Forensic Science Services Modernisation Programme
The next item of business is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, on the forensic science services modernisation programme. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:56
Forensic science services are a vital part of the fight against crime in Scotland. Following a debate on the matter in September, I made a commitment to come back to the Parliament to make a statement on the future of forensic science services in Scotland. I have given due consideration to all the options presented to me and I will now inform the Parliament of my decision.
Since forensic talent was brought together in the Scottish Police Services Authority in 2007, there has been a remarkable improvement in the standard of service delivered. Outstanding cases have halved, and more than nine out of 10 criminal justice DNA samples are now placed on the database within four days, compared to one in 10 in 2007. However, challenges remain and the service needs to modernise in order to meet the needs of its customers and cope with the difficult financial situation that we face.
Let me stress, though, that in reaching a decision on this matter I have been determined to reflect as far as possible the will of the Parliament. I have met union representatives and members of the Parliament from various parties and have given careful consideration to their views. For the benefit of the Parliament, I begin with a reminder of the process that brought us here today.
Following an initial proposal by the SPSA to close the Aberdeen forensic science laboratory in 2008, I asked the SPSA to work instead on a national service model for all forensic science services. That modernisation programme led the SPSA to publish four options for improving the speed, consistency and cost effectiveness of forensic analysis in Scotland.
Option 1 was to retain the current laboratory configuration and introduce new service standards to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Option 2 was the same as option 1, with the addition of an information technology system known as an evidence management solution—EMS. Option 3 was to reduce the laboratory configuration to two laboratories, at Dundee and Gartcosh, and to introduce the EMS. Option 4 was to create two high-volume processing units to service four local satellite laboratories based in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, and to introduce the EMS. The SPSA board wrote to me on 30 September recommending the implementation of option 4. The SPSA is publishing that information on its website today.
On 23 September, the Parliament supported a motion in favour of option 2. While I see many merits in option 4, as recommended by the SPSA, I recognise the value of retaining some of the vital elements of local expertise that would be delivered under option 2. That is why, as a result of my decision, the Aberdeen and Edinburgh labs will not only remain open, but retain 20 scientific and fingerprint staff, compared to the 12 to 15 anticipated in the SPSA board recommendation.
However, in the face of the toughest financial settlement from Westminster that the Parliament has ever faced, the need for greater efficiency is clear. That is why I have decided on an enhanced service option that is as close to option 2 as can be afforded in the current economic climate. This will see serious and urgent local biology and DNA analysis retained in each of the four laboratories. Under the SPSA recommendation, all DNA analysis would have been centralised to a high-volume processing unit. My approach recognises the value of local expertise that was central to the Parliament’s support for option 2.
I will explain how I came to my decision. First, I looked at what the SPSA’s customers want. They said that they want greater consistency and resilience to provide fast results for day-to-day crimes as well as expert support on serious and violent crimes. My decision recognises the fundamental importance of creating a greater separation between serious and volume crime processing. Dedicated volume crime teams will bring consistency to volume crime management and ensure a continuous flow of work that is not affected by serious crime cases.
Secondly, I looked at forensic drug services. Relatively few drug cases need an urgent turnaround and the recent legislative changes in the Cadder case have further increased the time window for tests. The compelling case, therefore, is to migrate volume crime drug analysis to a high-volume processing unit while retaining some scientific staff for urgent drug analysis within each service centre.
Thirdly, I looked at DNA. In considering the board’s recommendation it was clear to me that, although there is a case for centralising volume DNA casework, there remains a strong argument for retaining at a local level urgent DNA analysis and biology examinations, including for sexual offences.
This enhanced service option will enable the SPSA to move to a new forensic science services model that has scene examination embedded within the eight forces as they are today. It will also see the creation of two volume processing units in Glasgow—later to be at Gartcosh—and Dundee, and four strong and sustainable scientific satellite laboratories in all four current locations to provide expert local scientific support. The services that will be delivered from the local satellite laboratories will now include serious and urgent local biology analysis, including for sexual offences; local DNA analysis; limited mark enhancement; footwear intelligence; urgent fingerprint analysis; and urgent police drug analysis cases.
National specialist services will remain local, with hair and fibres in Aberdeen, firearms in Glasgow, documents and handwriting in Glasgow, and toxicology in Edinburgh. The two high-volume processing units will now process general chemistry services such as paint and glass analysis and fire debris analysis; footwear comparison; full mark enhancement examinations; fingerprint identifications for non-urgent crime cases; biology and DNA analysis for volume crime cases; and drug analysis.
As a consequence of the new structure, the SPSA will streamline management posts across Scotland by up to 50 per cent as part of an overall reduction of 74 posts. The reduction in posts will affect all forensic services across Scotland, not only Aberdeen and Edinburgh.
The implementation of option 2 would have cost the SPSA an additional £1.4m in the next financial year compared to the cost of option 4. The enhanced service option that I am announcing will cost £580,000 more than option 4. Option 2 would therefore require the SPSA to find even greater additional savings—over £820,000 next year—from its other vital services such as training, police information and communications technology, and vital criminal justice information systems. That is a bridge too far. I believe that the option that I have outlined strikes the right balance between achieving efficiencies and retaining valuable local scientific expertise. However, in acknowledgement of the potential for structural change in Scottish policing as a whole, I have decided that a review of the effectiveness of implementing the model should be undertaken in 18 months’ time and reported on to the SPSA board, so that it can monitor progress and success.
To underpin the enhanced service option, I am pleased to announce a £600,000 investment in the procurement of an evidence management IT solution, which is vital to the successful delivery of the forensic science services modernisation programme. That investment comes on top of the nearly £50 million of investment in forensic science services that is already in train through the new state of the art laboratory in Dundee and the Gartcosh crime campus.
I recognise that this has been a long and difficult journey for many and regret that my decision will have consequences for individuals in the forensic science service. However, modernisation is necessary. The model that I propose will enable the SPSA to deliver a more efficient and consistent service, while ensuring that the existing laboratories remain open. I am confident that the structure will deliver the best possible service for Scottish policing and the criminal justice community and look forward to working with the SPSA on its implementation over the coming months.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for that before we move to the next item of business. I remind the chamber that a considerable number of members have indicated that they wish to contribute, so members should make their question a question, not a story followed by a question. If they tell a story first, I will cut them out.
I thank the cabinet secretary for making a statement to the Parliament, as we requested. However, his announcement leaves us with significant concerns about the future of the forensic services that both the Aberdeen and the Edinburgh labs provide. I remind him that option 2 in the SPSA consultation paper would have not only retained an excellent network of labs in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow but saved £2 million a year. Given that that is the case, why has he departed from the clearly stated will of the Parliament in favour of option 2 and instead chosen to remove key services, including volume drug analysis, from the labs in Edinburgh and Aberdeen?
We need resolution and a clear, sustainable plan for the future of the labs and their staff, who have endured so much anxiety and uncertainty during this process, so why has the cabinet secretary decided that there should be a review of his decision in 18 months’ time? I am afraid that that gives rise to concerns among Labour members that the labs are receiving a stay of execution for the convenience of elections, rather than being saved. Can he guarantee that, after the review, the labs in Edinburgh and Aberdeen will definitely remain open and that the services that have been removed from them today will be returned if it is shown that that has been detrimental to solving crimes in the areas that they serve—communities that are safer today thanks to the efforts of staff who, under the plans, will no longer be based in Aberdeen or Edinburgh?
Richard Baker made several points in his question. I remind him that earlier today he challenged the First Minister on cuts to back-room services in the police and the difficulties that some face as a result.
As I pointed out in my statement, implementing option 2 without the amendment that I propose would have cost an additional £820,000. I did not hear Mr Baker suggest from where that money should be obtained. I also indicated that implementing the EMS IT system that he supports and on which option 2 was predicated will cost an additional £600,000 just in the coming year. We are providing that money from the justice budget. If we do not make efficiencies in the part of the SPSA where they have been identified, Mr Baker must tell us which part of the authority he wishes to reduce and where that stands in relation to the points that he made to the First Minister earlier today.
It is certainly my intention, if I am still in situ after May next year, not to make any variation pending the review that I have called for. Matters remain as they are in that regard.
There is something disingenuous in the member arguing—with crocodile tears—for something that would result in increased costs without commenting on where he would make the savings. That comes on the same day that he has made criticisms about other aspects of funding where savings are being made.
The member’s suggestion that there should not be a review comes as the Labour Party has decided on having one police service—without even considering the evidence that we are putting before a police board. To think that there is no relationship between forensic science and the configuration of the police service is equally disingenuous.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
I will raise two issues. First, as we have heard, there has been much speculation about the number of police forces. Given that there has still been no decision as to which structure will be adopted in the future, does the cabinet secretary think that it might have been sensible to postpone any decision on the future of forensic science services until the structure of the police forces had been determined?
Secondly, I note that the review of the effectiveness of implementing the new model will be undertaken in 18 months’ time. We do not know whether the voters will allow the cabinet secretary to continue in his current job but, if he does, will he undertake to bring the conclusions of that review to the Parliament?
I thank Mr Lamont both for his question and for the spirit in which it was asked. He is quite correct: there is a clear correlation between the number of police services that we operate in Scotland and the forensic science facilities. It is not an exact match, however, as Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Fife Constabulary and Northern Constabulary do not have their own forensic science facilities.
We have yet to decide whether there is to be a change, radical or otherwise, in police services. I know that that view is shared across the other side of the chamber and it is essential that we look at the evidence on that. The question is whether we could have postponed the decision on forensic science services. If we did that, it would not be possible to make the progress required to keep the forensic science services upgraded and maintain investment. We cannot provide the necessary level of investment without being aware of the sophistication of the equipment—drug analysis machines come at a significant cost. The investment in Dundee, and the investment that is wanted and welcomed by Labour, in particular, at Gartcosh, all come at a cost. Dundee is open and Gartcosh is under way. I do not think that we could have postponed that.
We require to make some progress to build upon a service that I accept is excellent—that is accepted by members around the chamber. We have to make progress in the climate that we find ourselves in. It will be for either me or anybody else who is in the position of justice secretary in 18 months’ time to carry out a review. I can certainly give an undertaking that I will seek to be open and to publish the review. What I have said today is being published. The SPSA recommendation is on the web as we speak and it is engaged in discussions. We give an assurance that there will be a spirit of openness.
The proposal does not retain the Aberdeen and Edinburgh forensics labs; it cuts and slices them until they are little more than outposts of the two centralised superlabs. Does the minister not realise that, any way we look at it, the Aberdeen forensic lab is to close in its current form and become a downsized, downgraded satellite lab? Is it 75 per cent closure or 85 per cent closure that we are getting today? We do not know. How many jobs are going? We are not told.
We know that there are more than 40 scientific and fingerprint jobs in Aberdeen alone. Edinburgh has significantly more, I understand. After the review, there will be a total of 20 between the Edinburgh and Aberdeen labs. Can the minister tell us how many jobs are involved in each lab, now and after his review?
This is a major betrayal of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland from a minister who wants to centralise services. Why does the minister reject the will of the Parliament, ignore the cross-party views of local campaigners and leave the sword of Damocles hanging over both the Aberdeen and Edinburgh labs, which are now downgraded to local “satellite” centres, to use the minister’s own word, which face a further review in 18 months’ time?
The position is not as Mr Stephen puts it. Indeed, the Aberdeen laboratory retains its expertise in fibres and other matters. For the record, let me remind him that Edinburgh and Aberdeen will not be closing, despite what he suggested—
How many jobs are you keeping in Aberdeen?
As Mr Rumbles yet again comments loudly from a sedentary position, I reiterate that there will be 20 scientific and fingerprint staff at both Edinburgh and Aberdeen—14 biology, two chemistry and four fingerprint staff.
We must take two things into account. First, we are in this position because we face financial challenges, as well as the challenge of modernising forensic science services. It is gross hypocrisy for members of parties that are in the coalition down south, which is imposing the cuts, to shed crocodile tears.
Secondly, and perhaps more devastating, I think that I would have some sympathy for Mr Stephen if the Liberal Democrats down south were of the same view as he is. Down south, however, they have but six laboratories and the Liberal Democrat position in the Administration there is that they will privatise forensic science services. We are preserving forensic science laboratories in Aberdeen and in Edinburgh. The Liberal Democrats, where they are in power south of the border, propose to privatise forensic science services.
We will try to get through as much as we can; it will help if we have short questions and short answers, cabinet secretary.
I commend the cabinet secretary for producing a set of proposals that is as close to option 2 as was possible in the straitened financial circumstances. Can he confirm that the 20 scientific and fingerprint staff referred to in his statement are in Aberdeen and that there are another 20 in Edinburgh? Can he also confirm that the additional cost related to transfers of staff or other such matters have been taken into account in reaching his decision?
Yes, I can confirm that. Those are the job numbers. In addition, there will be, as I say, other jobs that are not of a scientific or fingerprint nature that will also be based there. Indeed, there are some costs, because there is a voluntary redundancy scheme, and we have factored in those costs. As I say, we have decided to ensure that we have the best possible forensic science service available at a time when there is a difficult financial climate.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm what the staff have told me, which is that there will be a loss of 20 scientific and fingerprint staff at the Lothian laboratory, with the remainder having the axe hanging over their head for 18 months as a result of this shabby compromise? Will he also confirm that the loss of volume drug analysis in Lothian will hamper drug operations such as operation erase in East Lothian, which caught 50 drug dealers? As a result of his statement, Lothian drug dealers will be laughing all the way to the bank.
There are two aspects to that question. First, I have made it clear that there will be a loss of 70 jobs. As I say, management jobs will be streamlined by 50 per cent. That will be dealt with by voluntary redundancy. The precise figure in each location will depend upon the configuration, which the SPSA is working out with members of staff.
The point raised by Lord Foulkes would have some substance were it not for the fact that, far from championing Lothian and Borders Police, he has already decided that the force should be abolished and become part of the greater Scottish police service, with the consequences that we all know will follow. Yet again, we have crocodile tears from the Labour Party.
Although I understand that when the cabinet secretary made his decision he had to take into account all the relevant factors, including the parliamentary vote on 23 September, he should be aware that some staff in the SPSA will be concerned that he has not chosen the most cost-effective option. Can the cabinet secretary give the staff some reassurance about the finances available to the SPSA in the draft budget?
Yes, I can. Obviously, I discussed the matter earlier with Vic Emery, the SPSA’s convener. Over the next few weeks we will discuss a budget with the SPSA. I have confirmed that we will meet the initial £600,000 that is required for EMS.
Mr FitzPatrick is correct to say that the option is not the optimum saving that the SPSA sought, but we think that it best meets the will of the Parliament in the current financial climate. Those who suggest that there should be greater saving should realise that any additional expenditure on the forensic science service would be at the expense of the budget for other aspects of policing, which budget Mr Baker and others deeply lamented earlier today.
What effect will the cabinet secretary’s announcement have on the capacity and staffing levels of the excellent 24-hour drug service in Edinburgh? That service allows charging within the required time period, a rapid turnaround for test purchasing and other purposes, and analysis of the percentage purity of drugs in all seizures of more than 1g, compared with 250g in Strathclyde. In a recent letter to me, the cabinet secretary referred to a national services standard agreement. What are the principles of that agreement? Will it limit the number of cases that are sent for analysis?
I do not believe that the agreement will limit the number of cases that are sent for analysis. Our service agreements are worked out in conjunction with the police and the Crown. It is not only the police in Scotland who are involved; the Crown is required to produce the evidence and base its case on the analysis. We have borne in mind the requirement to deal with urgent matters. We recognise that improvements in technology are coming through, which is why we have retained four local satellite offices.
Equally, there is a clear understanding that, where there is no great urgency with respect to crimes, the equipment, given its sophistication and cost, cannot be spaced out among each of the local satellite offices. There will have to be some element of centralisation, but that will provide what the police and the Crown require to continue to make Scotland safer.
I, too, thank the minister for giving us an advance copy of his statement, and I thank him for listening to Margaret Smith and me putting the case for Edinburgh. However, I am not sure that he took on board my concerns about future crime statistics when the labs in Edinburgh and Aberdeen are downgraded.
Does he think that it is right that the review that he announced, which will take place in 18 months’ time, leaves the retained staff in limbo? Many of the Edinburgh staff have worked in the lab for many years and have built up huge expertise. I want the minister to be absolutely clear. Will 20 scientific staff be retained in Edinburgh and 20 be retained in Aberdeen? It is clear that we are all confused by page 6 of the cabinet secretary’s statement. He has assured me that there will be no compulsory—
We have had the question, Mr Pringle.
I confirm that there will be 20 scientific and fingerprint staff in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The cabinet secretary indicated that redundancy costs had been factored in—I think that that was the expression that he used. I presume that some relocation costs have also been factored in. Can he give us an indication of the Government’s estimate of the redundancy and relocation costs associated with the new service configuration?
I cannot, because, as Mr McLetchie is well aware, redundancy costs are predicated on the length of an individual’s service. However, it is accepted that, with 74 posts going, there will be costs. Some people will go through natural wastage, and some posts will go through the recruitment freeze that is currently being implemented. There is a cost factor, and a reduction in efficiencies, and I confirm that we have factored those in.
It is clear that we are investing £600,000 initially in the EMS IT system that members, including Mr McLetchie, want. It is also clear that, if we do not make the changes to the position that the Parliament voted for in September, that would cost an additional £820,000. It is incumbent on those who want that to tell us where we should acquire that money.
How will the level of forensic services and the configuration that the cabinet secretary has described contrast with the services and provision available in other parts of the United Kingdom?
Northern Ireland has only one laboratory, and, as I said earlier, the forensic science service that is operated by the Home Office in England and Wales has only six laboratories. Sadly, it appears that the Liberal-Conservative coalition will privatise that service.
Can the cabinet secretary tell us whether the Aberdeen forensic laboratory will continue to have the bench work facility for processing DNA samples as they come in?
We have said that DNA analysis will be retained locally in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. How that service is configured is an operational matter, but we are retaining the urgent DNA analysis that the police sought and which was part of where the Parliament wanted to go, back in September. We are delivering what we can. The operational matters are for the SPSA.