Oral evidence: Legacy—Parliament 2010–15, HC 758Wednesday 14 January 2015
Oral evidence, 14 January 2015.
Witnesses
Lord Bates, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Criminal Information, Home Office, and Alan Pratt, Director of Science, Engineering and Technology, Home Office, gave evidence.
Chair
Minister, welcome back. It is good to see you again. Perhaps you would introduce your colleague.
Lord Bates
Yes. I am joined today by Alan Pratt, who is the Director of Science, Engineering and Technology at the Home Office.
Chair
Welcome. You will be aware that we have previously commented on the way in which scientific advice is used in the Home Office. What is your understanding of the role of the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser?
Lord Bates
He is there to challenge. As a non-scientist, I confess it is incredibly valuable when you are dealing with, and getting advice from, the security services—be it about online child sexual exploitation or cyber security—to have someone there who is working with you to challenge the evidence which is coming forward and also to almost have a foot within the Home Office, so as culturally to be able to understand the needs of policy makers and the type of information that we are looking for. It is a very valuable role. The Home Office were particularly blessed by having Professor Bernard Silverman, who is an excellent adviser. I meet with him quarterly but also routinely on other matters. His particular forte is in applying statistics. Therefore, his work, which he has done for us, whether it is in trying to quantify the scale of the problems on modern-day slavery or in troublesome issues, which I do not want particularly to go down this morning, including on passport demand—those types of statistical issues—has been particularly helpful in his input. That has been my first impression.
Chair
We would agree with you that the role is there to challenge and to challenge in a constructive way. We have seen some good examples of practice coming from the Home Secretary. I am on record as praising the Home Secretary in the way she dealt with the advice she received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in relation to khat, for example. It is important that there is that challenge that protects the independence of the scientific advice. One of the things that concerned us when we looked at the Forensic Science Service was the simple fact that Professor Silverman was not brought into the discussion until it was too late and it had happened. With hindsight, that has to have been a mistake, has it not?
Lord Bates
As to that particular chapter—Alan might be able to help me here as he was closer to what was happening at the time—as a matter of routine, of course, that would be something that the chief scientific adviser should be involved in and advising on, although there was a very strong element around that decision, which we know of because of your previous report on the subject, which was around the commercial and finance sides of it. There is a very strong scientific element to it. Of course, had Professor Silverman been in place at the time, he would have been able to offer advice on that matter.
Alan Pratt
Bernard Silverman was in place shortly before the time of transition of the Forensic Science Service out to the market. In the evidence that he gave you at the time, as the Minister has said, with regard to the principal decision around whether to close the Forensic Science Service, Professor Silverman was content with one, primarily, on business grounds: that the organisation was not in a financially viable state and that the ability of the Home Office to continue to support its ongoing structure needed to be decided upon on financial, legal and operational grounds. The science that the Forensic Science Service was providing by that time was also available from a range of other commercial providers, and our networks with industry, academia, the criminal justice system more widely, gave the Department little reason to believe that there was a question of science at stake in that decision.
Chair
There was. Let us be absolutely clear: we did have a major fall-out with a previous Minister on this subject. This Committee was never opposed to the commercialisation of the Forensic Science Service; what we were interested in was the protection of the core science. There has to be a question, and I hear this from the Forensic Science Society regularly, about how we are going to protect the science in the future. That remains a challenge. To that extent, the question that was being posed to Professor Silverman was the wrong one. Would you agree, with hindsight?
Alan Pratt
Given the strength of feeling of the Committee, had we our time again, perhaps we would have done things slightly differently.
Chair
Okay. Leading from that, I am correct, Lord Bates, in saying that your role is purely in the Home Office.
Lord Bates
That is right.
Chair
Forensic science is an unusual commodity in the sense that it changes ownership during its use. Originally, it is substantially procured by the investigating officer and finally becomes the property of the court, which, of course, comes under a different Government Department. Have you had any discussions with your ministerial colleagues responsible for the Court Service as to whether there is any evidence yet of any damage to the forensic science provision to the criminal justice system as a result of the changes that have occurred?
Lord Bates
The discussion is ongoing, Chair. It is something which is reviewed regularly as part of the work of the forensic policy group. That draws on a wide group of individuals from the Crown Prosecution Service, for Ministry of Justice issues as well as scientific officers and, of course, the national policing lead in this area. That is kept under review. The general view is that nobody wants to say that everything is perfect in the situation. We need to understand better what is happening there, but there are some very encouraging developments, which are happening in the area of, for example, rapid DNA. This is something where we are using principally private sector providers and also, of course, the constabularies have their own in-house capability as well. Some of the fast pace of development in rapid DNA, which is coming from private sector companies in this area, holds out some very exciting potential for us. In addition to that, there has also been recently some grants—I will give you the exact number, which is about £421,000—from the police innovation fund, which has gone to progress further thinking in terms of R and D in this area. From that point of view, compared with where we were when we had the Forensic Science Service losing £2 million a year, which we are not doing now, there is therefore a budget which we can use to draw upon the private sector R and D, and also to invest in it ourselves through the police innovation fund.[1]
Chair
Okay. We will come on to this later on in a bit more detail, but in terms of the original report that we wrote following the closure, the Government response did include details about creating or encouraging what was then the TSB, now Innovate UK, to undertake some work. We will come back to that later, if we may.
Pamela Nash
Good morning. I would like to look at forensic strategy. I would like to start with a relatively simple question. It is my understanding, and I think it is the Committee’s understanding, that what was previously called the forensic policy group then became the forensic science strategy board. In the letter, Minister, that you sent to the Chair earlier this week, you referred to the forensic and biometric policy group looking at the areas that I thought the forensic science strategy board was responsible for. I also note that the forensic science strategy board has not published any minutes or details of its work since October 2012. Can I ask, first of all, for clarification of what is the name of the group? Are there various groups or is there just one, and what are the responsibilities?
Lord Bates
I will pass quickly to Alan, and then I will come back.
Alan Pratt
There is one group. It has been through a number of phases in its evolution. Historically, before the issues around the Forensic Science Service, it existed to survey the landscape of forensic science. It then found itself in a period where it was focusing almost exclusively on transition matters in relation to making sure that the casework was effectively handed over to other parts of the commercial forensic services provider system.
Pamela Nash
Just to be clear, that was the forensic policy group.
Alan Pratt
After it felt that it had dealt sufficiently with the transition issues, it then became the forensic policy group. The term “forensic science strategy group” became slightly interchangeable with that term, and recently, in part due to the interest of this group in exploring the boundaries of both forensics and biometrics, we have started to look at how the two interrelate and where the boundaries and handovers between the two areas exist. At the moment, we are talking about it as the forensic science and biometrics policy group. Both of those are very broad areas and there are active discussions at the moment as to exactly what the right scope for that ought to be in the future.
Pamela Nash
Does that have largely the same membership as its predecessor?
Alan Pratt
At least the same membership. In recent times, it has also grown to encompass a wider set of biometric stakeholders.
Pamela Nash
I note the drop of the word “strategy” from the last title to this one. Previously, this Committee was given an assurance that the Government would be looking at publishing a strategy towards the end of 2013. Clearly, that has not happened yet. Minister, in your letter, you refer to some of the difficulties around that being that it has been difficult to achieve consensus within the group on what that strategy should look like. Could you flesh out that problem a bit for us as a Committee?
Lord Bates
Yes. We were trying to bring some good news to the Committee this morning, but I am afraid in this area we have not managed to do that. On the face of it, there are two elements. From a political and policy point of view, you would think that it is pretty straightforward to come up with a clear strategy. I don’t know whether there is something in the difference of the DNA between the political scientist and the applied scientist, in that they want more evidence and they want to test what the strategies should be, as to why that process takes a lot longer. I am aware of the commitments that were given and I am sorry that we have not been able to meet those commitments. What we have just undertaken to do now is to commission some further collection of data to see if we can find a way through of what should be focused on. Let me just give some for instances. The area of digital is huge. It is often parked to one side of biometrics and forensics but, increasingly, with social media and CCTV, the two are coming together. Is that something which ought to be part of the forensic strategy or is it something which is wider? The remit, just as one example, is a key part. If you can’t agree with the territory that you are seeking to come up with a strategy for, then it is very difficult to agree the strategy. That is taking longer. I am very hopeful that at the end of this rapid three months of additional data that will provide the group with the resource necessarily to come to a clear judgment on the terrain, and from that the strategy should flow fairly quickly. What, essentially, it is there to do is to set the standards and the regulatory framework, but over what terrain. That is one of the areas of debate.
Pamela Nash
Thank you. Can I just say that I am very pro outward-looking Government and getting as much expert advice as possible, but this has left a massive gap where there is no strategy in this area from the Government? Are you confident that a strategy can be created by consensus from this group, or, if that does not happen, what is the alternative and who will finally make the decision on what the strategy should be?
Lord Bates
I am confident that this is essential work, absolutely critical work—just yesterday, we had the Second Reading in our House on the Counter-Terrorism Bill—and the whole aspect of forensics is essential in that Europe fight. I am absolutely confident that we are making progress in that things are not being held up because of the absence of a strategy. The presence of a strategy, as the Committee has observed, will be particularly helpful in terms of communicating outwardly the area in which we are focusing on, but in terms of the day-to-day tactics and the day-to-day operations, that work is going on at a pace and with focus.
Chair
I think you are hinting to us that we ought to be saying to our successor Committee, as part of our Legacy report, “Keep your eye on this one because it will be unfinished business by the end of this Parliament.”
Lord Bates
I have already got into trouble once, Chair, for offering a date attached to this process.
Chair
I would not be far wrong in surmising that.
Lord Bates
You may say that.
Pamela Nash
What progress has been made, because you have indicated in your letter that there are some areas of consensus? What do you see as being definite that a strategy will cover at this point?
Lord Bates
Let me read from a list, because I think it would be good to get these points on the record. I point to the national policing need for forensics, which has developed a draft plan focusing on quality, efficiency, innovation and transparency. Quality frameworks and accreditation are in place for 39 police forces conducting in-house fingerprint enhancement or DNA processing; 32 forces are accredited for DNA, 13 for fingerprint enhancement and 16 have applications in progress for fingerprint enhancement. The Home Office published a world-leading finger-mark visualisation manual, which is a thousand-page electronic document. Rapid DNA technology is being explored, as I have already mentioned, in a number of pilots with the police forces, with a £421,000 innovation investment from the police innovation fund. The national DNA database testing has been upgraded to DNA 17. We are investing in new forensic techniques through the small business research initiative. That is a list of some of the ongoing work. We are in agreement that it can only be strengthened by having some clear document which helps to focus and then, from that, helps to prioritise, because essentially that is what strategy does. It helps you to say, “This is the terrain, these are the priorities and this is the basis on which we are making policy decisions and allocating resources.”
Pamela Nash
Thank you. That list is quite comprehensive. Can I ask, then, what are the areas where we are failing to reach consensus in the group? What is causing all the problems?
Lord Bates
I mentioned one, and it is not a small one, which is in relation to the overlap with digital as being a key element of it. I do not know if Alan can give any other examples to the Committee.
Alan Pratt
Yes. Scope is an important question. During the course of this, we have moved from wanting to create a purely forensics strategy dealing with DNA and fingerprints plus the other smaller categories of forensic usage. Over time, the aspiration grew to include how all of those interface to the national databases that support them and link through to the criminal justice system; then, widening out again to a wider use of biometrics, potentially including how you use automated facial recognition within internal business processes. So how would you use biometrics to help, for example, the efficiency of processing visa applications? There was a wide range of different domains that we got into talking about in quite some depth, but that depth and breadth in itself became a problem, so establishing exactly what is the appropriate and most tractable form of a strategy to give clarity to the appropriate set of stakeholders has been one area where we have been in a lot of discussion with stakeholders. The stakeholders on the group itself are wide. Would it be helpful if I told you who is actually on the committee?
Pamela Nash
Yes. That was going to be my next question.
Alan Pratt
On the forensic and biometric policy group we have a range of Home Office partners, including policy commercial on the scientific side, the national DNA database. On the IT, we have international, immigration and enforcement and Her Majesty’s Passport Office. Other Government Departments include the Ministry of Defence with DSTL and the Department of Health. From the criminal justice side, we have the Crown Prosecution Service. We have national policing leads and the Metropolitan police service. As to regulatory, we have the forensic science regulator and the biometrics commissioner. From industry, we have the Association of Forensic Service Providers. We have the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences and the forensic science special interest group under Innovate UK represented. Then the College of Policing and a few others have been to one or two meetings. As you can see, that is a very comprehensive list of stakeholders, each of which approaches the issue of what would the right strategy for them be from a particular direction and trying to align all of those different directions to something that is practical.
Chair
Surely there is only one line that they should be adopting, and that is what is in the best interests of criminal justice. It seems to me that the mission statement you could write now. Why has it taken so long and why is it so complicated?
Lord Bates
Chair, that is exactly the question I was asking when I was aware that I was coming before this Committee. It is part of it. On the one hand, you say that the scientific advice ought to be free, unfettered, independent and robust. Then, on the other hand, perhaps, in the process, a little bit of political direction might be useful, but the actual process by which that happens is a difficult one. We are watching it very carefully. We are making it clear that we believe that the strategy should have been there by now. We are disappointed that it is not. As to the consultation that is taking place, it is made very clear that that should be the end of it. They have more than enough data at that point to be able to make a decision. That is what we are expecting their advice on, so that politicians can then make a judgment and define the policy.
Pamela Nash
I have one last question. How often is the group meeting to discuss this matter, and also this may have been affected by the name change, but we could only find minutes, as I said, of meetings to October 2012? The meeting before that was six months before. Is the group meeting more regularly now? Are the minutes of those meetings and the work of the group available anywhere to the public?
Lord Bates
I am not sure what the procedures are on releasing minutes of that group. Alan, have we done that before?
Alan Pratt
We are not routinely publishing those minutes at this stage.
Pamela Nash
Can I ask why?
Alan Pratt
I am not the chair of the group.
Pamela Nash
But you can understand why I am asking that question because we have concerns about the transparency and the work of the group, especially as it has taken so long to come to a conclusion. Minutes have been published previously for the predecessor group, or at least under its predecessor title.
Lord Bates
It is a very fair question. You have made the point, which I am afraid I was not aware of, that these minutes have been produced previously and that they are not now being produced. Perhaps I could write on that. I will make my own investigations and then report to you.
Pamela Nash
Thank you. Lastly, you were going to say how often they are meeting.
Alan Pratt
Quarterly, although there have been instances where an individual meeting has had to be deferred due to other issues getting in the way.
Chair
I just remind you, Minister, that the Government’s overall science and innovation strategy has a big play on openness. Why should this one be any different? I just park that one.
Lord Bates
I take the point.
Graham Stringer
I am getting concerned at the answers we are getting. Just going back to your questions, Andrew, this Committee was concerned that Professor Silverman had not been involved in the original decisions to change forensic science services because we thought that there were scientific implications. While the commercial sector may well have done DNA fingerprinting and fingerprints more cheaply and more effectively because of the repetitive process, with the changes in the Forensic Science Service it meant that there was a strong chance of losing the contextual analysis of individual forensic evidence where people in the Forensic Science Service could put a lot of different things together, which would not necessarily be commissioned by a police officer just asking for fingerprints. What concerned me was that, in answer to Andrew’s question, you did not really answer that point. Have we lost science and is the forensic service less good than it was because of the change? Is it better or is it the same?
Lord Bates
Our view would be, from the evidence of the Crown Prosecution Service, that there has been no loss in edge and that we are keeping pace with the developments in the industry. We can be pretty confident that that is the case.
Graham Stringer
But surely that just means that they are satisfied with what is commissioned, that the DNA samples and the DNA science are getting quicker and more accurate all the time, but how would they know that the science and work that was done previously on the context, bringing different things together, from blood-splatter techniques to all sorts of things that are not routinely commissioned, is not being done? That was our concern and why we were concerned that Professor Silverman had not been involved in the first place.
Lord Bates
On the one hand, you have the question of whether too few people were consulted. Now, if anything, we are moving to the other extreme, where there seems to be—
Graham Stringer
If I can interrupt, it was not about consultation. We had evidence from senior members of the Forensic Science Service saying that it was possible that murderers and rapists would get off because of the changes in the Forensic Science Service. I accept that it is very difficult to show a negative but I would have expected at least some work to have been done in that area. It seems to me, from what you are saying, that it has not been done.
Lord Bates
There is no evidence that that has been a problem. If it were, as you suggest, then that would certainly be something which the forensic science board and the scientific advisers would be expressing a major concern about and demanding action, and rightly so, but they are not saying that. Part of the reason for that is because we are not complacent in it. We are investing in new R and D. Of course, the advantage of having external providers as opposed to one monopoly on forensic science is that they are in a competitive marketplace, they are dealing internationally and they are commercially incentivised to make sure that we are keeping pace with the latest technology and delivering that. That is the reason for the development of rapid DNA techniques, which could be groundbreaking in the ability of law enforcement agencies to quickly, cheaply and effectively solve crime.
Graham Stringer
I do not think that we are getting any further. The questions were not asked in the first place, and it seems to me that the questions are not being asked now. Do you have any reliable and complete evidence of how much is currently spent in the private market and in the police in-house forensic science market in the United Kingdom?
Lord Bates
Yes, we do have some evidence. You will be aware, and the Committee is certainly aware, of the report of the National Audit Office which said that the data were not particularly clear in that because of one element, and that was tracking the in-house provisions. Where people used to externally commission, that is easier to track because you have a line item for it. When forces are commissioning internally, it is less clear what the amounts are. As to the amounts that we are working to at the present time, I seem to recall that it is of the order of £80 million which is currently being spent on forensic services. We recognise that we could get better in arriving at that data if there was more transparency in how police forces accounted for in-house provision of forensics.
Chair
You will be aware that one police force had such a sloppy accountancy procedure that it could not tell us the difference between capital and revenue. That is how bad it is, and that is why, in the interests of the public purse as well as in the interests of criminal justice, this needs tightening up a lot.
Lord Bates
Yes. We were sharing that concern, because the Home Office went to the National Audit Office and asked them to conduct this piece of work, and it has come forward with some recommendations about gaps in the process at the present time. That is now something which is being discussed with Chief Constable Sims of West Midlands police.
Chair
Can I just remind you, so that there is no ambiguity, that it was we who asked the National Audit Office to look at this, not the Department?
Lord Bates
To try and claim credit for something which should rightly be with the Select Committee must be the most unforgivable sin that a Minister can make. I defer and thank you for your inspiration and encouragement of us to do that.
Graham Stringer
When will the accounting changes be made?
Lord Bates
There is no date for that. We have just received a report that has come from the National Audit Office. We have not had a chance to be able to say when that should be done. The budgets, as you will be well aware, are a matter for police and crime commissioners and the local chief constables to come up with, so we can offer advice, but they do have an independence which has to be worked with.
Graham Stringer
In terms of working with different police forces, if a police force wants to bring a particular forensic science service in-house, do you talk to them, does the Home Office talk to them or does ACPO talk to that police force, or do they just independently change the process?
Lord Bates
I presume that they could independently change the process.
Alan Pratt
In practice, they would be talking to the forensic science regulator.
Graham Stringer
So they would not talk to the Home Office or ACPO about it.
Alan Pratt
The decision as to where to go commercially or internally for the provision of their forensic science capacity is a business decision that forces will be making with their police and crime commissioners.
Lord Bates
The role of the regulator is quite critical because that is something that we have not had before, where we had ISO standards—ISO 17025 accreditation standards—which are upheld by the regulator, therefore ensuring that the standards of work in this area are of the highest possible level. To date, 13 forces out of the 39 have been accredited for fingerprint enhancement laboratory status and a further 16 have applications in process. So there is some rigour in the process of accreditation.
Graham Stringer
What are the Government doing to ensure a stable and transparent private and in-house forensic market?
Lord Bates
Mr Stringer, would you repeat your question?
Graham Stringer
Yes. At the start, I think the answer to the first question was that the change in the Forensic Science Service was because the market was changing. If you have read this Committee’s report, we were concerned about there being a stable market and made recommendations to that effect. So what are you doing to ensure that there is a stable and transparent private and in-house forensic market, so that we know what is going on? If the forensic market was to collapse, for instance, it would be very difficult for the criminal justice system. What are you doing to make sure it is stable?
Lord Bates
The regulator has a clear role in that. Alan, do you want to add anything?
Alan Pratt
We have the national framework agreement, which is a set of pre-tendering arrangements that you have heard about previously, which give an opportunity for small and large forensic service providers to have their terms and conditions pre-competed. As and when individual forces or consortiums need to commission those, there is a simplified mini-competition among framework providers that is available to them but not mandatory. We have within the Home Office commercial department a commercial frameworks team that is looking at the financials around the members of that framework. Within policing, Deputy Chief Constable Vaughan from Dorset police is leading on the commercial aspects of forensics. So there is quite a lot of close monitoring of the providers in this space. There is a lot of discussion with the police leads, who regularly interact with the commercial marketplace. We are looking out for soft intelligence on any problems in that space. In parallel, as the Minister was saying, the role of the regulator is very important in terms of ensuring that the quality of forensic science provision is held at an appropriate level. Where forces are doing analytical work in-house, then the same standards to a timetable that has been set out by the regulator apply both for the police and commercial providers. On DNA, the timetable for the implementation of those was November 2013. As you have heard, we have got 36 police forces with the appropriate accreditation in respect of that.[2] My understanding is that those who do not have that accreditation do not do that work in-house.
Chair
Lord Bates, you have reinforced our argument as to why the regulator ought to have statutory powers. Again, that is just an observation.
Dan Byles
Do you think that the private forensic provision is in a healthy place? Do you think that we have a healthy private forensics market at the moment, because it seems to me that it is shrinking? Although the figures are difficult to get hold of, the figure that the NAO did publish, coming from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, has suggested that the private sector market has shrunk from £104 million to around £80 million in the space of a two-year time period, while the in-house market expanded from £113 million to £122 million at the same time.
Alan Pratt
On the latter figure, as you say, the figures that appear in different places in the NAO report can be taken in different ways. The larger figure that you describe, I think, takes into account a very wide basket of issues. There is a smaller set of numbers also in the same report where the internal market can be taken as having gone from £50 million down to £35 million recently. It depends exactly what you are counting. That plays to your point. On the health of the forensic service providers, this is something that we do keep quite close intelligence on. We work very closely with those commissioning services. We work with the regulator; indeed, we have a representative of that industry sitting on the forensic policy group to try and get a handle on those issues. At the moment, the judgment of the commercial marketplace team is that they considered the risk of exit of any of those major providers to be low.
Dan Byles
What about smaller providers? The numbers appear to have gone down, so it does appear that less activity is now taking place in the private sector of forensics, which may be inevitable given constraints on budgets and the degree of austerity. The NAO expressed concerns that they felt there was not a level playing field, for a number of reasons. They said, for example, that “Private sector forensic firms have to reflect all their costs in tender offers,” whereas the NAO was of the view that in-house laboratories would sometimes put costs into other budgets, so there is potentially not a level playing field between in-house services and private provision.
Alan Pratt
There was previous evidence in your main reports that individual police forces, which are making an in-house or external decision, are very much driven by the full economic costing arguments. It is in their own interests to make sure that they get the most effective and efficient provision in making that decision.
Dan Byles
We had a public sector forensic service and a decision was taken that that should be moved to the private sector, but we are now effectively seeing the risk of the private sector being replaced once again with a public sector provision, just under another guise and in a more fragmented manner, in the form of a series of in-house provisions. It seems to go against the flow of the whole point behind the change.
Lord Bates
Of course, the precursor to that was the decision to end the monopoly of the Forensic Science Service, so that local constabularies could do that process, which undermined the monopoly in the field and meant that they ended up losing £2 million a year.[3] That was the process of it. This area is the subject of rapid change. There is a healthy group; in fact, there are regular meetings of special interest groups among suppliers, which take place with the Home Office, to ensure that we listen to their concerns. Concerns have been raised about weighing value for money and they need to be looked at carefully. That comes back to the point identified by the National Audit Office about greater transparency on the true cost of in-house capabilities.
Dan Byles
Is it the case that some police forces have been granted funds from the Home Office police innovation fund to develop their in-house laboratories and, if so, doesn’t that again potentially create an unlevel playing field and undermine or disadvantage private sector laboratories?
Lord Bates
The intention certainly is not to develop the laboratories and the capacity. It is to advance the science. That is what the investment has been given for, from the innovation fund. Of course, as the new forms of science come forward there is a natural reduction in cost. That is what technology and science can deliver in every walk of life. It should not be just judging it by the narrow measure of cash spend. Perhaps that is not necessarily the right one and we ought to be looking at other measures, such as successful prosecutions, the number of samples that are processed and how they are doing in terms of delivery.
Dan Byles
Are you measuring those metrics that you have just listed?
Lord Bates
I realise that the second metrics are part of the data which we want to try and get our hands on, in terms of there being a gap identified by the National Audit Office. That is a crucial bit of data that needs to be measured.
Dan Byles
The key point is that you are comfortable that this split between some in-house provision and some non-in-house provision is not undermining the potential to have a healthy private sector in the forensic market. You are comfortable that there is not an unlevel playing field and that there is sufficient critical mass for those who don’t have in-house facilities, and who are buying it in, to be doing that from a healthy sector.
Lord Bates
Yes. I don’t think anybody who has been a Minister in the Home Office would voluntarily use the word “comfortable” about anything. To the point that we feel that the work is going on, that it is a very high standard, that it is being delivered cost-effectively, that research and development is happening and that we are keeping pace with the leading edge, in relation to all of those things, we are quietly confident.
Dan Byles
You have already answered my next question, but could I tie it down to confirm? It is about giving the regulator statutory powers and ensuring that in-house service provision is required to be accredited as well as non-in-house. Am I right that you said that all 36 police forces which have an in-house capability are now accredited?[4]
Alan Pratt
For DNA.
Dan Byles
Yes.
Alan Pratt
Yes, that is my understanding.
Lord Bates
The difference in the figures that Alan gave and I gave was that I was talking about enhanced fingerprinting, which is another ISO standard.
Dan Byles
But in terms of ISO 17025, all of those which have an in-house provision are now accredited. In terms of the consultation that closed on 3 January regarding giving the forensic science regulator statutory powers to enforce quality standards, can you tell us what is happening and what the next steps are following that consultation?
Alan Pratt
Following the consultation, there was a strong view from the people we consulted that there is merit in having a statutory basis for regulatory powers in this area. There was a wide variety of views, again, about what the appropriate scope of regulation ought to be—whether it should be limited to the DNA fingerprints and so on, or whether it should seek to be much broader than that. That coincided with the new regulator coming into post. It was felt inappropriate to go much further with setting out recommendations before the new regulator had a chance to really get into post, to consult widely with the network of people whom she will be regulating and to consider the range of options that were coming out of the public consultation. That is happening now and it is the intention, as I understand it, to publish.
Dan Byles
So basically there is a second consultation going on. You said you have just finished a consultation period but, because a new regulator has come into post, you are pausing to allow her to do her own consultation.
Alan Pratt
To form her views, in coming into the role, based on her understanding and ensuring that the direction in which she wants to take regulation aligns with what has come out of the consultation.
Dan Byles
Is there a time frame for that? Obviously we have this minor issue in May.
Lord Bates
Part of it is that Dr Gill Tully, in coming into post on 4 November, wanted to have those conversations. I wouldn’t call it a consultation; it’s more conversations to make sure that these are exactly the powers that she wants, then the framing of the legislation, and of course, as you rightly say, finding a slot in the parliamentary legislative timetable so that those powers can go forward in the form of regulations.
Dan Byles
So you do not think there is any doubt that that will happen, but it is just a question of when and in exactly what form.
Lord Bates
Yes; exactly.
Dan Byles
It does seem to me that just because she is having conversations there is no reason why the formal consultation could not be fully published and discussed alongside having those conversations. My understanding—tell me if I am wrong—is that we have not had anything published since 3 January around the consultation that has taken place.
Lord Bates
It is a good point. We will take that away, look at it and see when we can publish it. It would probably make sense to publish the consultation, along with the Government response and the regulations, but we will certainly see what can be done ahead of that.
Chair
A year late, but don’t worry.
Sarah Newton
We have had a very comprehensive discussion on this, and I know that my colleague has been very patient and wants to ask you a bit about malware in cyber crime. Given the time, I am going to restrict my questions. In-house, in the private sector, we cannot have excellent forensic science in our country without great forensic scientists. One of our concerns from our inquiry is what was going to happen to the Forensic Science Service scientists with the abolition of the service. Back in 2011, the Government did state that it was going to actively monitor the destination of the scientists made redundant or who just left and moved on to make sure that we have the capabilities in our country to deliver this vital service. Can you update us on the monitoring?
Alan Pratt
As you have heard previously, the destination for the people who were in the Forensic Science Service went in a number of directions. We haven’t got updated precise figures for where each individual landed, but a good number were taken up by the growing other forensic science service providers. A small number came into central Government and a cohort went into the Metropolitan police, as they brought something that was originally within the Metropolitan police that had been outsourced to the Forensic Science Service back into the Metropolitan police. Undoubtedly, there will have been others who have retired and others who are no longer in forensic science, but we don’t have precise numbers.
Sarah Newton
You have not monitored that. What other steps are you taking to make sure that we are educating the forensic scientists of the future to make sure that we have the skills that we need?
Lord Bates
That is an excellent point. Of course, the essential thing that is happening is this. Just because it is not all in one institution or body, that is not to say that the cumulative of the smaller pieces, which are now at play in different forces around the country, including in the National Crime Agency and the private sector providers, do not amount, roughly, to the equivalent of the whole which existed before. There is some argument that, in the diverse world in which this is happening, you get greater opportunities for scientists to move, and for career progression. There are some examples, through the business innovation fund, of people leaving the service and moving into established and small start-ups in the technology area, and applying the techniques of forensic science to other commercial problems, as well as keeping an interest in that area. We cannot detect that there has been any diminution of the overall forensic science capability in the country. If anything, it has probably been enhanced by plugging it into a broader network internationally.
Chair
I would like some clarity, Mr Pratt. In response to Sarah, you said that there is a growing number of private forensic science providers. That seems to contradict, although it may not, the NAO report, which says that the private market is shrinking.
Alan Pratt
The NAO is commenting on the total value of police spend for forensic science provision. As the Minister was saying earlier, much of that reduction in spend has been increased efficiency, so reduced unit costs, but the total amount of spend as a measure of market size rather than the total number of players—
Chair
And you think it is going to a larger number of companies.
Alan Pratt
The main frameworks are still around three main large forensic science providers, but there are many smaller niche providers around the edges. As the scope continues to increase in things that we hold to be important in helping the criminal justice system with scientific evidence, we are only going to see a broadening of that, particularly in digital forensics.
Stephen Mosley
I think it is about four years since we did our inquiry into cyber security and malware. At the time, the Government were quite clear that “Get Safe Online should be the single point of reference for the general public and small businesses on internet security”. In the intervening four years, we have seen a number of other websites grow up. When and why did the Government change their mind about Get Safe Online being the single point of entry?
Lord Bates
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to update you on a couple of the statistics relating to the platform and then I will deal with the specific question about Get Safe Online. Of course, Get Safe Online is an independent not-for-profit organisation. It averages about 70,000 visitors per month. Her Majesty’s Government, along with private sector sponsors, supports GSO and has provided approximately £500,000 in total funding for it. Cyber Streetwise is a website which has had 694,100 unique visitors since its launch in January 2014. On average, the site has 60,000 visitors per month. The campaign is wider than the website and includes a mixture of online and offline advertising, PR and video shorts, focused on campaigns, core behaviour and messaging. Online videos and passwords, which are directed towards the small and medium-size enterprises, have to date over 1.7 million views since launching in October 2014. In total, all videos have had more than 5 million views since January 2014. Dealing with the specific question, there is one Government site and campaign, which is Cyber Streetwise. Get Safe Online is an independent not-for-profit organisation which provides valuable information. In addition, Get Safe Online has raised awareness of various safety issues for the past nine years. There is merit in having multiple channels to increase the reach of messaging and, together with Cyber Streetwise and GSO, we provide good sources of information and advice for the general public and SMEs, and signpost to each other appropriately.
Stephen Mosley
I fully understand what you said there. I personally think that Cyber Street is a fantastic website, it has a lot of information on it and it is really good, but at the time when we asked the Minister the specific question in 2011-2012, were told that it would be policy that Get Safe Online would be the main portal. It was said that it “would be a single point of reference for the public”. That is what the Minister said at the time. Why did that policy change?
Lord Bates
I do not have a clear answer, I suppose, is what I am saying, Mr Mosley, as to why that policy changed, except, as part of the cyber crime reduction partnership that we have and the across-Government cyber strategy, we took the view that having more than one channel was better as a way of raising awareness and we were able to target different demographics, different groups and perhaps reach different audiences but with very similar messages.
Stephen Mosley
A number of schemes have been launched over the past two or three years. Cyber Street is one. The National Fraud Authority has launched its public awareness campaign. The cyber crime reduction partnership has put in a lot of work. Is there any evidence that these campaigns are leading to information seeping down to consumers and small businesses, and that small businesses and consumers are better protected now than they were three or four years ago?
Lord Bates
The threat is greater. There is evidence to say that people are more aware of it. Driving up cyber knowledge at the local policing level has been very important. The Government are investing £860 million over five years through the national cyber security programme to respond to cyber problems. The College of Policing—because the other element of this is the successful prosecution, which comes back to some of the issues we were touching on in forensics—is a critical element of this. They have been taking a lead role in providing e-learning modules on cyber crime aimed at police officers and their staff. I gave the statistics about the number of hits which have been made on the sites. They target particular demographics. For example, they target women aged 35 to 50 because of what is called the “halo” effect that they have. These people are very active online themselves but, as mothers and people with influence, they can have a greater reach of influence about promoting safety.
Stephen Mosley
You mentioned policing. It is a few years since we did our inquiry. At the time, there was a feeling that individual police officers, for a lot of the time, did not feel able to tackle issues relating to cyber crime. During the past three or four years, what have the Government done to mainstream the police service’s capacity and ability to tackle cyber crime?
Lord Bates
Part of it is the College of Policing, which was established under this Government, and its programme in trying to provide more information about how to identify, track and prosecute. We have also simplified the process for members of the public to report cyber crime. Action Fraud, which is run by the City of London police force, is the national reporting service for fraud and financially motivated cyber crime. It covers all police forces in England and Wales. Those are just some of the things that we have been doing to enhance the ability of the police to intervene in this area.
Stephen Mosley
In terms of the outputs, is there any evidence that they have been successful?
Lord Bates
In terms of the outputs, I will ask Alan if he has anything to hand that we could offer in relation to that. I do not think we have any specific statistics, but I will happily write and provide some additional statistics on the outputs, but the inputs have been growing.
Chair
It would be interesting in particular to see that there has been progress in persuading police forces that what are individually small-scale scams and so on, but which collectively are enormous, are actually crimes, because there was a period where many police forces did not treat issues like that as crimes.
Lord Bates
Yes.
Alan Pratt
That is a key reason why using Action Fraud as a portal to be able to collect individual reports wherever they may lie jurisdictionally gives us a better chance to spot the pattern of organised crime that lies across all of that rather than treating each one as a potentially localised individual event.
Chair
It would also be helpful to know how many police forces have dedicated officers who are the points of contact for the public on cyber crime, because it is a very specialist subject.
Jim Dowd
I want to look briefly at the area of cyber security before, Lord Bates, you go off to prepare yourself for giving your statement, which I have just noticed you are giving in the House this afternoon.
Lord Bates
Nobody has told me yet.
Jim Dowd
That’s probably a bigger shock than answering my question. Life is full of surprises in this place, as you well know.
Lord Bates
It is.
Jim Dowd
I want to look at cyber security. Have the Government done anything to involve ISPs, again following on from what Stephen said in the report that this Committee published earlier? In their response, the Government said that they would try to involve ISPs more closely in assisting users to defend against malware, botware, hacking and all the rest of it. If they have done anything, is there any evidence that it has improved online security?
Lord Bates
Following the publication of the internet service providers’ guiding principles in December 2013, the signatories formed a working group to co-ordinate and monitor progress made in these areas. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and law enforcement continue to work in partnership with ISPs to minimise and mitigate the internet cyber threats. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Toolbar was one of the largest industry and law enforcement collaborations attempted to date. Activity in several countries, led by the FBI in the US, weakened the global network of infected computers operating CryptoLocker or GO Zeus, meaning that the public could take action to protect their computers from these malware programmes. This is a growing area of collaboration which we are seeing. We have in Joanna Shields, who is now a Member of our House, the Prime Minister’s adviser on cyber security. In fact, today both she and the Prime Minister are heading to Washington to take part in a cyber summit. One of the items on the agenda is cyber security, following recent attacks. This is something that is very interesting because ISPs are waking up to the fact that, in order to protect the future of their platforms and businesses, they cannot be immune to the fact that people are using their platforms for illegal purposes and that they have a responsibility in that area. That is one of the reasons why this group was set up, the guiding principles were established and the adviser was appointed. I do think there is progress in this area.
Jim Dowd
In response to the report, the Government said that they would continue to consider software standards as part of the work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills with GCHQ to analyse the whole range of standards currently available and determine how we may best work with them to develop appropriate ones further. Could you update us on the analysis of the wide range of software standards currently available? How are the most appropriate ones being identified and what work is being undertaken to develop them?
Lord Bates
The Government are concerned that software is trusted, reliable and secure. We have therefore created the trustworthy software initiative under the national cyber security programme funding to provide criterion advice on good software. The creation of good software is mainly about using good principles and techniques. The trustworthy software initiative guidelines are driving standards at work that seek to provide universally accepted marks of good software. In terms of what is happening out there, the National Cyber Crime Centre has recently established—of course, this is an international and borderless problem in many ways—a centre in Romania where we are seeking to track particular problems back. It is an international problem.
Jim Dowd
Is that because Romania is particularly active in this area or is it a tax fiddle?
Lord Bates
It is going to act as a co-ordinating body for all of the Council of Europe capacity-building activity relating to cyber crime, so it is not particularly a criticism of Romania—I should put that on record. Romania is simply a location for that work to happen with our Council of Europe colleagues in tackling this. We have the Council of Europe and the European software initiative. The Government cannot work in this area alone. It is absolutely critical that we have a partnership of industry and the internet service providers in particular. I think we are beginning to get that.
Jim Dowd
Fine. The only other question I had was about what work the Government are doing with industry to embed and strengthen cyber security and IT systems. I think you have just covered that, unless you want to say any more.
Lord Bates
Except by referring back to the cyber crime reduction partnership and the national cyber security strategy, which are the twin vehicles by which we are directing that effort.
Chair
Lord Bates and Mr Pratt, thank you very much indeed for your attendance this morning. We look forward to the additional material. Oral evidence: Legacy—Parliament 2010–15, HC 758 31 [1] The witness later clarified, that the Forensic Science Service was losing £2m a month. [2] The witness later clarified that, 32 forces are accredited for DNA. [3] The witness later clarified, that the Forensic Science Service was losing £2m a month. [4] The witness later clarified that, 32 forces are accredited for DNA.