Closure of FSS will not have negative impact

The closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) will not have a negative impact on UK forensics as long as the wind-down is “properly implemented”, according to a leading forensics provider.

LGC Forensics, the biggest commercial provider, said closure of the FSS will provide new opportunities and encourage competition.

In a written submission to the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the closure, Steve Allen, managing director of LGC Forensics, said: “The closure of the FSS will not damage the prospects for forensic science in the UK so long as its wind-down is properly implemented and is used by the Government as an opportunity to support a properly regulated market of a sufficient size to enable competition between dedicated market participants.”

The Home Office announced last December that the FSS would be abolished by March next year as it is currently operating at a loss of £2 million a month.

The Government hopes the closure will lead to more private enterprises getting involved and filling the void which would be left behind. The private sector currently makes up 40 per cent of the market.

However, concerns have been raised over the potential of over-emphasis being on profits which could threaten the quality of science.

In a letter to New Scientist magazine in January, Professor Alec Jeffreys, who pioneered the technique of genetic fingerprinting at the University of Leicester, said the decision to close the FSS could not be in the interests of justice.

“Who will provide the expertise for complex and interdisciplinary investigations, and who will develop and refine new technologies? The private sector is most unlikely to fill this void,” he wrote.

But David Hartshorne and Roger Derbyshire, directors of commercial provider Cellmark, told the inquiry that there would be no negative impact on the quality or impartiality of forensic evidence.

In written evidence submitted to the inquiry, they said: “Forensic scientists in the private sector have exactly the same motivation to support the criminal justice system and the victims of crime as those in the public sector.

It added: “[Private sector scientists`] ethics and impartiality are independent of the organisation for whom they work; and ultimately, when they stand in the witness box to provide evidence, they are representing themselves rather than the company that employs them.”

The Home Office has placed responsibility on the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to manage the gradual wind down of the FSS.