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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[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.