Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice (Science and Technology Committee Report)
Lord Mair Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate our Science and Technology Committee report Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice: An Urgent Need. At the outset, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, responding on behalf of the Home Office. I thank the committee members who participated in the report, including those who have since left the committee. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who was co-opted on to the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, for her informative briefings to the committee and support of the inquiry. I thank the excellent committee staff who assisted in preparing this report: the clerks, John Turner and Daisy Robins; the policy analyst, Thomas Hornigold; and the committee operations officer, Sid Gurung.
The inquiry started in November 2025, we published our report in February 2026, and the Government responded in April 2026. The inquiry heard from a range of witnesses, including forensic scientists, companies, the regulator, defence barristers and witnesses from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. Crucially, the inquiry was in part a follow-up to the inquiry that the committee undertook in 2018-19, in which I also took part.
Today, I will first set out the issues our inquiry found with the forensic science system, which many others have also identified. I will then discuss the Government’s response and their proposed policing reforms, which involve setting up a national police service with forensics as part of its remit. These risk kicking a lot of these urgent issues into the long grass. I will conclude with questions for the Minister.
Forensic science is unquestionably a critical pillar of the criminal justice system. We rely on good forensic science to establish the facts of a case. Miscarriages of justice can arise when mistakes are made, both in wrongfully convicting the innocent and in allowing the guilty to walk free. For this reason, a well-functioning forensic science system is critical to the interests of justice in the UK. Unfortunately, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. It is not working for the police, it is not working for forensic scientists, and it is not working for lawyers. Ultimately, it is not working for the public and for the criminal justice system. Our inquiry heard exactly this from Professor Angela Gallop, a prominent forensic scientist. We heard little to contradict it.
To understand the problems, it is necessary to know some history. Prior to 2012, most forensic science in England and Wales was conducted by the Forensic Science Service, which provided forensic science services to the police forces. This was shut down and replaced by a combination of in-house police laboratories and private commercial providers commissioned by the police. This model now suffers from a range of problems, many of which we identified in 2019 and have only worsened since.
First, no one takes responsibility for ensuring that the system works. Responsibility is split between the Home Office, via its responsibility for the police, and the Ministry of Justice—defence, legal aid and courts. But no Minister has forensic science explicitly in their remit. Responsibility for procuring forensic science or providing it in-house is divided between 43 different police forces, which are only loosely co-ordinated through bodies such as the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We identified this in 2019, but the joint structures promised in 2019 were not kept up, so no one really owns the overall responsibility for funding forensic science, managing the forensic science market or workforce planning.
Secondly, the market for forensic science services has collapsed. In 2019 there were three major commercial providers but now there are effectively two. One of them is Eurofins, with over 80% of the market share: a near monopoly. The only other major company emerged from administration in 2018 with a reduced range of services. This is not an efficient, competitive market. The providers run on thin or even negative margins. Our report asked what assessment the Government had made of this concentration risk. What is the contingency plan if Eurofins, the near-monopoly provider and a big multinational, decided not to provide forensic services any more? We did not receive a satisfactory answer.
Thirdly, and in part due to this market collapse, there is now fragmented in-house police provision of forensic services. Most forensic science spending is in-house: some £500 million compared to £100 million spent on external providers, which is to say more than 80%. As providers reduce their services more gets taken in-house, which is a vicious circle. This creates several problems: first, it lacks independence from the police. Scientists know that bias need not be a conscious or corrupt act. It can arise from what you choose to examine, what you choose to ignore and how you choose to interpret the results; it can arise unconsciously. In Scotland there is a sterile corridor between its forensic science and police services, but there are no such provisions in England and Wales. We suggested this as a model that the Government could adopt with their proposed new national forensic service. There has been no commitment to do this.
Practice varies between police forces; there is limited co-ordination as to the forensic science capabilities of each force and there is limited oversight of them. What is done in-house, what is done externally and even how exhibits are submitted all vary from force to force, creating what the Minister for Policing and Crime herself called a “postcode lottery”. This fragmentation is inefficient, with police forces duplicating labs and capabilities. Ministers admitted that they did not know how much was spent on certain activities and by which forces. There is voluntary guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the independent forensic science regulator can set standards that would bind police labs. Most forensic science activities should be accredited according to the Forensic Science Regulator’s code. But in practice our witnesses were concerned that the regulator is underresourced and might hesitate to use its powers to disrupt a fragile forensic science system. We asked the Government to publish the accreditation status of every police force’s in-house forensic science. It agreed in principle but, six months on, no force-by-force data has been published. Accreditation itself creates issues; witnesses described it as slow and burdensome. Compliance is still patchy and the high costs involved drive smaller providers out of the market.
A fourth major issue is that there is no equality of access for the defence. In court, the police have access to their in-house forensic experts and the large forensic science providers, but the defence must rely on a small, fragmented and underpaid community of individual forensic experts. The problems with legal aid are well documented, but what is less well known is that defence experts are paid less by legal aid than the prosecution. In our inquiry we heard that the rates are £83 per hour, paid by legal aid, for the defence experts, while £130 per hour is paid by the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution experts. Given the struggles to obtain legal aid in the first place, we heard that many companies and experts do not pursue defence work because the pay is so limited.
This lack of overall co-ordination gives rise to a host of other issues. Perhaps no issue better illustrates the dysfunction than how forensic evidence is stored. Often, technology advances, enabling subsequent better analysis that can convict or exonerate someone. Storing forensic evidence properly is therefore critical. Under the old Forensic Science Service, there was one national forensic archive that stored forensic evidence to a high standard, but when the FSS closed, responsibility was dispersed to each of the 43 police forces to store their own materials. They are not experts in how to do this. They were not funded to do it. Some forces invested in it but some struggled and the result is that many pieces of critical forensic evidence are getting lost or damaged, jeopardising criminal justice.
One defence barrister told us of an unsolved cold case in which a key exhibit was eventually traced to a police officer’s home, where it had been used to train other officers. A quite staggering aspect of this is that the forensic archive still exists. It still stores all the evidence from the old Forensic Science Service’s archive and has been expanded to hold material from a collapsed provider of forensic services. The forensic archive once expanded responsibility for storing evidence. I am sure that the police would be relieved to have this burden taken away. The Home Office Minister, Sarah Jones, was asked whether the Government should fund a national archive and said, “yes, quite possibly”. The Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, said that expanding the archive was a great idea and that
“we need consistency across the country”.
Yet all the Government have said that they would do is review the forensic archive’s remit. Many months on from our report, there is no commitment to expand the archive. In reducing duplication, it would likely save money. A modest investment in already existing facilities could prevent the national scandal of justice not being done because no one has funded proper storage of the evidence.
Another major issue created by this lack of overall co-ordination is that certain specialisms of forensic science are dying out. We heard that areas such as marks and traces and analysis of fibres, glass, paint and footwear are all suffering. We heard from Professor Angela Gallop that the Stephen Lawrence case would not have been solved without fibre evidence. Some 10 to 15 years ago, there were 40 fibre scientists but now there are just about four or five. Because there is no national-level co-ordination of forensic science, no one is in charge of making sure that we retain vital capacity in these areas, which fall between the cracks of the police and forensic science providers.
DNA testing is clearly a marvellous tool, but it cannot solve every case. Our witnesses were clear that, without these specialisms that I have outlined, some cases would never have been solved. If they die out, there will be preventable miscarriages of justice in the future. As long as forensic science is determined by what disparate, underfunded market actors are willing to pay for, rather than what justice requires, this is where we are headed. The Government recognised that niche disciplines were under threat. They did so in 2019, but the police steering group tasked with looking at this was quietly disbanded. In 2026, the Government have also accepted that these disciplines matter, but there is still no sign of any action to preserve them.
The same is true when it comes to training the next generation of forensic scientists and harnessing new technologies. There is a lack of national co-ordination. Digital forensics is a huge and growing area of concern, yet there has been a stubborn backlog of 20,000 digital devices still awaiting examination. AI could potentially be used to reduce this, but it also poses new challenges in the form of deepfake evidence. The Government have introduced PoliceAI, which funds some pilots on digital evidence, but its funding is not ring-fenced for forensic science. As most digital forensics is done in-house by the police, there is an urgent need for standards and training, including in the use of new tools. Our report recommended the establishment of a national institute for forensic science to maintain tools and guidance for best practice, help to run training courses for forensic scientists and conduct research and development into new forms of forensics. But, again, the Government have not agreed to this.
I now turn to what the Government are doing about all of this. A major development that could be extremely positive, but which also creates a huge deal of uncertainty, is the policing reform White Paper, which has committed to the establishment of a new national police service and, as part of that, a national forensics capacity. Our committee welcomed this idea in principle because of the total dysfunction of the existing system, but when the White Paper was published, around the time of our report, we were also—to quote our report—concerned
“that the much-needed rebuilding of forensic science in England and Wales gets kicked into the long grass while we await uncertain, long-term structural reforms”.
Ten months on from the White Paper’s publication, there is still no Bill before Parliament to set out what will actually happen. The proposed mergers of police forces are still very uncertain and will likely take years, and there is still no launch date for the national police service and its forensics service. There has been continuity in the Home Office at ministerial level, which suggests that these reforms will go ahead, but it is all very uncertain and, in the meantime, the problems that we have identified are continuing to get worse. Although we have suggested that any forensics service should be operationally independent of the police, perhaps through a “sterile corridor” between them, the Government have not committed to this.
Reform will, of course, take time, but our report urged the Government to act now to stabilise the forensic science sector as well as setting it on a firmer footing in the long run. Uncertainty around the long-term reform should not be an excuse for inaction now on issues such as the storage of forensic evidence, addressing legal aid funding for defence experts, preserving niche disciplines and setting up a national institute for forensic science, as many other countries have done, to safeguard expertise while the policing reforms are undertaken. All these could be undertaken now, but on the vast majority of our recommendations there has been little sign of movement.
In summary, the issues with the system that our report identified are not new. Many were identified in our earlier report in 2019 and have not been addressed. The Westminster Commission on Forensic Science report also identified many of these issues last year. The Government have a real opportunity to grasp this problem, prevent future miscarriages of justice and rebuild a forensic science system in which the public can have confidence. We have been sounding this alarm for a long time about such glaring issues in an area that is core to criminal justice, but the Government’s position has shifted from neglect to an abdication of responsibility. We will get the justice that we are willing to pay for, so investment in shoring up the system now is vital to avoid preventable tragedies where the innocent are convicted and the guilty walk free.
I conclude with just a few specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. First, when can we expect to see the police reform Bill introduced, and when will the proposed national forensic service actually start operating? Secondly, will the Minister commit to making the national forensic service operationally independent of the police, as in the Scottish model, and to putting that independence in the Bill? Thirdly, what measures are the Government taking to shore up the marketplace for forensic science? If Eurofins, with 80% of the external market, withdrew tomorrow, what is the Government’s contingency plan? Fourthly, Ministers, officials and witnesses all praised the forensic archive and suggested that it should be given funding and responsibility to store forensic evidence, and it is keen to do so. Is there an ongoing review of its capacity? Will the Minister commit to allowing it to expand? Finally, while the wider police reforms are under way, what will the Government do in the next 12 months on three important issues: preserving forensic specialisms; supporting defence experts with parity of pay; and setting up a national institute for forensic science.
Our Select Committee has looked at this twice, in 2019 and last year. Our report warned that, the next time that we have to do so, it will not be a diagnosis but a post-mortem. The Minister still has time to prove us wrong, but not much time. I beg to move.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his replies. I am sorry if he felt too much on the ropes, but many of his replies were very much from the heart. We understand the position. What is still a concern is that everything is just delayed until a national forensic service is set up, and that is being presented as a sort of panacea to everything. Our remaining and key question is therefore: how long? What is the timeline for this national forensic service to be set up, what is the timeline for the police reform Bill to be published and will the national forensic service be made independent of the police?
There is also the question of funding for the forensic archive and why that cannot not be done now rather than having to wait for the national forensic service to be established. The Minister mentioned the review by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which is currently determining how many police forces will be optimal, but the question is, again, what is the timeline and direction the of travel, what would a national police service and a national forensic service do and do we really have to wait for the precise number of regional forces to be determined before these actions can be taken?
Our overall concern, which I think the Minister appreciated in his reply, is that we are very anxious to see resolution of these urgent issues that we have identified. As I said in my opening speech, as did many other members of the committee who have taken part in this debate, and I thank them, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. We would therefore appreciate it very much if the Minister could write to the committee on any issues left unanswered in today’s debate. I commend this report to the Committee.
Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)
Lord Mair Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mair (CB) [V]
My Lords, it was a privilege to have been a member of this House’s Science and Technology Select Committee under the expert and excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I congratulate him on his wise leadership.
Our report, published in May 2019, highlighted that this country was once regarded as world-leading in forensic science and seen as the international benchmark. But, regrettably, this is no longer the case—we are lagging behind other countries. This is principally because of an absence of high-level leadership, a lack of funding and an insufficient level of research and development. Our inquiry repeatedly heard that the forensic science system in England and Wales is not operating as it should; it is inadequate and in a state of crisis. We heard consistent evidence of the decline in forensic science, especially since the abolition of the highly respected Forensic Science Service in 2012.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlined some of the principal recommendations of our report. One was the creation of a forensics science board to take responsibility for forensic science in England and Wales. Another was the creation of a national institute for forensic science to set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development, and to co-ordinate and direct research and funding. The Government decided not to implement either of these key recommendations, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will focus on two important areas affected by this decision: the market for provision of forensic services; and the research and development requirements, especially relating to digital forensic evidence.
On the market for provision of forensic services, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly emphasised the urgency of giving the Forensic Science Regulator a number of statutory powers. The proposed establishment of the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis is much welcomed. The noble Lord drew attention to our inquiry hearing evidence of a dysfunctional forensic science market. Our committee recommended that these statutory powers should include the means of regulating the market.
The effectiveness of forensic science for the criminal justice system depends critically on who provides it and how accessible it is. It must be good enough to be relied on by the courts, and it must be equally accessible to both the prosecution and the defence. Since the closure of the Government’s Forensic Science Service in 2012, some types of forensic science analysis are increasingly undertaken by police forces in-house, particularly disciplines such as fingerprint analysis and digital forensics. Our inquiry heard that the forensic marketplace accounts for about 20% of service provision for law enforcement in forensic services by value, with the remaining 80% of forensic science work undertaken by in-house employees of police forces.
There has been a large reduction in spending on forensic science services. We heard that the £120 million spent on forensic science in 2008 was down to about £50 million in 2018. Significant reduction in spending on commercial providers of forensic science has contributed substantially to market fragility. We were told by a number of witnesses that the state of the forensic science market in England and Wales is unsustainable and in need of urgent reform. A number of private forensic science providers had gone into administration or been suspended, leading to significant fluctuations in the market and consequent problems for the criminal justice system. Dr Gillian Tully, until recently the Forensic Science Regulator, stated in her 2019 annual report that more needed to be done to stabilise the procurement and provision of forensic science services by police forces.
Procurement of forensic services from private providers is largely run by the 43 police forces and their police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. A distinctive feature of the forensic science market is that, in any given region, the police forces are essentially the sole customer. We heard evidence that commoditised procurement processes had led to a 30-40% erosion in pricing over six to seven years. Suppliers of forensic services were being forced to compete so heavily on price because the contracts were so big and came around so infrequently. The result was prices being reduced to unsustainably low levels. We all know the dangers of this: the level of scientific skills offered by private providers of forensic services is inevitably compromised if they are being driven down to very low prices.
In their response to our report, the Government acknowledged that there is a strong relationship between price and quality. The key question, therefore, is how to rectify the current situation. Our committee heard how, as an alternative procurement model, some police forces are now using a managed service model. In this model, for a fixed price a large provider contracts to provide police forces with all the forensic science services they need long term, for up to 10 years.
Although this provides long-term stability for a large provider, it leaves little opportunity for the smaller specialist providers, many of which are uniquely able to offer scientific analysis in important niche disciplines. Evidence we heard indicated that some important specialisms are dying out because they are no longer sustainable. This is worrying.
Our report concluded that the current procurement models for forensic science services will need to change substantially in order to stabilise the market. The evidence pointed to the need for a body to oversee the market and ensure continuity of high-quality service provision. Without this the criminal justice system will continue to be severely compromised.
Our committee recommended that the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently review the structure of the market for forensic science, and also review the procurement process for commissioning private sector providers alongside provision by police forces. The primary aim should be to determine a procurement model that balances price, quality and market sustainability. It is particularly important to ensure a level playing field between private and public sector providers of forensic science services, maintaining the capabilities of small providers in niche disciplines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Forensic Science Regulator will be given the necessary statutory powers to achieve this, overseeing and regulating the market effectively, thus ensuring its stability and its quality?
The second and final area on which I shall comment is research and development, especially in relation to new technologies and the increasing importance of digital forensic evidence. Digital evidence is now a key component in many criminal trials. Digital forensic capabilities must therefore be available to both the prosecution and the defence. Our committee heard that around 80% of all crime cases have a digital element, whether it be CCTV, mobile phones and social media data, or cyberattacks. Interrogating and analysing digital evidence is becoming increasingly time consuming. The evidence was clear that very considerable investment was needed in the use of modern technology to handle, search and analyse digital content.
Digital forensics is a rapidly expanding field. Its increasing importance is clearly recognised in the comprehensive Digital Forensic Science Strategy published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2020. The value of artificial intelligence and machine learning to the criminal justice system cannot be overestimated. A modern mobile phone could have 1 terabyte of data on it, equivalent to many thousands of documents. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have vital roles to play in facial and speech recognition, and in identifying patterns of behaviour. There are enormous opportunities to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to streamline the handling, searching and analysis of digital forensic evidence. However, there are complexities, because human biases might be replicated by machine learning systems. This requires more research, particularly in the context of evidence for criminal trials.
A further pressing complexity is the rapid rise of deepfake technology. It is now possible to create digitally altered videos or soundtracks that make someone appear to have done or said something that they have not done or said. Deepfake videos and soundtracks are becoming easier to make and are dangerously difficult to identify as fakes. We are entering a world where it is no longer possible to believe all digital information. It is these very complexities that point to the urgent need for research in digital forensics.
Our report recommended that UKRI, working with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, should urgently and substantially increase the amount of funding allocated to forensic science, for both technological advances and foundational research. We emphasised the need to focus on digital forensic science evidence and the opportunities for understanding and developing further capabilities in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise this vital need and will act accordingly?
In summary, there can be no question that proper delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of forensic science evidence, and the trust that society has in it. There are urgent changes needed to the system of procuring forensic science services to address market fragility, ensure stability and maintain high quality. There is also a need for more funding to be allocated to research and development in forensic science, especially in the rapidly changing area of digital forensics.
My final point is—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
I am sorry, I have to suspend the committee for five minutes for voting.
Lord Mair (CB) [V]
I am indeed, thank you. I was just about to conclude. My final point is this: included in the title of our report were the words “a blueprint for change”. How much of the blueprint will really materialise? There are fears that only a few of our recommendations will be implemented. Substantial change is needed across the board if forensic science is to properly assist the criminal justice system. Full confidence in its provision needs to be restored.
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill
Lord Mair Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mair (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to join your Lordships’ House and to be speaking in this debate. I must first thank noble Lords on all sides of the House and all the officials and staff for the very warm welcome that I have received. I also thank my two distinguished supporters, the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Rees of Ludlow.
I have been an academic engineer in Cambridge in more recent years, after almost 30 years as a practising civil engineer, but I continue to have a close involvement with industry. I have given expert evidence to various Select Committees in both this House and in the House of Commons, most recently—and here I must declare an interest—on HS2 on behalf of the promoter.
My only previous experience of the Parliamentary Estate has been making sure that Big Ben remained vertical during construction of the new Westminster station and associated tunnels for the Jubilee line extension. It was no mean feat to build a very large station extending to a depth of around 40 metres—almost the height of the Big Ben clock above ground level—close to Big Ben itself. This was in the mid-1990s, when I was running an engineering consultancy and advising London Underground. I remember alarmist press headlines such as the Evening Standard’s: “Tunnel may give Big Ben that Pisa Tilt”. The “Leaning Tower of London” might have become a tourist attraction, but a damaged tower—or worse, a collapsed tower: no Big Ben at all—would have been catastrophic. The fact is that the foundations of Big Ben, constructed in the 1840s, are challenging. The Victorian engineers, wonderful in so many ways, were rather adventurous with Big Ben’s foundations—some would say brave. Modern geotechnical engineering means that we know a lot more about difficult ground conditions and ground behaviour.
HS2 will use the same methods for estimating settlements caused by tunnelling and the same innovative technology used to protect Big Ben. They are now well established and have been widely adopted on projects all over the world. They have recently been used very successfully to protect hundreds of buildings from damage during construction of Crossrail.
As we consider the case for HS2, we should look at it in terms of the economy of the country and the challenges we face. We must remember that modern engineering and infrastructure are crucial, as is money spent on research in science and technology. Even in these stringent times, investment in new infrastructure such as HS2, and money spent on research into new technology, is money very well spent. It is vital for our economy to invest in the future.
We are in some sense a victim of our own past success. As founders of the Industrial Revolution, we are now living with old infrastructure, much of it Victorian and no longer fit for purpose. In 2014, the Institution of Civil Engineers published a report—and here I should declare an interest: I am currently a vice-president of that institution—which concluded that not one of the UK infrastructure sectors analysed was what it termed “fit for the future”. Those sectors were: energy, strategic transport, local transport networks, flood management, water and waste. It reported that only two of the six sectors, strategic transport and water, were “adequate for now”. Only adequate for now, not fit for the future.
The World Economic Forum ranks the UK’s quality of infrastructure 28th in the world, and that is for a country with the world’s fifth largest economy. It is not a happy state of affairs. The construction of HS2 would very significantly modernise and increase the capacity of our rail network system, which is much needed as demand for rail transport steadily increases. HS2 would also strengthen connectivity between key city regions and create economic and regeneration opportunities. It must be seen in the context of a wider national transport strategy rather than as a single project developed in isolation. I particularly welcome the recent recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. These include the integration with HS2 of the proposed HS3, which would provide further modernised rail connections between our major northern cities, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott.
We are all rightly concerned about the cost of HS2. It will be expensive, but I suggest that using the very latest engineering innovations to streamline construction and reduce costs, building on the example of Crossrail, will ensure that HS2 proves good value for money. I have personally been involved in Crossrail as a member of its engineering expert panel. It is currently Europe’s largest construction project and its tunnels are all now substantially completed. It is also on time and on budget. The point is that Crossrail has a very strong innovation programme and collaborates with universities. Working closely with partners in industry and financed in part with government research money, at Cambridge we have developed new sensor techniques for use both in new construction and on our ageing infrastructure. These novel fibre optics and wireless-sensor technologies have been tested and proved in the Crossrail tunnels and stations. I mention this because the research, funded by EPSRC and Innovate UK, has provided clear evidence of where very significant savings can be made in the future. Crossrail 2, recently recommended to go ahead by the National Infrastructure Commission, is already taking account of these potentially substantial savings. HS2 can do the same.
The digital revolution affecting all areas of our lives brings dramatic changes for infrastructure. This means much smarter infrastructure. We will be able to understand exactly how a building, a tunnel, a bridge or a railway line is actually performing during construction and throughout its lifetime. Also, we will know how to prioritise what needs to be replaced and when, and how to manage it all much more efficiently. This will lead to more economic design, reduced costs and greater efficiencies both in the capital cost of construction and in the subsequent operating costs. All of this will be of great benefit to HS2.
To conclude, the economy of this country vitally depends on having modern, fit-for-purpose infrastructure such as HS2. This needs to be underpinned by government- funded university research in science and engineering. Implementing the latest innovations from such research in its construction and operation will be highly beneficial for HS2, as it will be for other large infrastructure projects. I welcome the Government’s recently published National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016 to 2021, which includes a £138 million investment in UKCRIC, a consortium of leading UK universities doing research in infrastructure and cities.
The sooner construction begins, the sooner the full HS2 network can realise the creation of more than 25,000 jobs, including 2,000 apprenticeships. HS2 will transform the way in which we deliver infrastructure, enhancing Britain’s world-class capability to export innovative engineering around the world. Its workforce will develop new skills in the latest design and construction techniques. Its suppliers will be able to develop exportable products and services of great benefit to our economy. There is a rapidly growing global market for high-speed rail, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. HS2 will bring huge export potential for the UK.
Much, of course, depends on the continuing ingenuity of our engineers. I finish with the recent words of His Royal Highness Prince Philip in an interview in December for BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme:
“Everything that wasn’t invented by God was invented by an engineer”.
I hope that construction of HS2 will proceed rapidly and prove to be an outstanding showcase for UK innovative engineering at its very best.