Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[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.