Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate our Science and Technology Committee report Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice: An Urgent Need. At the outset, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, responding on behalf of the Home Office. I thank the committee members who participated in the report, including those who have since left the committee. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who was co-opted on to the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, for her informative briefings to the committee and support of the inquiry. I thank the excellent committee staff who assisted in preparing this report: the clerks, John Turner and Daisy Robins; the policy analyst, Thomas Hornigold; and the committee operations officer, Sid Gurung.
The inquiry started in November 2025, we published our report in February 2026, and the Government responded in April 2026. The inquiry heard from a range of witnesses, including forensic scientists, companies, the regulator, defence barristers and witnesses from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. Crucially, the inquiry was in part a follow-up to the inquiry that the committee undertook in 2018-19, in which I also took part.
Today, I will first set out the issues our inquiry found with the forensic science system, which many others have also identified. I will then discuss the Government’s response and their proposed policing reforms, which involve setting up a national police service with forensics as part of its remit. These risk kicking a lot of these urgent issues into the long grass. I will conclude with questions for the Minister.
Forensic science is unquestionably a critical pillar of the criminal justice system. We rely on good forensic science to establish the facts of a case. Miscarriages of justice can arise when mistakes are made, both in wrongfully convicting the innocent and in allowing the guilty to walk free. For this reason, a well-functioning forensic science system is critical to the interests of justice in the UK. Unfortunately, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. It is not working for the police, it is not working for forensic scientists, and it is not working for lawyers. Ultimately, it is not working for the public and for the criminal justice system. Our inquiry heard exactly this from Professor Angela Gallop, a prominent forensic scientist. We heard little to contradict it.
To understand the problems, it is necessary to know some history. Prior to 2012, most forensic science in England and Wales was conducted by the Forensic Science Service, which provided forensic science services to the police forces. This was shut down and replaced by a combination of in-house police laboratories and private commercial providers commissioned by the police. This model now suffers from a range of problems, many of which we identified in 2019 and have only worsened since.
First, no one takes responsibility for ensuring that the system works. Responsibility is split between the Home Office, via its responsibility for the police, and the Ministry of Justice—defence, legal aid and courts. But no Minister has forensic science explicitly in their remit. Responsibility for procuring forensic science or providing it in-house is divided between 43 different police forces, which are only loosely co-ordinated through bodies such as the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We identified this in 2019, but the joint structures promised in 2019 were not kept up, so no one really owns the overall responsibility for funding forensic science, managing the forensic science market or workforce planning.
Secondly, the market for forensic science services has collapsed. In 2019 there were three major commercial providers but now there are effectively two. One of them is Eurofins, with over 80% of the market share: a near monopoly. The only other major company emerged from administration in 2018 with a reduced range of services. This is not an efficient, competitive market. The providers run on thin or even negative margins. Our report asked what assessment the Government had made of this concentration risk. What is the contingency plan if Eurofins, the near-monopoly provider and a big multinational, decided not to provide forensic services any more? We did not receive a satisfactory answer.
Thirdly, and in part due to this market collapse, there is now fragmented in-house police provision of forensic services. Most forensic science spending is in-house: some £500 million compared to £100 million spent on external providers, which is to say more than 80%. As providers reduce their services more gets taken in-house, which is a vicious circle. This creates several problems: first, it lacks independence from the police. Scientists know that bias need not be a conscious or corrupt act. It can arise from what you choose to examine, what you choose to ignore and how you choose to interpret the results; it can arise unconsciously. In Scotland there is a sterile corridor between its forensic science and police services, but there are no such provisions in England and Wales. We suggested this as a model that the Government could adopt with their proposed new national forensic service. There has been no commitment to do this.
Practice varies between police forces; there is limited co-ordination as to the forensic science capabilities of each force and there is limited oversight of them. What is done in-house, what is done externally and even how exhibits are submitted all vary from force to force, creating what the Minister for Policing and Crime herself called a “postcode lottery”. This fragmentation is inefficient, with police forces duplicating labs and capabilities. Ministers admitted that they did not know how much was spent on certain activities and by which forces. There is voluntary guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the independent forensic science regulator can set standards that would bind police labs. Most forensic science activities should be accredited according to the Forensic Science Regulator’s code. But in practice our witnesses were concerned that the regulator is underresourced and might hesitate to use its powers to disrupt a fragile forensic science system. We asked the Government to publish the accreditation status of every police force’s in-house forensic science. It agreed in principle but, six months on, no force-by-force data has been published. Accreditation itself creates issues; witnesses described it as slow and burdensome. Compliance is still patchy and the high costs involved drive smaller providers out of the market.
A fourth major issue is that there is no equality of access for the defence. In court, the police have access to their in-house forensic experts and the large forensic science providers, but the defence must rely on a small, fragmented and underpaid community of individual forensic experts. The problems with legal aid are well documented, but what is less well known is that defence experts are paid less by legal aid than the prosecution. In our inquiry we heard that the rates are £83 per hour, paid by legal aid, for the defence experts, while £130 per hour is paid by the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution experts. Given the struggles to obtain legal aid in the first place, we heard that many companies and experts do not pursue defence work because the pay is so limited.
This lack of overall co-ordination gives rise to a host of other issues. Perhaps no issue better illustrates the dysfunction than how forensic evidence is stored. Often, technology advances, enabling subsequent better analysis that can convict or exonerate someone. Storing forensic evidence properly is therefore critical. Under the old Forensic Science Service, there was one national forensic archive that stored forensic evidence to a high standard, but when the FSS closed, responsibility was dispersed to each of the 43 police forces to store their own materials. They are not experts in how to do this. They were not funded to do it. Some forces invested in it but some struggled and the result is that many pieces of critical forensic evidence are getting lost or damaged, jeopardising criminal justice.
One defence barrister told us of an unsolved cold case in which a key exhibit was eventually traced to a police officer’s home, where it had been used to train other officers. A quite staggering aspect of this is that the forensic archive still exists. It still stores all the evidence from the old Forensic Science Service’s archive and has been expanded to hold material from a collapsed provider of forensic services. The forensic archive once expanded responsibility for storing evidence. I am sure that the police would be relieved to have this burden taken away. The Home Office Minister, Sarah Jones, was asked whether the Government should fund a national archive and said, “yes, quite possibly”. The Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, said that expanding the archive was a great idea and that
“we need consistency across the country”.
Yet all the Government have said that they would do is review the forensic archive’s remit. Many months on from our report, there is no commitment to expand the archive. In reducing duplication, it would likely save money. A modest investment in already existing facilities could prevent the national scandal of justice not being done because no one has funded proper storage of the evidence.
Another major issue created by this lack of overall co-ordination is that certain specialisms of forensic science are dying out. We heard that areas such as marks and traces and analysis of fibres, glass, paint and footwear are all suffering. We heard from Professor Angela Gallop that the Stephen Lawrence case would not have been solved without fibre evidence. Some 10 to 15 years ago, there were 40 fibre scientists but now there are just about four or five. Because there is no national-level co-ordination of forensic science, no one is in charge of making sure that we retain vital capacity in these areas, which fall between the cracks of the police and forensic science providers.
DNA testing is clearly a marvellous tool, but it cannot solve every case. Our witnesses were clear that, without these specialisms that I have outlined, some cases would never have been solved. If they die out, there will be preventable miscarriages of justice in the future. As long as forensic science is determined by what disparate, underfunded market actors are willing to pay for, rather than what justice requires, this is where we are headed. The Government recognised that niche disciplines were under threat. They did so in 2019, but the police steering group tasked with looking at this was quietly disbanded. In 2026, the Government have also accepted that these disciplines matter, but there is still no sign of any action to preserve them.
The same is true when it comes to training the next generation of forensic scientists and harnessing new technologies. There is a lack of national co-ordination. Digital forensics is a huge and growing area of concern, yet there has been a stubborn backlog of 20,000 digital devices still awaiting examination. AI could potentially be used to reduce this, but it also poses new challenges in the form of deepfake evidence. The Government have introduced PoliceAI, which funds some pilots on digital evidence, but its funding is not ring-fenced for forensic science. As most digital forensics is done in-house by the police, there is an urgent need for standards and training, including in the use of new tools. Our report recommended the establishment of a national institute for forensic science to maintain tools and guidance for best practice, help to run training courses for forensic scientists and conduct research and development into new forms of forensics. But, again, the Government have not agreed to this.
I now turn to what the Government are doing about all of this. A major development that could be extremely positive, but which also creates a huge deal of uncertainty, is the policing reform White Paper, which has committed to the establishment of a new national police service and, as part of that, a national forensics capacity. Our committee welcomed this idea in principle because of the total dysfunction of the existing system, but when the White Paper was published, around the time of our report, we were also—to quote our report—concerned
“that the much-needed rebuilding of forensic science in England and Wales gets kicked into the long grass while we await uncertain, long-term structural reforms”.
Ten months on from the White Paper’s publication, there is still no Bill before Parliament to set out what will actually happen. The proposed mergers of police forces are still very uncertain and will likely take years, and there is still no launch date for the national police service and its forensics service. There has been continuity in the Home Office at ministerial level, which suggests that these reforms will go ahead, but it is all very uncertain and, in the meantime, the problems that we have identified are continuing to get worse. Although we have suggested that any forensics service should be operationally independent of the police, perhaps through a “sterile corridor” between them, the Government have not committed to this.
Reform will, of course, take time, but our report urged the Government to act now to stabilise the forensic science sector as well as setting it on a firmer footing in the long run. Uncertainty around the long-term reform should not be an excuse for inaction now on issues such as the storage of forensic evidence, addressing legal aid funding for defence experts, preserving niche disciplines and setting up a national institute for forensic science, as many other countries have done, to safeguard expertise while the policing reforms are undertaken. All these could be undertaken now, but on the vast majority of our recommendations there has been little sign of movement.
In summary, the issues with the system that our report identified are not new. Many were identified in our earlier report in 2019 and have not been addressed. The Westminster Commission on Forensic Science report also identified many of these issues last year. The Government have a real opportunity to grasp this problem, prevent future miscarriages of justice and rebuild a forensic science system in which the public can have confidence. We have been sounding this alarm for a long time about such glaring issues in an area that is core to criminal justice, but the Government’s position has shifted from neglect to an abdication of responsibility. We will get the justice that we are willing to pay for, so investment in shoring up the system now is vital to avoid preventable tragedies where the innocent are convicted and the guilty walk free.
I conclude with just a few specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. First, when can we expect to see the police reform Bill introduced, and when will the proposed national forensic service actually start operating? Secondly, will the Minister commit to making the national forensic service operationally independent of the police, as in the Scottish model, and to putting that independence in the Bill? Thirdly, what measures are the Government taking to shore up the marketplace for forensic science? If Eurofins, with 80% of the external market, withdrew tomorrow, what is the Government’s contingency plan? Fourthly, Ministers, officials and witnesses all praised the forensic archive and suggested that it should be given funding and responsibility to store forensic evidence, and it is keen to do so. Is there an ongoing review of its capacity? Will the Minister commit to allowing it to expand? Finally, while the wider police reforms are under way, what will the Government do in the next 12 months on three important issues: preserving forensic specialisms; supporting defence experts with parity of pay; and setting up a national institute for forensic science.
Our Select Committee has looked at this twice, in 2019 and last year. Our report warned that, the next time that we have to do so, it will not be a diagnosis but a post-mortem. The Minister still has time to prove us wrong, but not much time. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I was proud to be a member of this Select Committee, which I was until earlier this year, and I commend my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his chairship, the report and the way in which he introduced it. It was so comprehensively introduced that I find it difficult to know what more I can add, apart from the fact that I pretty well agree with every single word of it. The noble Lord said that forensic science is not working for anyone. Frankly, that is an understatement. It is a mess and the Government need to take decisive action because forensic science is crucial to our criminal justice system. As a committee, we were very disappointed by the Government’s refusal to support our recommendation for a national institute for forensic science. I, for one, hope that this might still be reconsidered, because it makes sense.
This House has many roles to perform. It holds the Government to account, it conducts pre-legislative scrutiny—not enough, and we should have more—and, of course, it engages in post-legislative scrutiny and following things up. This is a classic example of something that needed to be done. We decided to conduct the inquiry precisely because we thought that the subject needed to be looked at again, and we were right. Do not forget that an underlying purpose of this is to avoid future miscarriages of justice, and the Committee should not forget what can be at stake. There have been some celebrated examples over the years. I looked back and dug up a few; I will mention one or two that Members may recall.
Do noble Lords remember Stefan Kiszko? He spent 16 years in prison before scientific proof showed that he could not have been guilty, and DNA testing later identified the actual killer. Sally Clark was wrongfully convicted of murdering her two infant sons and the prosecution relied heavily on flawed medical testimony and misleading statistical claims. She was cleared after fresh evidence revealed that one of the babies died of a staphylococcal infection. Peter Sullivan spent 38 years in prison for murder. At the time of his trial, advanced DNA profiling was unavailable or inconclusive, and his conviction was finally quashed only last year after modern testing isolated a male profile that completely excluded him. Going back even further, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four cases, arising out of what we now call the Northern Ireland Troubles in the 1970s and 1980s, relied heavily in some cases on manipulated forensic tests. The establishment of the Forensic Science Advisory Council was recommended in 1993 as a result.
One of our findings is—I want to emphasise this—that we need some structural clarity. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice need to decide who takes responsibility for forensic science, as the noble Lord said in introducing the report. It seemed to us that the Ministry of Justice should take the lead when it comes to ensuring what we call an “equality of arms”. Can my noble friend the Minister, who has had great experience of government and represents the Home Office ably in this House, give us clarity as to who is responsible for this important area? Will he make a commitment on behalf of the Government to an equality of arms? The prosecution and defence need equal access to the forensic science evidence, which can, after all, convict as well as exonerate. Justice demands that forensic science makes both possible.
We all know that since our report the Government have announced their plans for a radical restructuring of police forces. I, too, ask my noble friend what progress is being made in rationalising the existing 43 police forces in England and Wales into a smaller number. What number might that be? When will we know? When will the Bill be introduced?
I should at this point express my great gratitude to the staff of the committee, some of whom are here today. Thomas Hornigold has been mentioned, and I endorse that, as well as thanking all the other staff. They have done an excellent job and continue to do so. I also thank the Library for its briefing, which has also been very helpful.
This is not the first time that I have crossed paths with forensic science in my professional life—talk about déjà vu. I remember a House of Commons Select Committee considering this matter in its report in 2011 and, going back even further, I remember consideration of forensic science in this House in the early 1990s. In a different capacity I helped the Royal Society of Chemistry provide evidence that was considered at that time by a Select Committee chaired by Lord Dainton, a formidable figure who produced a landmark report on forensic science, which examined the state funding, organisation and delivery of forensic science services in the UK. It was Lord Dainton himself who highlighted the operational delays plaguing investigations by stating:
“Evidence delayed is evidence denied”.
I think that noble Lords would agree that that is still true today.
The key concerns at that time included investigating sample backlogs, turnaround times and the structural and commercial changes affecting police access to forensic science laboratories. Following the Dainton report, the forensic science landscape underwent radical transformation and transitioned from a highly centralised government service into a fully commercialised open market, which, as the noble Lord indicated, is falling apart. If one of the companies pulled out, we would be in a terrible mess. I will not go through all of this in detail, as this is a debate not a history lesson and my time is rapidly running out.
However, we should not forget that in the years of the Forensic Science Service we created the first national DNA database. We were a global leader in pioneering techniques such as Alec Jeffreys’ genetic fingerprinting and advanced DNA amplification, yet in 2012 the Government completely shut the service down. That closure, which privatised the majority of internal work, has been responsible for so much of the damage that we are facing today. In retrospect, we can see that the closure lies at the heart of many of the problems that we still face. I have a list of some examples that I will not go into, except to say that research that does not yield a direct short-term commercial profit is nevertheless still vital and things such as fibres and hairs collected on clothing is being abandoned to our great cost in future. The closure of the Forensic Science Service was a terrible mistake.
As my time is up, I shall just say that we reported on this in 2019. We reported on this again this year, and I hope that when my noble friend replies he can give the Committee some reassurance that the Government will take decisive action, otherwise we will be here again discussing this in a much worse situation than we are in now.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank the chairman for his thorough and lucid examination of the situation and for the way in which he presented our report and the reasoning behind it. As he said, this is not the first report. In fact, it is not even the second report—there have been reports by other bodies in the meantime. I, too, thank the committee staff. I think that there is a universal feeling on the part of members of the committee that we had an exceptionally helpful and thorough job done for us.
I think that all of us feel that good justice is of extreme importance to what we stand for in this country. We were once regarded as global leaders in forensic science. We had evidence—not this time, but on the previous occasion—from witnesses from abroad who said how much they regretted the decline of standards in this country, which they no longer regarded as ones that they followed, but would lead with their own.
I wish that I could say something optimistic about the situation in which forensic science finds itself in relation to the criminal justice system, but I have to say to the Minister that all the signals are pointing in the wrong direction. I was on the committee when we produced the 2019 report, when the state of affairs was worrying. Now, frankly, I would describe it as parlous and shameful for a country that prides itself on dispensing justice. Our ability to do so is at risk.
I will not go over the ground that has been so well covered but will focus on what I regard as the extreme urgency of the current situation. In our report, we recognised that police reform provided a welcome opportunity for a more thoroughgoing improvement of the role of forensic science in the justice system than might be the case if these wider changes were not going on. The headline was opportunity, but I think that there is a danger of that opportunity simply not being taken.
Since we wrote our report, nothing much seems to have moved. Now, 2034 is regarded as the target date for new arrangements for the national police service— perhaps the Minister will comment on that. That is seven years from now, not allowing for slippage. But I have to say that, without some life-saving support before then, the availability of the forensic science offering that we have now, with a reasonable, although declining, range of specialisms, could well collapse before then. The change simply will not wait for so long.
As our chairman said, one of the most worrying features of the scene is the slender supply chain. You cannot call it a market when 80% of the work is done in-house, 80% of the remaining 20% is done by one company, and the other company that has the remainder of the market has been through administration. This is the kind of market that can very easily just crumble. It is not fanciful to say that we risk this oligopolistic situation seriously collapsing. That would put us in a situation—it is already a danger—in which the impartiality of the judicial system as regards forensic evidence is increasingly suspect.
Neither of the interested government departments seems to take responsibility for ensuring that forensic science remains alive and reputable. That is why, among other things, the committee proposed that a national institute of forensic science should be instituted straightaway. That was in our 2019 report. It is a sensible idea and has been adopted by many countries, and I suggest that it is urgent that we do so, too. It would not get in the way of the powers or the position of the director of forensic science, which I think was intimated to us; rather, on the contrary, it would lend power to her elbow if she had a body outside which was able to deal with some of the issues and ensure that the market survives, that standards are upheld and that best practice is a running issue.
Unfortunately, however, the Government have declined that idea. I very much ask the Minister please to think again. Whatever we do, action is needed, and we must not have a situation in which the creation of a national police force in the future becomes the reason why we can go on delaying until we have that prior reform. We very much need to deal with forensic science before we can get to the final stages of police reform.
I will say one more thing. This morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was on Radio 4 talking about the critical state of social care, which she attributed in large part to no department of government taking responsibility for its functioning, which has led to the current state of affairs about which she was scathing. My worry is that the evidence that we took shows that forensic science as regards the judicial system of this country is very close to tipping point. The descent now lies downwards, and that is the territory of future scandals. Two decades after the Government’s Forensic Science Service was abolished in 2014, the risks of a miscarriage of justice taking place are seriously rising, and we all wish to avoid that.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Mair for chairing our committee so ably. I want to pay a great tribute to the staff of the committee and the clerks—Thomas Hornigold and Siddhant Gurung. We had fantastic help with all this.
In response to the committee’s report, the Government state that they agree
“on the need for strong national leadership and clear safeguards to ensure the independence and impartiality of forensic science”.
They continue by saying that:
“The current governance model has contributed to significant variation in how forensic work is organised, assured and overseen. This has reduced opportunities for efficiency from scaling innovations or best practice, impacted staff flexibility and development, inhibited private sector investment, prevented effective performance and service management and made assurance more complex and expensive”.
Quite so—in other words, the Government absolutely accept this committee’s analysis.
But the Government then added:
“The Forensic Science Regulator already provides national leadership and accountability for the quality and oversight of national forensic services. We will create national governance for forensic services in the National Police Service”.
So far, so good, although we would argue for greater independence. Yet, despite the Government saying that they want the new national police service to host a nationally led forensics service, nothing has happened—I think we are going to be a bit like a stuck record here—nor is there much sign of anything happening. Given that this was not our preferred option, but that the Government were keen to press ahead with their national police service and to give it these functions, can the Minister give us any indication of when we might see some progress here?
As others have said, we also recommended a national institute of forensic science, as many other countries have, to provide co-ordinated national leadership across a range of functions, including research and development, specialist and low-volume disciplines, expert competence through training in core methods and novel techniques, best-practice guidance, training and national capacity assessment. This was precisely because of concerns over fragmentation and the risk that vital specialist capabilities, innovation and expertise are being neither sustained nor shared consistently. The current system leaves significant gaps in research, in training for forensic scientists and in co-ordination for forensic science capabilities. The preservation of forensic science specialisms, which cannot turn a profit in the commercial market, is still absolutely vital for the interests of justice.
The UK is almost alone in not having a national institute. We heard from the Australian national institute about the useful work that it does overseas. Critically, our committee recommended that a national institute for forensic science could be set up now, without waiting for police reform. An independent institute would play a number of important roles in the system and would counterbalance a forensic science service entirely under the aegis of the police. An institute could set research and development priorities for forensic science on a national basis, employ experts to preserve specialist skills that the forensic science market cannot pay for and provide impartial expertise to both prosecution and defence to assist in equality of arms and help safeguard the independence of forensic science.
Despite the strong argument we made for the creation of a national institute for forensic science, this was rejected by the Government, who maintained their line that the new national forensics service under the national police service would resolve all these problems. We believe that this is the wrong approach and ask that it be reconsidered. Other colleagues have said the same. We do not think that it is too late.
Meanwhile, can the Minister tell us just how long it will take to create a national governance role for forensics in the national forensics service as part of the national police service, and to give it a legal mandate to deliver the service to policing? Unless I am much mistaken, there is no sign of a police reform Bill yet. All this seems to be taking an unconscionably long time.
My noble friend Lord Mair has covered almost all the other issues, as have other speakers, but I want briefly to pick up on the inconsistent arrangements for the storage and retention of evidence across police forces. We called for the expansion or re-establishment of a national forensic archive and the use of trained forensic archivists, supported by clear national standards, to ensure that evidential material is stored securely and managed consistently across England and Wales. The Government actually agreed, especially when it comes to appeals and cold case reviews, but all we got in response was the statement:
“The Director of Forensic Services will work with policing partners, the Forensic Archive and the Home Office to consider how evidence retention and storage can be more robust”.
Although the Government acknowledge that
“The ability to retrieve forensic evidence underpins the integrity of investigations in particular appeals and cold case reviews”,
they gave us little comfort. Can the Minister give us more comfort today?
A credible and fair forensic service should be a basic provision of our justice system. Like other speakers, I think that this is part of what the UK stands for, and I am really sad that we have come to this. Despite the evidence of many scientists and others that we are not doing well, and that the supply of future forensic scientists has all but dried up, we have been given little reason to think that the Government think this as important as we do. Can the Minister tell us that they do think it is as important as we do, and can he tell us when they are likely to act?
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his leadership of this important inquiry, our committee staff for their excellent work, especially our policy analyst Thomas Hornigold, and all the witnesses.
I must confess that forensic science is not an area in which I would claim any particular expertise—far from it. Like many people, much of my personal understanding of forensic science has come from watching great programmes such as “Quincy, M.E.” or, latterly, “CSI” and the occasional Hollywood crime thriller. If those programmes are to be believed, forensic scientists have unlimited resources and extraordinary technology, and can solve almost any crime in about 45 minutes, including the commercial breaks. Unfortunately, our inquiry revealed that the reality in England and Wales could hardly be more different. What shocked me most was not simply the gap between fiction and reality but the extraordinary fragility of a system upon which something as fundamental as justice depends.
I will focus my comments on the people, skills and expertise upon which forensic science relies, and how we safeguard them for the future. Throughout my career, when working on major technology programmes, in business or in government, I have learned one fundamental lesson: technology and systems are important but, ultimately, it is people, their knowledge, experience and judgment, that make them work. This is equally the case in the world of forensic science.
Our inquiry heard deeply concerning evidence about the workforce. The evidence showed that we have a significant number of undergraduate forensic science courses, undoubtedly encouraged by the popularity of the subject, yet career opportunities are limited, salaries relatively low and pathways into sustainable employment far from clear. We also heard concerns that some courses do not provide the rigorous scientific foundations required for professional forensic work. There is something fundamentally wrong when we encourage young people to pursue a scientific career without ensuring that the training and employment opportunities exist to support them. As such, our committee recommended a review of forensic science degrees and better practical training, including opportunities for trainees to follow cases from crime scene to courtroom.
However, perhaps more alarming is what is happening to the expertise we already possess. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has stated, we heard that just 10 to 15 years ago, there were around 40 specialist fibre scientists working in forensic science; now, it is four. Even a lay person knows that forensic science and fibre evidence play a critical role in solving the most serious of crimes. Yet this entire field of specialist scientific expertise is approaching the point where it could simply disappear. Once that knowledge is lost, it cannot easily be recreated.
I have spent much of my professional life advocating for technological innovation, digital transformation and, increasingly, the appropriate use of artificial intelligence. AI offers enormous potential to analyse information, identify patterns and support forensic investigations. At this point, I refer to my register of interests, particularly my roles with VE3 and Great Wave AI.
But we must recognise two important realities. First, AI must enhance scientific expertise, not become an excuse for allowing expertise to disappear. An algorithm may identify a pattern, but scientific understanding, validation and professional judgment remain essential to interpreting what actually matters. Secondly, new technology creates new challenges. Deepfakes, synthetic media and increasingly sophisticated digital devices make establishing the authenticity of evidence more difficult. Without the expertise to understand, challenge and validate that evidence, we risk undermining confidence in the justice system itself.
I will make three practical points. First, we require a national forensic science workforce strategy—one that connects universities, professional training, research institutions, policing and commercial providers, ensuring rigorous qualifications, genuine career pathways and the retention of experienced professionals.
Secondly, we must urgently protect specialist scientific capabilities. Where disciplines may be commercially unviable but essential to justice, the state must seek to ensure that the expertise survives. Justice cannot simply depend solely on whether a scientific specialism generates a commercial return.
Thirdly, we need a clear national strategy for technology and AI in forensic science. That means investment in research, approved tools, training and expertise required to use emerging technologies safely and effectively. Our committee has, as many fellow Peers have said, recommended establishing a national institute for forensic science, and I echo that. It would play a vital role in co-ordinating these priorities. But I am also concerned that the Government have deferred much of this approach to their work within the wider policing reforms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair.
I have two main questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to publishing a national forensic science workforce and skills plan, alongside a clear programme for preserving endangered specialisms and skills? Secondly, of the £75 million committed to the police AI programme, how much will be specifically allocated to forensic science and how will the Government ensure that this investment develops the skills and scientific capabilities we need?
Ultimately, this is not simply about science, technology or workforce planning. As has been said, it is about ensuring that the innocent are protected, the guilty are brought to justice and the public can have confidence in the evidence upon which our courts rely. We cannot afford to discover the true value of these skills only after they have been lost. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
As the first speaker who has not been a member of this committee, I commend it for the excellence of its report and the admirable analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, of its contents. I decided I ought to speak for two reasons. First, for some years, as a judge I took a particular interest in the development of forensic science. Secondly, recently retired, I served and was co-opted on to the committee that reported in 2019. I was therefore shocked to realise that nothing had been done.
I have every sympathy with this Government, because the problem goes back to the obviously mistaken decision to abolish the Forensic Science Service. It was a disastrous mistake for another reason I will come to quickly. Having said that, if we do not do something now, the person on the watch who has been told they must do something will carry the can. So I have another degree of sympathy for the Minister because, in the nature of forensic science, something will go seriously wrong, and the lack of safeguards will be blamed.
I will say why. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, has made my first point about the centrality of forensic science to the perception of juries. They look at the television, and they come to court believing that forensic science will tell you the answer. Secondly, because those on television are generally reputable and honest, they trust the scientists. It is therefore critical to the justice of a trial that forensic science is reliable. Reliability depends first of all on scientific rigour—I will return to that shortly. It also rests on transparency and on the integrity of the witness giving the forensic evidence. Very importantly, it rests upon the independence of the forensic science providers.
It is critical to look back and analyse what happened in the past, as it can be easy to forget. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there are cases of unconscious bias. I sat on an appeal where there was an allegation of bias against a forensic scientist; it was alleged that he was acting under pressure from his chief constable. It was extremely uncomfortable to witness, but we set aside the conviction because there was strong evidence —we never had to decide whether the chief constable had pressured him into solving something.
I do not want to see the police having any role other than that of organisation: they must be at arm’s length from the service. It is of central importance for the protection of the police and their integrity and for the protection of the criminal justice process. No doubt one has to use the police force, as in Scotland; we are where we are, and they probably have more money than anyone else, but the forensic service must be independent. That is one thing I hope the Government will take that away: it must be at arm’s length.
There is another consideration. The best experts are experts who give evidence for both sides. If you have given evidence for the Crown and for the defence, you are much more likely to be credible; people have greater confidence in you. I have witnessed a regrettable occasion where enormous pressure was brought to bear; the person fortunately refused to succumb to that pressure not to give evidence in support of the defence. This concept of being at arm’s length is therefore critical.
I hope that we will go forward with these reforms, because there is yet one further point. If we do not have a good forensic science service here, and if the money can be found, people are sometimes prepared to go to quacks and to those who do not have decent standards. I have seen cases where experts have come from America and from elsewhere and who have given evidence that was, frankly, dishonest. That is one of the risks we face in not acting now.
But there is a more positive side. In 2015, the Royal Society held a conference on forensic science that lasted a couple of days and was designed to show that the UK was world-leading in forensic science, and I believe we were. We had made enormous strides on DNA; we worked out how you explained it to juries, we were at the forefront and our experts were acknowledged across the world. What worries me is that this is another area where the lead in UK technology and its reputation for developing forensic science is lost. If people are to have trust in what we do, they want to see how the service works in practice. Even if one is not concerned about criminal justice—and I do not know anyone who is not concerned about the disastrous state of our criminal justice system and whether there is something that could be done—there is a good, sound economic reason for doing something to strengthen our economy in this important area, in which we have the potential to be worldwide leaders.
I hope that, rather than waiting, the Government will take action and start to ensure that we do justice, ensuring that we put ourselves in a position to pay for it more easily by being leaders.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for chairing this inquiry so effectively and for introducing this report so forensically. I also pay tribute to our amazing staff for their outstanding support. It was also enormously helpful to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, join us for this inquiry, and I am glad that he has just joined us now. He will therefore hear what the Minister says.
When this topic was suggested, following as it did on a previous report, I confess that I was sceptical. I was not convinced that this was the best use of our time. As we heard the evidence, I realised how very wrong I had been. We have documented a profound problem—one that undermines our whole justice system and that the Government do not seem fully to have grasped, judged by their response thus far. There are lessons for all of us.
I was fortunate to have served as a Minister in the coalition. As the smaller party in that coalition, there was much discussion among us in relation to policy proposals that came forward from our larger partner. That partner had pledged a bonfire of the quangos—always a popular-seeming idea. But which quangos? Among the bodies selected for combustion was the Forensic Science Service. We were told that private providers would create a more competitive and inventive system. At the time, there were those who warned of the risk; they have been proved right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has said. Today, there is scarcely a functioning market at all. The forensic science sector has become fragile, concentrated and vulnerable, as others have detailed. Police forces have increasingly taken this work in-house to reduce costs, but this can mean major gaps in expertise and capacity.
I can now hardly see any report of a crime or court case without wondering about the quality and reliability of the forensic evidence. What we heard is devastating in relation to the criminal justice system and for justice as a whole. As others have said, the forensic science services have experienced years of fragmentation and underinvestment. That has major consequences for victims and defendants. Victims may not see justice and defendants may be wrongly convicted. We concluded that the forensic science system is in crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, rightly warned, it is close to a tipping point. We found a near-monopolised and fragile commercial market, inconsistent oversight of police-run services and an enormous backlog. We concluded that the system is not working for anyone, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said.
Since the closure of the Forensic Science Service in 2012, a number of providers have failed, withdrawn from services or been absorbed into larger organisations because the economics are simply unsustainable. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, warned, suppose the dominant provider decides to pull out of the UK. Even now, the result is a market that often rewards lowest price rather than quality. It discourages investment in research, innovation and specialist expertise. Some forensic specialisms are now at significant risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, and others have pointed out. We should recognise the indispensable role of truly independent experts. Police officers perform an essential role, but they are investigators, not specialists in every scientific discipline. Expertise cannot simply be absorbed into routine policing functions and be fair, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out.
We also noted that the storage of forensic material is dispersed across 43 police forces and multiple providers. Evidence retention is too important to be left fragmented. We urgently need a return to an independent national storage capacity. The Minister, like his colleagues, must surely agree.
Then there is the stunning inequality of arms, so devastatingly laid out in our report. Equality of arms is a fundamental principle of justice, yet legal aid funding falls far short of the real cost of obtaining independent forensic advice. The Minister has heard the inequality between defendants and victims. Criminal cases may involve DNA evidence, digital evidence, pathology, toxicology or crime scene reconstruction. Independent experts must often review vast quantities of material and undertake their own analysis, yet lawyers repeatedly report difficulties obtaining adequate funding for this.
The state has access to police resources, investigators and prosecution experts. Defendants of limited means often struggle to secure equivalent scientific scrutiny. When forensic evidence cannot be properly challenged because funding is unavailable, errors may go undetected. Miscarriages of justice have often involved forensic evidence that was misunderstood, overstated, inadequately tested or insufficiently challenged. The criminal justice system is clearly at its strongest when scientific claims are subjected to rigorous independent examination. This position is unsustainable. What is urgently required is the rebuilding of forensic science. This is essential to the fairness, credibility and integrity of our criminal justice system.
The Minister is a very sentient being. I noted his discomfort as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, laid out his case. I hope he has read the full report and that he has reflected on what we are saying and will act on our recommendations. I trust that his messages while the noble Lord, Lord Mair, spoke, were him seeking permission to agree the report. I noted that the Minister frequently looked at the annunciator, which records progress on the Health Bill. I am afraid that no votes will interrupt this debate. Nothing will save him from having to respond to us. I hope that he will come back shortly with agreement that he has clearance to implement what we have said here. Will he, at the very least, agree to update the Select Committee? Reform may appear costly, but the costs of inaction, measured in miscarriages of justice, public inquiries and compensation payments, will be far greater. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and his committee for their unsparing report. It is a particular pleasure for me to contribute to this debate as someone who for many years made great use of forensic science when I had a proper job as a police officer.
The committee’s central recommendation is the creation of a national institute for forensic science. I understand the case, especially for research, training and rare disciplines, but I have concerns about the potential for overlap and fragmentation. Today, forensic functions are scattered across multiple different bodies, so I welcome the committee’s focus on the fragmented approach to forensics. However, I fear that the proposed solution may not solve the problem entirely.
The Government’s answer in the police reform White Paper is the creation of a national police service hosting a national forensic service. But if these reforms go ahead and the committee’s recommendation is also adopted, we may find ourselves in a situation whereby forensics is split between the national police service, the national institute for forensic science, the College of Policing, the National Crime Agency and the Forensic Science Regulator.
I appreciate that the Government’s intention is for the national police service eventually to absorb the College of Policing and the National Crime Agency, but this will not happen for quite some time, which means that during the transition period we would have an incredibly disjointed and even more fragmented provision of forensic science services. Indeed, the committee itself concedes that the institute’s role will need to be co-ordinated with all the bodies I just mentioned. Is not the real problem, therefore, fragmentation and bureaucratic overlap? Adding yet another body to an already crowded field risks a structure in which accountability is entirely lacking.
The White Paper promised to
“consolidate decision making authority for the delivery of police forensics under the NPS and establish the legal mandate for a national lead to deliver all forensics as a service to policing”.
How does a separate national institute square with that? If the Government want to fix forensic science, should they not be reducing the number of bodies with forensic functions rather than increasing them?
There is tension on independence, too. The committee wants a “sterile corridor” between forensics and policing, as in Scotland. The Government say that the national police service will host the service and that they rely on the regulator in the meantime. One witness in the committee’s inquiry made the case that forensic science is a function of the criminal justice system, not of policing. So, which approach will the Government take—the one recommended by the committee and witnesses, or the one that they have outlined previously?
The Government’s response to the committee’s report was published in April under the previous Prime Minister. Since July, we have had a new Prime Minister whose agenda is greater devolution and the so-called “rewiring of the state”, so the Home Secretary has said that the review of force structures has been delayed so that it can be retested against that agenda. Will the Government’s restructuring still go ahead in the form that the White Paper described? Is forensics still to be consolidated within the new national police service? Do the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary agree? The whole of the Government’s reply to the committee’s report rests on those reforms and, if the policy has been changed, Parliament is entitled to know.
The committee also noted that full consolidation into the national police service will not occur until 2034 and warned that action on forensics cannot wait that long, yet the Government have not promised legislative proposals until the next Session. Will the Minister tell us when and what is being done now?
I have a few further questions. First, the Government accept that the defence expert market is “fragile”, yet they say that any change to rates will be “cost-neutral”. Rates have reportedly not been changed since 2005, so how can a real increase be cost-neutral?
Secondly, the committee heard that no one seems able to ascertain how police forces spend their forensic budgets, so can the Minister tell the Committee how much is spent and by whom?
Thirdly, the Government concede that the £115 million funding for AI is not specific to forensics, so how much is in fact earmarked for forensic reform?
We support the committee’s call for urgency on forensic science, but we cannot support a model with more bodies and less accountability. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for bringing forward this important debate today, for the contribution of the Science and Technology Committee to the detailed report and for the blunt, strong and effective way in which the noble Lord put the committee’s case to the Government today.
As a start, I can tell the noble Lord that I was the Minister in charge of forensic services in 2009-10, when I was Police and Counterterrorism Minister as a Member of Parliament in the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010. With my colleague Alan Campbell, the junior Minister, we undertook an examination of the restructuring required for making the forensic service a modern, effective system, and we determined to keep that service in-house.
I can also tell the noble Lord that, in 2012, when the then Government—it was the coalition Government; I say this for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—restructured the Forensic Science Service and effectively privatised it, my colleague Alan Campbell and I opposed that. When I was not in that shadow position anymore in 2018, and served on the Justice Select Committee in the other place, we produced a report that raised many of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, put to this Committee today.
So I say to the noble Lord that, if I winced at some of his punches, it is because I recognised those concerns because I have raised them before. When I say to the noble Lord and his committee that I would not have started from here, I hope he understands that that is because I would not have started from here. But here we are.
The question of high-quality, timely and impartial forensic science is, as the noble Lord and colleagues have said, indispensable to the criminal justice system. It helps police to identify offenders, to eliminate innocent people—the point that my noble friend Lord Stansgate mentioned—to inform charging decisions, to enable the defence to test the evidence and to support courts in delivering justice firmly. The Government take the committee’s report seriously.
I cannot answer for the situation before 4 July 2024, because we were not in government then, and I have outlined to the noble Lord our views at the time. I want to put on record the excellent work undertaken by the forensic community in England and Wales and the dedicated professionals who still work in that area today, but I cannot ignore the long-standing weaknesses that have been highlighted by every Member of this House who has spoken.
The areas of concern have been put into about seven or eight categories, and I will try to address some of them, at least in part. They are around national leadership; independence; the commercial market, which is very fragile, as has been said; evidence retention; AI; the policing White Paper; and the potential for a national centre. If I may, I will start with the Government’s proposals for the policing White Paper, because it is the golden seam that runs through all of this.
When it was produced in January this year, we described a fragmented, inconsistent and inefficient system, and we have set out our intention to enable a new national police service to lead a more stable and consistent model for law enforcement in England and Wales. Ahead of the police reform Bill, we have initiated a number of reforms, including a national reform programme of policing and private sector forensic capabilities. As has been mentioned, central to the reform is the policing White Paper. The new Prime Minister has come in but the general tenets of that White Paper are still in place: a reduced number of forces and a centralised service looking at training, procurement and forensics, as well as many other areas of national security.
It may not help Members who have spoken, but the Bill will be produced at some point in the near future. I cannot talk about the Bill until such time as it is produced, but the direction of travel has been clear from the Government in 2026, and it is clear from the Government now. There are obviously some aspects that we want to look at in relation to the size of the force. We have received the report from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the size of forces; we want to look through it and we will do so. I cannot give comfort on those points today, but there will be governance of forensics in a stronger national service, stronger national leadership and safeguards to independence and impartiality, and the national police service will have clear responsibilities backed by statutory powers. That is the direction. It is not published yet but when it is, as with every piece of legislation, it will go to the House of Commons and it will come to this House. It will go through enormous amounts of scrutiny, and I will have to answer for it to Members of this House in due course.
Let me look at the other points that have been raised. The first question was about national leadership in government. One of the key arguments in the committee’s report, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Davies of Gower, is that responsibility for forensic sciences has been too fragmented. I agree. There is too much variation in how forensic science is organised. There is too much about its assurance and how it is overseen, and strategic change, although extremely difficult, needs to be undertaken. Our aim is to move beyond the diagnosis of the same problems and establish some national structures and capabilities to address them. That includes the appointment of the director of forensic services, working in partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and local bodies to deliver national forensic reforms and programmes. There is an understanding of that, and that leadership will need to be looked at.
The question of independence and impartiality has rightly been raised in terms of the forensic science service. It has to be developed and delivered impartially with scientific rigour. The committee itself has highlighted the Scottish “sterile corridor” model as one way to safeguard impartiality. That has some merits, but it is not the only model and currently the Scottish model does not include digital forensic services. We are looking to make sure that practitioners are free to exercise impartial scientific judgment using validated methods, professional standards and robust quality assurance.
The Government are now working with the police, the Forensic Science Regulator and our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office to look at designing robust checks and balances that preserve that independence while ensuring high-quality and fair science. There are real challenges and problems, but they are ones that we wish to examine.
The regulator’s statutory code of practice expressly requires impartiality and provides external scrutiny and enforcement. Independence also depends on organisational safeguards of professional leadership, transparent decision-making and effective challenge. We are detailing now, through design with stakeholders across the criminal justice system, those safeguards that can be built into the new model.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Neville-Jones, among others, mentioned the commercial forensic market. As I have said, there are real and legitimate concerns about the resilience of the commercial forensic market. I would not have started from here, but here is where we are and we recognise that challenge. Work is under way at the moment: the Home Office director of forensic services has prioritised a delivery project as part of the reform programme to look at engaging with suppliers and working with the police to address those immediate vulnerable specialist services while developing a more sustainable market for the future. I would argue—again, we can refer to this in due course—that national governance will provide a clear review of market resilience and improve our understanding of demand for specialist and low-volume disciplines. I accept that that it is work in progress, but I hope the Committee can reflect on the fact that we are trying to address this particular challenge.
The question of research, innovation and a national institute was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, among others. The committee has made a strong case for better national co-ordination of research, innovation, specialist skills and training. I agree with that need. I cannot necessarily agree, on behalf of the Government, with the solution proposed, but I agree with that need. We do not believe that a separate national institute is necessary, but we do intend to strengthen co-ordination through the national police service and a national annual plan developed with partners across the criminal justice system to look at shared priorities, support collective delivery, give special expertise, be proactive for future requirements, co-ordinate funding and commissioning, and form stronger partnerships with academia, universities, industry and others. We want to make sure that the tests do what I think your Lordships’ excellent report does, which is to try to improve the outcomes, with better co-ordination of research and faster adoption of effective science and systems to anticipate future forensic needs.
The question of digital forensics and artificial intelligence was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ranger of Northwood and Lord Davies of Gower. Digital material is integral to modern investigations. I confess that I love catching up on the Monday night television programmes where the three great transformations of criminal justice—DNA, automatic number plate recognition and forensic science—nail people doing bad things. It is a great pleasure to watch that. I understand, and I know, that we absolutely need to be on top of that game. Synthetic media and deepfakes are creating new challenges, and AI is exponentially sweeping across. That is why we need to look at modernising digital forensics and at new technology. We are looking now at how we can support areas including CCTV analysis and disclosure on translation and transcription. Work is under way across the board to make sure that we modernise what we do in digital forensics accordingly. That is a real challenge, because we can use AI to do this, but AI is equally an enemy that the Government need to be aware of in many areas.
I have been asked the question about financing from the noble Lords, Lord Ranger and Lord Davies. I cannot give an answer today, but I will look at that, dissect the funding and the budgets and come back to the noble Lords in due course.
There was also a question about evidence retention and the forensic archive from my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. The committee is right to emphasise storage and retention. The director of forensic services has started to work with policing and the forensic archive to strengthen retention and storage arrangements. It may not help the Committee, and I know there will still be challenges back to us, but we now have two police forces working with the Home Office to develop a more consistent and qualitative approach to storing forensic evidence and to look at what we can do to roll out a better, clearer, consistent and auditable approach to long-term management of forensic evidence.
A number of noble Lords mentioned defence experts and equality of arms. That is an important area. The Ministry of Justice has a particularly important role in that. A number of noble Lords mentioned the fact that we need a fair forensic system. If it cannot provide good evidence for the prosecution, the defence must also be able to understand it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has great experience in that area. We recognise those concerns and the need to have extra resilience for the defence expert community.
I am speaking for the Home Office, but the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency are now looking at monitoring the availability of defence forensic expertise. Over the summer, they have engaged with defence firms and forensic experts, including on the payment process, which has been raised today. The Legal Aid Agency has published consolidated guidance for experts and, as indicated in the Government’s response to the committee in April, although immediate changes to expert rates will have to be done on a cost-neutral basis, the MoJ is considering the findings of the engagement in the context of the spending review. That goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned. Where higher expert rates are justified in individual cases, there are mechanisms to ensure that they can request enhanced rates where possible. An independent cost assessor can determine appeals against the Legal Aid Agency’s refusal of funding.
Finally, we had streamlining forensic reporting. The committee raised concerns about how forensic evidence is communicated and tested in court. I recognise that forensic evidence must be presented in a way that allows prosecutors, the defence and courts to understand its meaning and limitations. The Forensic Capability Network is examining potential improvements at the moment, and the Ministry of Justice is looking at engaging with the defence community as a whole.
I am answering for the department today. One of the criticisms the noble Lord, Lord Mair, made early in his contribution was that a single Minister is not responsible. My colleague Sarah Jones, the Minister for Policing, has responsibility for this. I am answering today for our department, but I will make sure that she and I reflect on the points that have been made today. We cannot revisit the government response, but the areas of concern are ones that we raised when we were not in government. We need to examine how we can do that. In the two years and three months that the Government have been in office—it might seem a lifetime to colleagues—we have been trying to assess and flush out some of those difficulties and challenges. We agree wholeheartedly that the status quo is not sufficient. That is why we have an ambitious national reform programme, why we are tackling the underlying causes and why scientific quality will remain non-negotiable.
While I cannot say yes or no to everything in the report, if I look, as I did today, at the list of the committee’s recommendations, there are a lot of yeses to them. There are quite a few maybes and a few noes, but they are in the minority compared to the yeses and maybes in relation to the list.
The objective for our reform is to have a more effective system at the national level, regulated robustly and focused on timely, high-quality, innovative and impartial advice. I thank the committee. To be honest, I felt that I was against the ropes on this. Every speaker punched hard on areas of concern. It is important that we recognise those areas. We are trying to work through them. I thank the committee for its report. I hope that in the response I have given some comfort on some areas for the noble Lord, Lord Mair, to share with the members present, past and even future.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his replies. I am sorry if he felt too much on the ropes, but many of his replies were very much from the heart. We understand the position. What is still a concern is that everything is just delayed until a national forensic service is set up, and that is being presented as a sort of panacea to everything. Our remaining and key question is therefore: how long? What is the timeline for this national forensic service to be set up, what is the timeline for the police reform Bill to be published and will the national forensic service be made independent of the police?
There is also the question of funding for the forensic archive and why that cannot not be done now rather than having to wait for the national forensic service to be established. The Minister mentioned the review by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which is currently determining how many police forces will be optimal, but the question is, again, what is the timeline and direction the of travel, what would a national police service and a national forensic service do and do we really have to wait for the precise number of regional forces to be determined before these actions can be taken?
Our overall concern, which I think the Minister appreciated in his reply, is that we are very anxious to see resolution of these urgent issues that we have identified. As I said in my opening speech, as did many other members of the committee who have taken part in this debate, and I thank them, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. We would therefore appreciate it very much if the Minister could write to the committee on any issues left unanswered in today’s debate. I commend this report to the Committee.