HC Deb 05 November 2003 vol 412 cc259-82WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

9.30 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)

I am grateful to have secured this debate, because the subject is of special importance today, and I thank the Minister for being here to respond. I know that he is used to these early starts, but I am none the less pleased that he has taken the trouble to turn up. I am also pleased that we have an hour and a half to debate the subject; it means that all Members will be able to have their say, and that we can do justice to the subject.

On 17 July, the Home Secretary announced that he wished the Forensic Science Service to change its status from an executive agency to a public-private partnership. Put simply, that would mark the privatisation of the service. As the forensic science laboratory at the Washington hall site in Chorley employs 240 people, I have a direct interest in the matter. However, I also share the general concern about how privatisation would affect a highly skilled work force that serves five police constabularies with a dedication and commitment to the public sector ethos that is second to none.

Many well-known cases have been dealt with at the Chorley site, and it has had great success over the years in helping to put criminals behind bars. It has always been at the leading edge in solving crime, and some of the nastiest and most horrendous murders have been solved through the work of that laboratory. It is important to stress that while science has progressed and new DNA techniques are available, the Forensic Science Service throughout the country has always been at the forefront. We should remember that many of the cases and crimes that took place long ago are still on the shelf, and could be solved as science moves on. It is important that we have an in-house service to help us solve them.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

As my hon. Friend says, the present service is in-house. Does he believe, as I do, that selling the Forensic Science Service is likely to raise prices in the medium and long term, that it will discourage police authorities from using its facilities, and that the introduction of competition will introduce yet more bureaucracy into a service that is already over-burdened with it?

Mr. Hoyle

I could not agree more; my hon. Friend is spot on. I shall stress those points later in my speech.

Having met the staff at the Chorley laboratory, I know their strength of feeling and their opposition to the Government's plans. In fact, 140 employees took time out of their busy schedules to attend a meeting during the lunch hour to air their strongly held views. The meeting had to be held in two phases because the room was not big enough, such was the strength of feeling.

Before I go into detail about the opposition of staff, trade unions, MPs and members of the public, I shall deal with the timing of the announcement. I have a science laboratory in my constituency, but although I was informed that an announcement was to be made, I learned the news from a local radio station. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 July expressing concern, but no apology was made in the Minister's reply on 28 August, and none has been made since. That is not acceptable, and I believe that my colleagues will think the same.

The Home Secretary made his announcement on 17 July, which was, coincidentally, the day that Parliament went into recess, leaving a void before the subject could be properly debated in the House. Other MPs with laboratories in their constituencies were treated the same, with no letter or telephone call from the Home Office. Will the Minister comment on how he feels constituency MPs have been dealt with, and how he will deal with future issues affecting constituency MPs? It is important that Ministers take the trouble to communicate. The Minister involved was not the Minister who is present today, but I hope that he will take that point on board. In cases that directly affect constituency interests, we should be told what is about to happen.

I have a number of concerns and questions about the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service. Following the independent review conducted by Robert McFarland, it was decided that the FSS should change its status from a trading fund to a public-private partnership. The reason given is that for the FSS to remain competitive, radical change is needed to allow it to make the best use of rapidly advancing science and technology to reduce crime and deliver safer communities. We are told that in the face of competition from the private sector, the FSS faces substantial risks if it remains a trading fund, with a sustained and accelerated loss of market share. That is questionable, and I ask the Minister where the evidence for that idea is.

Last year the FSS had a turnover of £140 million and returned a profit of more than £10 million. With 2,603 employees, it is regarded across the globe as a world leader and is at the cutting edge of technology and of solving crime. From that £10 million profit, £5 million was invested in new computers and £5 million went into the Treasury coffers. It is important to stress that. The money is circulated: the Treasury put money into the police force, which puts it into the FSS, and any profits return to the Treasury. The money is circulated, rather than greedy shareholders taking it out of the system.

Diana Organ (Forest of Dean)

What extra profit do the Government expect the Forensic Science Service to make, other than the £10 million that it made last year, which, as my hon. Friend said, was reinvested in the service with a little take from the Treasury? Do they hope that the service will make more profit in future?

Mr. Hoyle

My hon. Friend is right; the profit made goes back to the Treasury and the taxpayer reaps the benefit. The proposed change would involve the establishment of a private company, with shareholders who will want a return on their investment.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office recently produced a report on the Forensic Science Service? That report went to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. The NAO is not known for producing glowing reports on public expenditure, and as a member of the PAC, I often see its withering criticisms of particular organisations. However, the NAO report did not find anything uncommercial about the way in which the service is operated, but found it to be a model of a competitive and efficient public sector service. Would my hon. Friend pass on my congratulations, along with his, to the staff involved?

Mr. Hoyle

I absolutely agree. Who better than a member of the PAC to point out that the proposal is not the best way forward or the right model to use? That model is discredited, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has brought that fact out today. We are discussing not only jobs, but the wasting of taxpayers' money.

Robert McFarland's report on the FSS states: The FSS can take particular credit for: Its response to the significant increases in demand for forensic services over the last decade; The development of the forensic applications of DNA, and the setting up and managing, with the Association of Chief Police Officers…of the NDNAD"— that is, the national DNA database— and Pioneering new ways of working with and in support of the police. All that is being put at risk.

The FSS is doing a pretty good job on what matters, which is solving crime and putting criminals behind bars, so my second question is: how will competition improve the service provided to the police? Robert McFarland states that the emergence of a fully open and competitive market has been constrained by what the private sector saw as the entrenched monopoly of the FSS. If we sell the service to one company, the danger is that that company then becomes a monopoly. Or are we going to split each regional centre into different companies with different shareholders? Will they share information? Why should they? Why should they allow their financial success to be given over to a competitor? However, if information is not shared, the only winner will be the criminal. This is a criminal's charter; we will not be able to solve crime, because each company will be driven by the need to raise money for shareholders. Many questions need to be answered.

It is interesting that reviews of the proposals are being conducted. I am pleased that the Public Accounts Committee is to report, and I am sure that the Minister knows that the Science and Technology Committee will produce a report in the New Year. It has many worries, which include the key question of who will train future scientists. We currently have success because in-house facilities allow scientists to develop specialist knowledge. For certain crimes, only a few scientists have the appropriate knowledge. Will any one company train those people? No one can tell me that each company will cover all the areas—arson and gun crime, for example. Specialist scientists currently deal with each niche area, but certain crimes may be committed only rarely, so will each company hold on full pay a scientist to specialise in them? I doubt that. What will happen if there is an increase in demand? How many companies will want to enter the market? There is a lot for the Minister to think about.

Considering the way in which we are moving, we must address the big issue. Why do we believe that competition is necessary, especially when it comes to putting criminals behind bars? Competition is not needed for that—the Government are simply being driven by their belief that what they are doing is right.

How will competition operate? Will the seven laboratories throughout the UK compete with each other, or will the service belong to one company? If so, competition will have to take place on the basis of cost, but how can costs be cut in such important and delicate work, which needs time to ensure that the answers are right? We are talking about people's liberty, and about putting people behind bars.

Jon Trickett

My hon. Friend is talking about the cost to the public purse. Does he know that the FSS is proposing to make a significant number of people redundant? That redundancy programme is really about preparing for privatisation. It will cost at least £6 million, and that cost will fall on the taxpayer rather than the private firm, when it is finally privatised. Is my hon. Friend surprised by those costs? Money is being taken from the work of detecting criminals to pay for making people redundant.

Mr. Hoyle

I am not surprised, and I do not think anyone will be shocked, by that. The shock is that we are willing to make people redundant in the hope that we can attract someone to take on the service and then deliver a profit for shareholders. That is a great worry. Why should we use the taxpayers' money to stop the detection of crime?

The only person to gain from such measures would be the criminal, who may go undetected, as work may not be conducted properly, or at all, because of an unwillingness to undertake unprofitable work. That is clearly intolerable and cannot be allowed. The debate also has an ethical aspect. Which private entities will be allowed a share in the FSS? Perhaps drug companies or insurance companies will be allowed a share. Could there be a conflict of interest in the work conducted?

As a Government, we pride ourselves on trying to modernise and improve services, and on looking for new ways to improve them. That is an admirable aim and a great objective, of which new Labour can be proud. However, the present proposal is nothing new. Similar proposals were put before Conservative Ministers in the 1980s, and were rejected. The dogma driving privatisation is now 25 years old. We are stuck with old ideas and old methods. Nothing new is coming out. We must have moribund ideas if we have to go back to the failures of the 1980s. We should learn the lesson of botched privatisations—of which I am constantly reminded every time I travel by train from the north-west.

Diana Organ

Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the FSS could be a privatisation too far for this Government, as rail privatisation was for the Conservative Government?

Mr. Hoyle

Absolutely. I cannot disagree.

The trade unions representing forensic scientists, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, have made their opposition known. In addition, the Police Federation also opposes the Government's plans, and issued a statement saying: We are fundamentally opposed to profit being made from policing and are concerned that as provider competition is introduced, bureaucracy will increase in a police service already overburdened with it.

David Taylor

Does my hon. Friend accept that the logic behind such privatisation could be extended to privatising scene-of-crime investigations, and even the CID itself at some future date? The CID could become the Chorley Investigations Department of Pinkerton's, or something similar.

Mr. Hoyle

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the danger is that we do not know how far the move could be taken. That is the big question. The measures are the thin end of the wedge. We have heard, "Don't worry, it will only go so far," before, but things soon spread. Who knows—will the proud Lancashire constabulary be walking around with "Group 4" on their sleeves? At least we do know that the criminals might get away. The danger is that there will be no such thing as a sell-off too far. If we allow FSS to go, everything else may follow. I think that that is everyone's worry, and that is why I am pleased to see so many hon. Members here.

I think that when we talk about such matters, we should listen to the trade unions. I am not talking about the old 1970s dogma, but about modern trade unions with modern practices, that wish to represent their members in the best possible way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Prospect?"] Yes, unions such as Prospect and PCS.

As I said, a statement was issued that stated that the police were fundamentally concerned, and that they were bothered about being over-burdened, and about where the service will be. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on the comments made by the Police Federation, and it is important that he responds to that point.

I put my concerns about quality of service, the provision of a 24/7 capability, high standards and research and development to the Government, and received a ministerial reply in a letter dated 16 September, saying that those matters would be considered as the restructuring process took place.

It is a long time since September. I would have thought that those points would have been considered by now, and we would have the information. I am not saying that the Minister should have the information today, but I think that he ought to let MPs and colleagues with an interest in the FSS labs know the answers. We received a delaying letter—I can understand that, but enough time has now been spent waiting. We ought to receive another letter soon, unless the Minister has the information.

I would like to know whether there is any further update on research and development work. Part of the argument is that the labs need new investment, but why not take that out of the profits being made, rather than using money from the private sector? The taxpayers' money is there. We might as well use that as give it to shareholders, who will make an even bigger profit. We all want the FSS to remain a world leader; we cannot allow its position to be jeopardised.

The 24-hour, seven-day-a-week cover is an essential part of the service, although no doubt unprofitable, because of the labour-intensive nature of the work. Providing a 24/7 service loses money, so what guarantees can be provided that the service will not be reduced and adversely affected by privatisation,? Unfortunately, criminals work 24 hours, seven days a week, and we need a service to deal with that. That is where the cost cutting could take place, which is a worry. I do not think that anyone wants that. When a crime needs to be solved, we do not want someone to say, "By the way, can you wait until Monday? We don't work Sundays any more." We must stress the importance of 24/7 cover and the fact that keeping it in-house ensures that the service will always be on hand.

The Minister has made it clear that the DNA database will remain in the public sector. Again, I seek assurances that the data will remain strictly confidential and will not be threatened in any way by the changing status of the FSS if the proposal goes ahead.

I oppose the Government's plans, as do the staff and unions who work in and with the FSS. Until the concerns that we have outlined have been answered, I shall remain opposed to the plans and unconvinced that we shall see a change for the better, rather than another botched privatisation. I am worried about that, and I stress the need to recognise the credentials of the people who work in the service and their dedication to it, which others are willing to put at risk.

9.51 am
Colin Burgon (Elmet)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. We have worked together on this issue for a couple of months, and in some respects I hope that we soon become redundant in that capacity. Indeed, following the extremely powerful case that he has advanced today, I have a feeling that we may be able to pack our tents and leave the battlefield fairly soon, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said about his visit to the laboratory in Chorley, because I made a visit to Wetherby, which I shall deal with as I develop my argument.

When the Government, extremely foolishly, introduced proposals to privatise the Forensic Science Service, they unwittingly helped me to expand my knowledge base—I know that they are a lifelong learning Government. They helped me to expand my knowledge of a service that many millions of us take for granted. One of the seven labs that my hon. Friend mentioned is based in my constituency, at Wetherby. I must admit that I had only a general knowledge of the work that it carried out, so I determined to learn more about the service and the people who work in it, and I have been tremendously impressed by their attitude and professionalism.

That process of finding out and talking to people has confirmed in my mind that the Government's proposals are ill thought-out, and will be very damaging if allowed to proceed. The job of MPs is to examine proposals rigorously, even if they are introduced in a recess and seem to have been smuggled out to avoid conflict—and if proposals are flawed, dangerous and mistaken, MPs must say so openly.

When we consider the scope and scale of the work carried out by the Forensic Science Service, we soon realise that it is a tremendously important organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley strongly argued. It is central to the investigation of crime and the prosecution of offenders, and it contributes to deterrence and to the prevention and reduction of crime. The facts and figures for the service are truly impressive. My hon. Friend gave a few, and I shall back him up. The service employs more than 2,000 people, of whom more than 50 per cent. are trained scientists, and many are world authorities in their field. It deals with more than 100,000 criminal cases a year, and examines more than half a million items per year, principally for the 43 police forces in England and Wales. It also deals with the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and provides services to businesses both in the UK and abroad. It invests about £3 million each year in the vital area of scientific research.

David Taylor

My hon. Friend mentions the international role of the FSS. Is he aware that there is no nation on the planet whose FSS or equivalent is in the private sector? Does that surprise him?

Colin Burgon

I would have been surprised before I examined the issue, but now I am not. My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps new Labour is trying to break into a new area, and say, "We're the first Government to deliver"—

David Taylor

Pioneers get all the arrows.

Colin Burgon

Indeed—but I hope that we can turn that particular drive today.

The FSS pioneered the use of DNA, and set up the world's first national criminal intelligence DNA database. Those facts are so impressive that in 1999 they moved a Labour Home Office Minister to say: We have a forensic service which we are proud of and it is widely regarded as a market leader in the way it meets ever demanding challenges. Its contribution is key to the delivery of justice. I hope that the present Minister will associate himself with those remarks and acknowledge the high standing and effectiveness of the FSS, for I know him to be an open and fair-minded person. That would strengthen our argument.

Diana Organ

Is my hon. Friend aware that the forensic science service of our closest neighbour, the French, is nowhere near as developed as ours in terms of the work that can be done on DNA? I was involved with the case of a family whose daughter, Joanna Parrish, was murdered in France, and the British Forensic Science Service was asked to help in doing the DNA work required to find the murderer. That shows what a world leader our forensic service is.

Colin Burgon

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right. I believe—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the weapon used in the recent assassination of a leading Swedish politician was also sent to Britain for analysis.

I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the case for keeping the FSS within the public sector, and find the points I now intend to put forward unanswerable, even with his great intellect. My opposition to the public-private partnership option also uses the acronym PPP, because I have practical, political and philosophical objections to the direction in which we are going.

On a practical level, we are told that the service needs investment. In the meetings that I attended the figures given, even by Ministers, were a bit vague. However, I have seen the figure of £30 million mentioned, which would principally be used to upgrade the seven laboratories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley pointed out, £30 million does not seem a massive sum, when set in the context of the huge Home Office budget. Will the Minister comment on that?

Furthermore, as a Minister from the Home Office admitted to me in a written answer, the service generated some £10 million in profits returned to the Government last year. Moreover, I am informed that £10 million was invested in upgrading its computer programmes. In the light of those figures, the case for privatisation makes no financial sense. I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), about "fattening up" the service for privatisation, by using public money for a series of redundancy payments.

I believe that privatisation will destroy the morale and cohesion of those who work for the FSS. We should never forget that its highly trained and committed staff are its most valuable and prized asset. The potential loss of terms and conditions built up over the years cannot help but undermine morale. I have spoken to people at the FSS who share that view, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has, too. I ask the Minister to comment on pension rights, which are tremendously complex and can be skated over too easily—although I am sure that he will not do that. I also ask him to comment on the danger of a two-tier work force if privatisation goes ahead.

In West Yorkshire, a vigorous debate is being conducted in the columns of the Yorkshire Evening Post on funding for our police service. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that charges to the police for forensic science services will automatically increase with privatisation as companies seek to secure a commercial rate of return on investment for shareholders. That follows as naturally as night follows day. The public will end up paying for privatisation, either because the police service will aim to pass on increased charges through council tax, or because it will be minded to refer less work in an attempt to keep down rising costs, which in turn means that fewer criminals will be caught—a virtuous circle, some might argue.

It is nonsense to argue that the FSS is under pressure from vigorously growing private sector competitors and should therefore be privatised. Even if we entertain this dream world of marketisation and competition, the arguments in favour of privatisation do not stack up. Given its current market share of 90 per cent. plus, the FSS will dominate the sector if it is privatised, and it could act as a virtual monopoly. We must admit that there is no such thing as perfect market conditions and, to be frank, I do not think that a Labour Government should expend its energies chasing after the mirage of a perfect market economy.

I fear that the FSS will be hobbled in any privatisation process. The so-called small dynamic providers will be allowed to cherry-pick, and the FSS will be left with the less profitable areas. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said, it will be required to provide a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week on-call system, with which the other competitors will not be saddled.

Given the central importance of the FSS to the Government's strategy on crime and the workings of the criminal justice system, the Government will have to address any financial problems faced. In short, although the service will be privatised, public money will be used to construct a safety net, thus ensuring ultimate protection for the private sector, as we have seen with the railways and air traffic control.

Ministers will have to answer on a subject over which they have little control—a situation that we are seeing more and more. We shall get all the political downside, without the political control. I hope that the Minister will agree that the public have a great deal of trust and confidence in the FSS, which privatisation will undermine. The FSS has grown organically alongside our police forces, and can quickly mirror and adapt to changing patterns of public practice. Privatisation will break the vast number of organisational and personal links that help the two services to work together efficiently, and the public will inevitably suffer.

I oppose privatisation also because boundaries must be drawn between the public and the private sector. This proposed privatisation illustrates the lack of confidence in the public sector ethos shown by some elements in the Government and the people who advise them. I have no problem with the notion that the private sector can deliver many things, from coffee to cars, perfectly acceptably, but I cannot accept the idea, which some of our colleagues accept too readily, that the private sector is inherently superior in every sphere of human activity.

We must remember that people are not defined solely as consumers; they are also citizens, which we as Labour politicians will ignore at our peril. I have talked to staff at the Wetherby laboratory, and am convinced that most of them value the fact that they work within the public sector, are supporters of the public sector ethos and are committed to it. They are not convinced that privatising their work will make them more efficient and deliver better outcomes—a view that I share. They are working in a service that is already successful, by any standard that one could wish to apply.

Dr. John Pugh (Southport)

The hon. Gentleman has outlined his philosophical objections to privatisation. Does he agree that this is an attempt to privatise a service that the Government cannot allow to fail in any circumstances? That is always a mistake, in principle.

Colin Burgon

That is why I made the point about the safety net. As with the railways and air traffic control, the so-called risk takers in the private sector have a safety net under them. The perfect market conditions in which such forces are supposed to flourish will never be created.

Finally, I urge the Minister to give this matter more thought and to look for a solution that involves working with a committed staff through their two trade unions to maintain the Forensic Science Service as a leader in its field, and to ensure that it is constantly open to innovation, responsive to its customers, and a model of an effective public sector organisation.

I hope and pray that the Minister gives a positive response. I do not want to get involved in a fight over this, and I know that several other Back Benchers feel the same. However, if we have to fight, we will be thoroughly committed to carrying the fight through.

10.6 am

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. A considerable number of my constituents are employed at the laboratory in Chorley, which my hon. Friend has discussed at some length. Many of them have contacted me in the last few weeks, both in writing and in person. Before that, I did not know much about the Forensic Science Service, except what I had seen on television about the forensic science course at the university of Central Lancashire, which had been the subject of a series of television programmes over the past six to 12 months.

When my constituents contacted me, I was struck by the extent to which they were committed to public service. We must recognise that people sometimes choose to go into the public service rather than join a private sector employer. Often, they accept that the pay and conditions may not be as good, and the financial rewards may not be as beneficial, as they would be in the private sector, but working in the public service gives them other benefits, such as job satisfaction and a sense of working for the wider community.

I do not necessarily oppose the idea of private sector involvement in public services. Some 20 years ago, the Labour party was, or was perceived to be, ideologically opposed to the private sector. For my party, the public sector was good and the private sector was bad, whereas the Thatcher Government believed that the private sector was good and the public sector was bad. Then, in the late 1980s, I remember attending meetings and listening to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, as he now is, who advocated involving the private sector with the public sector to improve services.

I start from the position of not being ideologically opposed to that, but I question whether I should ask those of my constituents who have committed themselves to public service within the public sector to work for a private or public-private organisation. For that to have to happen, there must be an overwhelming need. The question is whether what is suggested will work and whether the need is important enough to justify the change, which will disrupt the lives of people who have given many years of service in the public sector. Should we shift them against their will into the private sector, with all the stresses and strains that that will bring? The case for that has not yet been made.

In a letter to me, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety stated: We are committed to ensuring FSS continues to be able to remain a world class leader in the development and delivery of forensic science. There is nothing in that sentence to indicate that the organisation is failing, or that it is not delivering a first-class service. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent, who said: The FSS has assisted internationally in setting up forensic laboratories in Lithuania, DNA databases in Poland, Romania, Kuwait and New Zealand, and winning against European competition a contract to work with Czech police. It led the investigation into Bosnian war graves. This international reputation could be put at risk, if privatisation fails. We are considering an organisation that, by any measure, is successful; it has a wonderful international reputation. Its trading company makes a profit, of which part is invested and part goes back to the taxpayer.

I have in my office a sack of letters to constituents who have written to me on the issue; they will go out after the debate, and I shall include a copy of the Hansard report of it. I hope that by then a proper case will have been made as to why the change is necessary. The correspondence that I have received so far does not make the case, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide persuasive arguments as to why the policy of the Home Office is correct.

I am prepared to disagree with constituents if I believe that the Government's policy is correct, and will argue for it. However, in this case I have been given no answer on any point that I have raised that I can take back to my constituents. I am not ideologically opposed to the involvement of the private sector in delivering a public service, but no case has been made. It is crucial, before we put at risk the good will—

Mr. Hoyle

My hon. Friend, with his background of working in the public sector, will be aware that in certain cases, that sector is needed. Does he agree that the short-term gain that might come from this proposal will be the Government's long-term loss?

Mr. Borrow

The proposed public-private partnership may be driven by short-term financial difficulties, or requirements placed on the Home Office in order to get investment into the service; I can understand why there might be pressure from the Treasury on the Home Office to do that. However, in five years' time when major things have gone wrong with the FSS and there have been failures in investigations, we do not want to find ourselves, after the event, holding a Select Committee inquiry into the failure of a privatised FSS. No Government would want to risk putting themselves in that situation. The danger is that if this is botched, or driven through simply to meet short-term financial needs, we shall have made a bad decision.

If there is a strong long-term case for a change in the structure and organisation of the FSS, we can debate it and see whether there is merit in it. So far, the Government has made no such argument. There needs to be an overwhelming case for change before we disturb an organisation that has given excellent service, has an international reputation and employs hundreds of dedicated professionals committed to working in a public service, and before we put at risk any of their livelihoods and pensions, as the change could do. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's comments, and I hope that he will give all of us some satisfaction, and something that I can take back to my constituents.

10.13 am
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not having given much notice of my wish to speak. Like other hon. Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for having called for today's debate. It is important for a number of reasons.

Before I speak about the FSS, I shall take hon. Members back to the summer months, before the Conservatives' little local difficulties with their leadership, which I predict will continue once they have the leader who looks likely to be selected, or elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crowned."]—or crowned. At that time there was some debate about the state of the Labour party, and I predict that that debate will reemerge. Another point that was made—

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett

Let me just finish what I was saying. I apologise for being provocative about a matter that is not on the agenda, but I wanted to make the point.

The debate at that time, which I predict will reemerge, was on the hypothesis—I put it no stronger than that—that a gap was opening up between the Government and the party and its supporters, which began to be articulated around the managerialism of Ministers, rather than the values that our Government are meant to embrace. With the FSS we are faced with a managerialist decision, which is detached from the values that the Government are meant to espouse. However, before I address that matter I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brazier

To bring us back to the subject of the debate, may I point out that the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as our new leader considered a proposal very similar to this one when he was Home Secretary—and firmly rejected it?

Jon Trickett

I am sure he did, but as that person is committed to tax cuts, it will be interesting to see which cuts in the police service and the criminal justice service generally he intends to implement instead.

I want to address values and managerialism, because when the decisions that are taken are detached from the ethos that we espouse and seek to represent, they can be understood only in managerial terms. I am afraid that the decision that we are discussing is a managerial decision, but it is also flawed on managerial grounds. I shall explain why in a moment.

As for the values that determine the way in which the Government move forward, there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic within an overarching set of values, but nor should we run away from the word "ideology", because that was what motivated many of us to become politicians—a belief in a particular kind of nation, which was not the kind of nation that we inhabited at the time. Personally, I do not think that there is anything wrong with ideology, but one of the values that I would have thought we would want to espouse is modernity, and modern public services, which must be well invested in and efficient. Nobody has ever said that the FSS is inefficient or lacking in modernity.

Beyond the value of modernity, however, are the values of public service. Hon. Members have referred to the strong public service ethos that runs through all the Labour party's thinking. It is true that none of us nowadays believes that the whole of society should be state owned, which would be a preposterous thing for us to propose in a modern United Kingdom. However, it is clear that some services—the criminal justice system is such a service par excellence—should be in a not-for-profit environment. A body concerned with the identification and capture of criminals, and their imprisonment and punishment, should be dedicated to the public service, and retain a strong public service ethos.

That ethos is strongly felt by the people who work in the forensic science laboratory. They spend their lives attempting to produce evidence that identifies criminals and eventually results in their imprisonment. I defy the Minister, intelligent as he is, to explain where in our core values as a Government or as a movement the decision we are discussing is located. As I have said, it is a managerial decision, and in managerial terms it is flawed. The key issue is that nowhere else in the world is the forensic science service privatised and, more importantly, separated from the police function in such a radical way. That information comes from paragraph 1.7 of the National Audit Office report, to which I referred earlier, which clearly indicates that no other country separates forensic science to the same degree, making it a distinct agency, never mind privatises it.

When I asked the leading executives in the FSS whether any comparable country had suggested privatising its forensic science service, Dr. Werrett told me that not even the Bush Administration were prepared to go that far. Indeed, they were not even prepared to privatise DNA testing. Nowhere in the world has the forensic science service been separated from the criminal justice service. Even New Zealand and Australia, which have occasionally had fairly reckless right-wing Governments, have not done that.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Separating the service destroys the command structure that is needed to operate effectively to identify criminals. That is why, traditionally and universally, apart from in this country, the two services have been integrated. The police service is in charge of the Forensic Science Service for simple, logical, management reasons.

The NAO report to which I referred contains an interesting description of an initiative—in Leeds, of all places. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) represents one of the constituencies involved. I come from Leeds originally and I lived there all my life until I became a Wakefield MP. I am still interested in Leeds. In an interesting experiment, Wetherby forensic science laboratory seconded back into the police force the scientists who assisted in BRIL—which stands for burglary reduction in Leeds—an initiative designed to defeat burglary. It resulted in a 247 per cent. increase in convictions compared with the previous period in 2000.

Why was the initiative so successful? The NAO report clearly states that it was successful because of the reintegration of the FSS with the police service. I was delighted to see so many burglars put behind bars. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and the Minister would feel the same. Indeed, everyone would. The success resulted from the reintegration of the service. Yet what does the Government propose? They propose to separate the service even further. They intend to set up a public-private partnership as a stage on the road to total privatisation. That will result in the most radical severing of the link between the police and criminal justice service, which remains in the public sector, and the Forensic Science Service, which will go into the private sector.

If I were a distinguished policeman or someone working in the courts I would have doubts about operating with the Forensic Science Service if it were a public limited company. I would worry about the security of information. It might be part of a larger group, and I would be concerned that the shareholders would have opinions about how the FSS was to be used. I might also have worries about money and profit being a motivation, as the information that the FSS would begin to accumulate would no longer be used in the interests of the public sector alone, but might be used in the interests of the shareholders. That disturbs me.

There will be a further breakdown in managerial relationships that are already strained because of the way the service has been separated into an agency. Those relationships will be severed completely when privatisation takes place. There is no case on managerial grounds or on grounds of values for what the Government propose.

David Taylor

Do my hon. Friend's concerns include the possibility that the national DNA database, which contains more than 2 million genetic profiles, might be used for purposes well beyond the detection and prosecution of crimes and criminals?

Jon Trickett

I was concerned about that, and I asked a series of questions about it. The Government may have moved slightly in their thinking on the subject, so I shall not press the point now. However, I warn them that many people, both in the House and outside, would be extremely concerned at the privatisation of the DNA database. The Government may have pulled back from that, but only after people kicked up a fuss.

I wonder whether those who advise the Minister also advised his colleagues to privatise the DNA database. He obviously accepts that it was a mistake to privatise that part of the agency; perhaps he should think about the quality of advice that he receives from them, as they were patently wrong. No one in the world is privatising DNA databases. DNA is precious; it is internal to each human being. Our DNA is what makes our life, yet I must tell the Minister that the advisers were telling the Government to privatise it. Those same people are now saying that although that advice was wrong, Ministers should keep their feet on the accelerator. That is a fundamental mistake. One simply cannot make a managerial case for privatisation.

Other information was given to the Public Accounts Committee, and I wait with interest to see the report. However, as far as I could see, not one member of the Committee felt comfortable with what had been discovered. We were told that £6 million would be set aside as redundancy money to get rid of staff; that will be paid for by the taxpayer, presumably to thin down the organisation so that it is ready to make larger profits for the private sector.

What on earth are we doing diverting money from pursuing criminals into paying redundancy money, given that the Government accepts that the FSS will face a 50 per cent. increase in its work? Why are we making people redundant when the service is expanding?

A series of other matters also came up, but I do not have time to raise them now. However, as a Yorkshire Member I am aware of the implications for jobs in Wetherby. No case can be made for what the Government propose, on ideological grounds, on value grounds or on managerial grounds A highly placed snout in the Treasury—I emphasise that this is a very highly placed source—is saying that the Treasury is not pressing the Home Office to do it.

Once one has examined the arguments about why there are no managerial or pragmatic reasons for making the change, the assumption must be that it is ideologically driven. However, I cannot believe that the Minister who is here today could possibly be ideologically driven to privatise part of the criminal justice system. I appeal to him, as other hon. Members have done, to reflect carefully on the debate and on the possible schism that is opening up between Back Benchers—loyal comrades and hon. Friends, who want to modernise the service—and the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The purpose of these debates is to enable the Members who raise them to get an answer from a Minister, so we had better start the winding-up speeches now.

10.28 am
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate all his hon. Friends, and other colleagues, on their contributions. Powerful positions have been set out, and the Minister must have realised that on this subject he has few friends on his own side, let alone on the Opposition Benches. That should give him cause for concern.

I start with the common ground: the police need the best possible forensic service if they are to do their job effectively. That is even more the case as new technologies emerge, which give us huge additional scope for the effective detection of crime. We should remember the assertion, supported by all the evidence to hand, that the present structure of the Forensic Science Service provides a quality service. We know that because, as has been pointed out, the National Audit Office report is very clear that the present structures serve the criminal justice community, and the country in general, well. I look forward with interest to the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee following its inquiry. I know that it has been carefully studying what is proposed and how money is spent.

The National Audit Office report concludes not only that the quality of the service is good, but that improvements are being made in productivity—the number of cases has risen by 52 per cent. since 1996–97, with 130,000 cases in 2001–02—and in timeliness of responses; attention is drawn to the fact that the backlog of DNA samples has been eliminated in recent years. It also concludes that the effectiveness of the work in securing convictions has improved.

Where criticisms are made—and they are few—they are largely about the level of effective communication between the police service and the Forensic Science Service. There is concern about the fact that despite increased take-up there are still police forces that are not well enough equipped with scene-of-crime officers to obtain the raw material to enable the Forensic Science Service to do its work. There is also concern about whether there is sufficient feedback and communication between the service and the police to enable work to be planned more effectively, to provide for transparency in individual cases and to ensure that the best possible service is provided.

The clear conclusion, which Ministers evidently share, is that our Forensic Science Service is a world leader—a professional service that provides a high quality of resource. Therefore, as others have argued, if the Government proposes change, they need to provide arguments for that change. If something is working as well as the service is working, pretty potent arguments are needed to support the sort of upheaval that is on the agenda.

What might such arguments for change be? Perhaps other models of forensic science service, having gone down the road of privatisation elsewhere in the world, are even more successful. However, we have heard that that is not so. Nowhere, even in America, Australia or Canada, or anywhere in Europe, is there anything that matches the Government's proposals.

Indeed, there are very few other services that are even close to the agency approach that we operate. I believe that Holland is just about the only major country whose service tends towards that approach. If they take the steps proposed, the Government will become a pioneer in taking us beyond what any other country has considered reasonable in providing for its criminal justice system.

A second argument for the change would be that there was clear scope for improvement in performance. However, as we have heard from the National Audit Office and others, there is a high level of performance at present, and it is improving. It is therefore hard to sustain an argument that moving the service to the private sector would necessarily improve the performance of the service as a whole.

As for the investment decisions that the service must take, there is scope within present profitability to secure the investment. It is not clear that an asset base provided by the private sector is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the service. If profitability is what this is all about—ensuring maximum profits for the service, so that part can be reinvested while, inevitably in the case of a private sector business, part must go to the shareholders and be lost to the public sector—where are the profits coming from? They can only come from the public sector—from the police authorities and the people who must pay inflated council tax bills to support the police. Where is the sense in that? What is the logic in ensuring profitability for what is essentially an entirely public sector operation?

There is an argument about the vulnerability of the service to other providers, but I cannot accept that a company that effectively has a 90 per cent. share is highly vulnerable to the small providers. Those small providers provide good alternative services, and I do not want to knock them. Some police forces use them for specialist services and they are right to do so, as there is no reason why they should not test the market like that. However, the idea that a provider with a 90 per cent. market share is vulnerable to those minnows in the market is laughable and will not, I hope, be sustained by the Minister.

David Taylor

The justification for the path on which the Government are apparently set says that the public-private partnership is the optimum way to enable the Forensic Science Service to compete effectively. With whom?

Mr. Heath

The hon. Gentleman asks exactly the right question with whom? With the other providers? If so, I must point out that they do not want the Forensic Science Service in the private sector, because they know that the virtually monopolistic situation that would arise would not be in their interests as private companies. Also, the innovation that small-scale private sector providers bring to the margins of the Forensic Science Service would be killed, because one large monopolistic private sector company would be grabbing the whole market, which is a serious concern.

What would be the effect of that virtual monopoly? It would drive up the fees and charges to the police forces, which is not a good thing because it will result either in higher costs to the police services, and thereby to the council tax payer, or in fewer cases being given to the Forensic Science Service, which will mean reduced effectiveness of investigation and detection. An effect already being felt is instability in the existing service, with the prospect of redundancies among highly skilled individuals whom we cannot afford to lose from the public service, because they are some of the finest scientists in the country and do a good job. There is also a continuing concern about the reduction in the science base as a whole.

The dialogue between the Forensic Science Service and the police, which we should be promoting, will also be reduced. We want them to compare notes about planned workload and for there to be greater direct communication. If the service were in the private sector, and the conversation about the likely load was therefore taking place between the customer and the monopoly supplier, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have to look into the matter, as that will not be a private sector, free market situation. Such arrangements will act as a bar to the introduction of new technologies that the Home Secretary will undoubtedly want to enforce and police services will want to take advantage of, because there will be another line of command—that is, shareholders rather than the public interest. There are also genuine issues about security in the service.

Finally, I have some questions. First, we are still not clear about what will happen with the national firearms intelligence database. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear whether he envisages that it will be retained in the public sector? Secondly, we know about the national DNA database from a paragraph that seems to have been inserted into a letter to us all. I have a letter from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which says: the review concluded that it is in the public interest for it to continue to be managed in the public sector". If that is the decision, how is it to be managed? Will we see an orphan agency, existing simply to run the DNA service? If so, where is the cost-effectiveness in that?

Thirdly, why have the Government not published the independent review on which the assessment is based? They have published the executive summary, but they refuse to publish the full report because they say that it is commercially sensitive. That is becoming a habit with the Government. The Home Office refused to publish the Carter review of the Criminal Records Bureau, it refused to publish the independent review of the National Asylum Support Service in July, and now it has refused to publish the report in question. I think that that is a matter for the ombudsman. The Minister ought to consider what constitutes commercial sensitivity and what constitutes the public interest when such a key decision is being taken on our behalf.

My last point is one that all hon. Members have wanted to make. The Forensic Science Service is an integral part of our criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is a service that cannot be allowed to fail. Unless the Government has overwhelming arguments for putting it into the private sector, it should stay where it is, provided that its service is of high quality and integrated, not disintegrated, within the existing system. The Government have yet to prove any case to support their proposition, and it will not receive the backing of many Members on either side of the House.

10.40 am
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. He expressed his views and his strong feelings, and raised some concerns that are shared on this side of the House. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on a thoughtful and interesting speech, which drew on his experiences on the Public Accounts Committee.

There is no greater enthusiast for privatisation than me, but the Government's approach to scientific work does not make sensible use of privatisation. This is all of a piece: the arguments are the same as those we had about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, on which the American Government repeatedly intervened, asking the Government not to privatise it, for all the sensible reasons that the Defence Select Committee, which I was on at the time, set out so clearly. There were similar threats to the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs laboratories that are so important for the food chain.

Some changes can appear to be small but have consequences that go far beyond what is perceived when they are made. Changes to the Forensic Science Service could be one such case. Its work is as vital as it is invisible, and I pay tribute to the service for its pivotal role in the fight against crime. The science that the men and women of the service bring to bear can make the difference again and again between conviction and acquittals, both for criminals and for innocent defendants, within the criminal justice system. Forensic science is a vital component in the armoury of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If that does not remain the case, the nation as a whole, not just those working in the service, will be poorer.

When the Home Secretary announced the changes, he failed to provide any information about what the Government would do with the national DNA database. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just pointed out, we need to know about that quickly. If the Government are determined to privatise the service—and with their overwhelming majority, they can—they must at least ensure that any change in the status of the Forensic Science Service provides clear safeguards for protecting confidential and sensitive data not just in the national DNA database but throughout the items that involve the interests of the police, victims and the public in general. The service must never be seen to profit from crime at the expense of the fight against crime.

The central question, which the Minister has been asked by each Member, is what is the Government's case for making the change, apart from making a very small contribution in one year—coincidentally, the year before the election—towards reducing the black hole in the public sector borrowing requirement. The FSS is a highly successful trading fund, and as others have said, it paid a dividend of £5 million to the Treasury last year, as well as making substantial internal investment.

One of the few reasons that the Government have advanced for privatisation is increased competition, but as it has 90 per cent. of the market, seven laboratories and 2,400 staff, where would the competition come from? How many new market entrants does the Government anticipate, given the dominant position of the FSS? Would new entrants mean that they would have to establish a regulator? How much would a regulator cost, and what would his terms of reference be?

If the FSS becomes a private company, what will the Government's policy be on possible failure or mismanagement? I assume that such an important service could not be allowed simply to disappear, but that could create an absurd situation in which the Government, having said that they needed the private sector because they could not afford the necessary investment, ended up spending much more trying to rescue the service when it went bottom-up.

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) cannot be here because of another parliamentary commitment, but he is deeply concerned about his many constituents who work in the service. One such constituent says in a letter: As part of the criminal justice system the Forensic Science Service acts in the public interest … The cost for Forensic work could increase significantly. Police budgets would then have to be increased … or there would be a decrease in the amount of Forensic Work carried out and a significant decrease in the number of crimes detected and prosecuted". Of course, much of the work done by the FSS is painstaking and carried out with little or no profit margin. Does the Government know to what degree, if at all, the FSS operates a system of internal cross-subsidy for labour-intensive major crime work or to maintain the 24/7 on-call system, to which two hon. Members referred? Will the Government set minimum standards of service and service provision? If there will be no minimum service requirement, presumably the unprofitable work will still need to be done by someone, so who do the Government envisage doing that?

Let me illustrate the problem. The present priorities are fixed by the needs of the criminal justice system. Murder is, of course, at the top of the system's priorities, and many murder inquiries involve complicated and exacting one-off work of a sort that will never be profitable in any organisation. What is to prevent the new owners from focusing on an area such as vehicle crime, which is also important, and offers far more scope for profitable repetitive work?

A worried worker at Huntingdon says: we are currently threatened with redundancy, despite the FSS having a healthy operating surplus in this financial year … management have consistently denied that the redundancies are connected to making the FSS more attractive to investors and yet the timing cannot be purely coincidental". Surely the Government does not believe that they can do without the support of the work force. Many of those who stay on will be as angry and bitter as those who are made redundant, yet the Government seem happy to alienate those who joined the service for vocational reasons.

The Government has received representations from the union Prospect. Indeed, I understand that it left a number of questions with Ministers, not least about employees' pension rights. Mike Sparham, the negotiations officer for Prospect, says: we have sought assurances about pensions protection and have yet to receive any positive response. We know the civil service scheme is closed to private sector employees, so remaining in it will not be an option. We would like to know what the government's intentions are". I think we all would.

Perhaps most serious of all is the issue of incorruptibility and security. I quote an employee: Our involvement in the Criminal Justice System means that it is paramount that we remain within the civil service as I believe if private companies were to take over the confidential and personal information that we deal with that could adversely affect the lives of people". As part of the Home Office, the FSS is seen to be beyond reproach, and above all, beyond infiltration. What systems and mechanisms is the Government considering to safeguard not only the lives of staff and their families, but also the effectiveness of the criminal justice system? What consideration have the Government given to the value to the criminal world of getting hold of information from this organisation, which underpins the whole network of criminal intelligence? What will they do about background checks on staff? Who will monitor the companies and the FSS, whatever guise it takes, to ensure the highest standards of probity? Let us remember that the FSS is also a prime target for terrorists, as the citizens of Belfast know all too well. What guarantees will the Government give the new employers?

More generally, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to reassure the Chamber about what will happen to the national DNA database. We must have an answer on that. The database contains the DNA records of convicted criminals and of suspects who have never been convicted or charged. The commercial value of that information may be limited today, but what about in 10 years' time? What will insurance companies pay for such data? No doubt biotech companies, too, would like access to it. There are ways to use, and, indeed, misuse, someone's genetic code that cause us anguish today. How will the Government limit the scope for even greater problems in future?

I believe that the proposals are driven simply by a desire to make one small patch in the black hole in Government finances the year before an election year. The Opposition has no desire to make life easier for the criminal. We do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but I fear that that could well be the effect, unless they address the matter properly.

10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)

I begin by conveying the apologies of the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who cannot be with us this morning as she is fulfilling a long-standing commitment to address the Association of Police Authorities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate on the future status of the Forensic Science Service. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Colin Burgon), for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), all of whom powerfully expressed their views and those of their constituents.

In the short time available to me, I doubt that I will succeed in answering all the questions that were asked, but I shall do my best to answer several of them. I assure hon. Members that they will receive a proper letter containing a full answer to their questions.

The debate has been a useful and important opportunity to air several national concerns and several local constituency concerns. I welcome the recognition given during the debate to the contribution made by Forensic Science Service staff to the work of the police in reducing crime. The staff do indeed have a well-earned, world-class reputation, and it has been good to emphasise that point, whatever differences of opinion there may be between hon. Members.

On 14 October, several of my hon. Friends, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, met the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety and made clear the strength of feeling among FSS staff about the changes that were announced in July and the way in which the announcement was made. I hope that they will be reassured to learn that at a recent meeting with FSS trade union representatives, my hon. Friend apologised for the lack of notice given before the announcement, and gave an undertaking that they would be consulted regularly during the restructuring process. I am happy to repeat that apology and to reassure hon. Members with FSS laboratories in their constituencies.

We need to bear in mind, however, that the challenges facing the FSS did not begin with the decision to create a public-private partnership. The best value approach adopted by police forces is already leading to the development of a competitive market for forensic sciences, in which the police are establishing good working relationships with other suppliers. Two other organisations, LGC and Forensic Alliance, are working successfully with police forces, and already account for some 10 per cent. of market share. Consequently, the FSS has been forced to implement a 9 per cent. reduction in the size of its work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley described the prospect of the FSS being divided into a series of regional companies. Different companies may operate in different parts of the country, but I assure him that there are no plans to split up the FSS into smaller regional companies.

The status quo is not an option, and it is clear that we need to act to ensure that the FSS remains a leading-edge forensic organisation. The purpose of the public-private partnership is to ensure that it continues to have access to new developments in forensic technology and can build on the high quality professional skills of its staff to improve the support that it gives the police in reducing crime and making our communities safer places in which to live.

My hon. Friends rightly pointed out the recent improvements in the performance of the FSS. Indeed, in the last financial year, the FSS dealt with 150,000 cases—a record number. Its scientists appeared as expert witnesses in court 2,600 times, and attended approximately 1,700 crime scenes. Also last year, the FSS managed to achieve huge improvements in turn round times. That has continued this year, with 80 per cent. of jobs now delivered within 42 days, compared with only 40 per cent. in February. By next March, the target will rise again to 95 per cent., and that upward pressure will continue as customer expectations and a competitive market demand an ever-improving response to the changing needs of police forces.

We have to recognise that although those are impressive achievements, the structure of the FSS has major limitations. That is why Ministers have concluded that the kind of progress that I have described cannot be sustained unless the FSS is able to continue investing both in new techniques and in its work force. Hon. Members will acknowledge that that requires access to development capital—a key issue, which the creation of the PPP will address.

Hon. Members have referred to a £10 million surplus from last year. They are correct, but the review concluded that merely to stand still, the FSS would require between £20 and £30 million of capital investment. Much more than that will be required if it is to remain a leading-edge organisation. Investment is critical to the growth of the FSS at a time when so many opportunities are being provided by new technology, and when other organisations have much more flexible access to development capital.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked why the recent McFarland review was not in the public domain, that it will be placed in the Library of the House once any information that is commercially confidential has been extracted. I hope that he considers that sensible.

David Taylor

The Minister said that the prime justification was to improve access to investment capital. Would he accept that the private sector will pay higher rates for access to capital? On top of that, it will charge its profit element, and the taxpayer will have to pay more for the service both in the medium and the longer term. That does not stack up.

Paul Goggins

The business case will have to stack up, but in order for the FSS to be able to develop further its capacity to remain a leading-edge world-class organisation, it will have to have access to amounts of capital investment that will not be remotely possible if it remains wholly within the public sector.

I return to the McFarland review, which recognised that the FSS has made a success of its trading fund status, in that it is held in high regard by stakeholders and has met most of the operational and financial targets set by the Home Office. However, it asked what might have been achieved if performance had not been fettered by the constraints of trading fund status—in particular, by not having the managerial freedom and flexibility to respond to growing competition, and by its inability to sustain the level of capital investment that is required if it is to remain at the leading edge of rapidly advancing science and technology.

The review highlighted the substantial risks facing the FSS. It concluded that after several years of rapid growth, it was significantly undercapitalised. I shall repeat that point for my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley: the report concluded that the organisation was significantly undercapitalised. It requires new money to improve its existing services—

Mr. Hoyle

I am very confused. If the business is making £10 million a year for the Exchequer, why not just put that money into the business? According to the Minister's figures, between £20 and £30 million is needed, so even in the worst case, the service will be wholly revitalised after three years.

Paul Goggins

My hon. Friend knows that the DNA work that the organisation carried out required investment of over £180 million. That is the kind of investment required if the FSS is to remain a world-class, leading-edge organisation, and it is a figure way beyond the very welcome £10 million surplus made last year. The investment required could never be funded year by year out of the surplus.

There are additional constraints on the FSS's ability to enter into enforceable contracts with its customers—an approach that can be difficult when the public sector is both purchaser and supplier. It must be able to enter into business alliances and joint ventures with private sector companies as an equal partner. That is particularly important for research and development, where investment in new technologies is crucial.

Time is against me. There are many more things that I wanted to say—about guaranteeing rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and pension rights, for example, about which I know hon. Members are concerned. I will ensure that the remarks that I wanted to make are enclosed in letters to hon. Members. I repeat that this has been a useful debate, and several important issues have been raised. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the FSS continues to remain a world leader in the development and delivery of forensic science.

Back to