; keener prices; standardised specifications and contractual terms and conditions, and greater emphasis on accreditation and quality standards.

  14.  In his oral evidence, Bill Griffiths discussed the required balance between re-shaping the FSS to ensure its future sustainability and optimising responsiveness to scenes. He also gave an assurance that the FSS is confident of fulfilling its contractual obligations to attend scenes of crime within four hours of call-out, including scenes in relatively remote geographical areas. This service will be delivered by scientists living in these areas in addition to services delivered from the FSS' four future, main locations, ensuring suitably agile and flexible provision.

  15.  I am grateful to you for raising the issue of scene attendance as there is a widespread misunderstanding of what happens on the ground. Firstly, the FSS is not routinely invited to attend every scene, since evidence collection at scene is invariably dealt with by police scenes-of-crime personnel. Secondly, the requirement of the National Forensic Procurement Framework is to attend scenes, when requested, within four hours: the reduction in the number of main laboratories has no significant national impact on the ability of the FSS to meet that requirement.

  16.  In many instances, the FSS is asked to attend a scene only after the authorities have completed certain initial work (such as a fire investigation). It is routine for scientists to be asked to wait until police scenes of crime officers have completed their provisional examinations. At a murder scene, they are not admitted until the pathologist has reviewed the body and the police have released the scene.

  17.  Furthermore, it is important to note that, whilst laboratories are the processing centres for analysis, they are not the only point from which staff are despatched to scene. Out of hours, it is often a key consideration for work to be carried out in daylight, so staff would be despatched from home.

  18.  In those areas not readily reachable within the specified time, the requirement to attend scenes is low. The FSS was called to attend 658 scenes in 2008 of which only 10 were in such areas. During a year, the FSS generally handles around 120,000 cases.

  19.  In the proposed plans, those areas not covered are largely ones which they cannot currently reach in any case. These areas are not ones which they are currently contracted to cover, since the work there has been awarded to another provider. However, should their inclusion be required, these areas would then be subject to specific arrangements agreed with individual customers on a case by case basis. Under the new plans, the FSS is considering the introduction of response teams to be retained on standby to cater for these areas should they be required to do so.

  20.  I believe there is also some misunderstanding concerning the persistence of evidence at scene and the urgency of securing samples. Crime scene samples could include an enormous range of evidence types, from fibres to bullet cartridges, and are not merely confined to body fluids from which to obtain a possible DNA profile. The processing of samples once collected is an established system that does not rely on the existence of a main laboratory close by. Firearms cases, for instance, are handled at one of two centres, in Manchester or London.

  21.  In short, far from a deterioration of service, the intention in formulating the new national structure is to achieve an improvement in turnaround times; quality of work; efficiency, and effectiveness for police customers.

THE PERFORMANCE OF PRIVATE FIRMS IN RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS

  22.  There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the role of forensics in dealing with mass fatality incidents and in tackling terrorism. In the case of the former, the method of victim identification is not the same as that used for criminal investigation. The system of DNA analysis and comparison is not the one used to populate the National DNA Database. In dealing with the Indonesian tsunami, for example, the DNA work to identify victims was done by Orchid Cellmark as the only company accredited in the UK to use the approved DNA profiling system known as Identifiler required by the Thai authorities.

23.  In the case of terrorist incidents and counter terrorism generally, you will appreciate that much of the detail must remain confidential. The majority of the forensics effort in counter terrorism is currently directed towards gathering intelligence. The primary forensic means of tracking and identifying terrorists nationally and internationally is through fingerprint examination which is conducted by the Police Service. DNA profiling and other forensic techniques that are undertaken by external forensic science providers have a secondary and complimentary role but a much lesser scale than fingerprints. The majority of the intelligence DNA work is not being undertaken by the FSS and they have a limited role in the general CT forensic effort. The FSS did respond quickly and effectively to the investigations and operations that flowed from the London bombings of July 2005. However, this was a very small fraction of the overall response.

  24.  The provision of forensic services for counter-terrorism (CT) investigations has been deliberately omitted from the NFFA. This is because of the unique requirements and sensitivities of this type of work, and the higher levels of security needed. The Metropolitan Police provide the national coordination of forensic CT provision which includes that of the external forensic suppliers. A separate CT forensic procurement framework is being planned, to specifically select forensic suppliers for CT work via a competitive tendering process. This procurement work will also include business continuity provisions to ensure that in the event of a major CT operation, all forensic suppliers work together to prioritise CT forensic analysis and at the same time, manage the normal day to day activities at the same time. In the interim period, contingency to deal with a major CT event remains the same, in that all the major suppliers fully understand their responsibilities for dealing with CT events. In fact, the events of 7 July were not solely dealt with by the FSS, as other suppliers assisted with the forensic laboratory analysis. These suppliers fully appreciate the public service ethos in this respect.

  25.  I hope that this response fully addresses any remaining concerns. I fully understand the strength of feeling generated by the loss of jobs and the closure of sites. But I remain convinced that these measures, taken as part of a radical re-structuring of the business, are vital if the FSS is to continue to provide first class service to its customers.