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

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[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.