Forensic Science Regulator Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark on his very clear and well-argued explanation of the case for the Bill. The Member for Bristol North West, Darren Jones, clearly made a very good choice in deciding who to ask to sponsor the Bill in this House.

My noble friend made reference to the breadth of disciplines covered by forensic science today, and the importance of all involved in and with the criminal justice system having confidence in the methodology used, evidence given and conclusions reached by forensic scientists in light of the potentially powerful impact that their findings can have on the outcome of a case. Poor-quality forensics can lead to failed prosecution of criminals and a failure to secure justice for victims. At worst, it could even lead to the conviction of those who are innocent. Worryingly, a Home Office-commissioned review, to which my noble friend referred, identified an increased perception of the risk of unsafe forensic evidence. Hence the importance of an oversight regime that is independent and has the resources, skills, knowledge and powers to ensure that there are not only mandatory quality standards applicable to the providers of forensic science services, but that such standards can be enforced. It is this latter aspect that the Bill is designed to address by putting the existing forensic science regulator post on a statutory basis and giving the regulator powers to enforce a statutory code of practice for forensic science activities relating to the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

The current role of the regulator includes delivering standards and ensuring the quality of providers and processes, but the regulator does not have the power to require compliance with codes of practice, ensure consistency of standards and deliver change, because present regulation operates on a voluntary model basis.

According to a report from our own Science and Technology Committee, the private forensic science market is dominated by three large providers, all of which have experienced some form of instability. The market is also served by a number of smaller private forensic science service providers, some of which employ only one or two people. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we also need to consider, albeit separately, wider concerns about the state of the forensic science services than are covered by the Bill.

In July 2019, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the regulator needed statutory powers because of

“an unstable forensics market which has been on the brink of collapse, and the clear need to uphold quality standards across forensic services”.

My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark also referred to the view of our own Science and Technology Committee when it said:

“It is hard to understand why … the Forensic Science Regulator still lacks powers they need … The Forensic Science industry is in trouble; such action is now urgent”.


That view was also held by the last regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, who said in her final annual report, published in January:

“Although a last resort, the potential for enforcement action is an important driver for proactive improvement. It will also mean that those who fail to follow robust scientific methodology and the legal requirements on experts can be prevented from continuing to pose a risk to the criminal justice system”.


Previously, the regulator had said that the delay in passing such legislation had

“without doubt resulted in slower progress towards compliance with quality standards, particularly in very small companies and police forces”.

In 2016, the Government said that they would develop proposals to give the forensic science regulator statutory powers. I understand that the Government continue to support this Bill, and I hope they will confirm that in their response today.