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

Baroness Neuberger Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Mair for chairing our committee so ably. I want to pay a great tribute to the staff of the committee and the clerks—Thomas Hornigold and Siddhant Gurung. We had fantastic help with all this.

In response to the committee’s report, the Government state that they agree

“on the need for strong national leadership and clear safeguards to ensure the independence and impartiality of forensic science”.

They continue by saying that:

“The current governance model has contributed to significant variation in how forensic work is organised, assured and overseen. This has reduced opportunities for efficiency from scaling innovations or best practice, impacted staff flexibility and development, inhibited private sector investment, prevented effective performance and service management and made assurance more complex and expensive”.


Quite so—in other words, the Government absolutely accept this committee’s analysis.

But the Government then added:

“The Forensic Science Regulator already provides national leadership and accountability for the quality and oversight of national forensic services. We will create national governance for forensic services in the National Police Service”.


So far, so good, although we would argue for greater independence. Yet, despite the Government saying that they want the new national police service to host a nationally led forensics service, nothing has happened—I think we are going to be a bit like a stuck record here—nor is there much sign of anything happening. Given that this was not our preferred option, but that the Government were keen to press ahead with their national police service and to give it these functions, can the Minister give us any indication of when we might see some progress here?

As others have said, we also recommended a national institute of forensic science, as many other countries have, to provide co-ordinated national leadership across a range of functions, including research and development, specialist and low-volume disciplines, expert competence through training in core methods and novel techniques, best-practice guidance, training and national capacity assessment. This was precisely because of concerns over fragmentation and the risk that vital specialist capabilities, innovation and expertise are being neither sustained nor shared consistently. The current system leaves significant gaps in research, in training for forensic scientists and in co-ordination for forensic science capabilities. The preservation of forensic science specialisms, which cannot turn a profit in the commercial market, is still absolutely vital for the interests of justice.

The UK is almost alone in not having a national institute. We heard from the Australian national institute about the useful work that it does overseas. Critically, our committee recommended that a national institute for forensic science could be set up now, without waiting for police reform. An independent institute would play a number of important roles in the system and would counterbalance a forensic science service entirely under the aegis of the police. An institute could set research and development priorities for forensic science on a national basis, employ experts to preserve specialist skills that the forensic science market cannot pay for and provide impartial expertise to both prosecution and defence to assist in equality of arms and help safeguard the independence of forensic science.

Despite the strong argument we made for the creation of a national institute for forensic science, this was rejected by the Government, who maintained their line that the new national forensics service under the national police service would resolve all these problems. We believe that this is the wrong approach and ask that it be reconsidered. Other colleagues have said the same. We do not think that it is too late.

Meanwhile, can the Minister tell us just how long it will take to create a national governance role for forensics in the national forensics service as part of the national police service, and to give it a legal mandate to deliver the service to policing? Unless I am much mistaken, there is no sign of a police reform Bill yet. All this seems to be taking an unconscionably long time.

My noble friend Lord Mair has covered almost all the other issues, as have other speakers, but I want briefly to pick up on the inconsistent arrangements for the storage and retention of evidence across police forces. We called for the expansion or re-establishment of a national forensic archive and the use of trained forensic archivists, supported by clear national standards, to ensure that evidential material is stored securely and managed consistently across England and Wales. The Government actually agreed, especially when it comes to appeals and cold case reviews, but all we got in response was the statement:

“The Director of Forensic Services will work with policing partners, the Forensic Archive and the Home Office to consider how evidence retention and storage can be more robust”.


Although the Government acknowledge that

“The ability to retrieve forensic evidence underpins the integrity of investigations in particular appeals and cold case reviews”,


they gave us little comfort. Can the Minister give us more comfort today?

A credible and fair forensic service should be a basic provision of our justice system. Like other speakers, I think that this is part of what the UK stands for, and I am really sad that we have come to this. Despite the evidence of many scientists and others that we are not doing well, and that the supply of future forensic scientists has all but dried up, we have been given little reason to think that the Government think this as important as we do. Can the Minister tell us that they do think it is as important as we do, and can he tell us when they are likely to act?