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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[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.