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

Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his leadership of this important inquiry, our committee staff for their excellent work, especially our policy analyst Thomas Hornigold, and all the witnesses.

I must confess that forensic science is not an area in which I would claim any particular expertise—far from it. Like many people, much of my personal understanding of forensic science has come from watching great programmes such as “Quincy, M.E.” or, latterly, “CSI” and the occasional Hollywood crime thriller. If those programmes are to be believed, forensic scientists have unlimited resources and extraordinary technology, and can solve almost any crime in about 45 minutes, including the commercial breaks. Unfortunately, our inquiry revealed that the reality in England and Wales could hardly be more different. What shocked me most was not simply the gap between fiction and reality but the extraordinary fragility of a system upon which something as fundamental as justice depends.

I will focus my comments on the people, skills and expertise upon which forensic science relies, and how we safeguard them for the future. Throughout my career, when working on major technology programmes, in business or in government, I have learned one fundamental lesson: technology and systems are important but, ultimately, it is people, their knowledge, experience and judgment, that make them work. This is equally the case in the world of forensic science.

Our inquiry heard deeply concerning evidence about the workforce. The evidence showed that we have a significant number of undergraduate forensic science courses, undoubtedly encouraged by the popularity of the subject, yet career opportunities are limited, salaries relatively low and pathways into sustainable employment far from clear. We also heard concerns that some courses do not provide the rigorous scientific foundations required for professional forensic work. There is something fundamentally wrong when we encourage young people to pursue a scientific career without ensuring that the training and employment opportunities exist to support them. As such, our committee recommended a review of forensic science degrees and better practical training, including opportunities for trainees to follow cases from crime scene to courtroom.

However, perhaps more alarming is what is happening to the expertise we already possess. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has stated, we heard that just 10 to 15 years ago, there were around 40 specialist fibre scientists working in forensic science; now, it is four. Even a lay person knows that forensic science and fibre evidence play a critical role in solving the most serious of crimes. Yet this entire field of specialist scientific expertise is approaching the point where it could simply disappear. Once that knowledge is lost, it cannot easily be recreated.

I have spent much of my professional life advocating for technological innovation, digital transformation and, increasingly, the appropriate use of artificial intelligence. AI offers enormous potential to analyse information, identify patterns and support forensic investigations. At this point, I refer to my register of interests, particularly my roles with VE3 and Great Wave AI.

But we must recognise two important realities. First, AI must enhance scientific expertise, not become an excuse for allowing expertise to disappear. An algorithm may identify a pattern, but scientific understanding, validation and professional judgment remain essential to interpreting what actually matters. Secondly, new technology creates new challenges. Deepfakes, synthetic media and increasingly sophisticated digital devices make establishing the authenticity of evidence more difficult. Without the expertise to understand, challenge and validate that evidence, we risk undermining confidence in the justice system itself.

I will make three practical points. First, we require a national forensic science workforce strategy—one that connects universities, professional training, research institutions, policing and commercial providers, ensuring rigorous qualifications, genuine career pathways and the retention of experienced professionals.

Secondly, we must urgently protect specialist scientific capabilities. Where disciplines may be commercially unviable but essential to justice, the state must seek to ensure that the expertise survives. Justice cannot simply depend solely on whether a scientific specialism generates a commercial return.

Thirdly, we need a clear national strategy for technology and AI in forensic science. That means investment in research, approved tools, training and expertise required to use emerging technologies safely and effectively. Our committee has, as many fellow Peers have said, recommended establishing a national institute for forensic science, and I echo that. It would play a vital role in co-ordinating these priorities. But I am also concerned that the Government have deferred much of this approach to their work within the wider policing reforms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair.

I have two main questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to publishing a national forensic science workforce and skills plan, alongside a clear programme for preserving endangered specialisms and skills? Secondly, of the £75 million committed to the police AI programme, how much will be specifically allocated to forensic science and how will the Government ensure that this investment develops the skills and scientific capabilities we need?

Ultimately, this is not simply about science, technology or workforce planning. As has been said, it is about ensuring that the innocent are protected, the guilty are brought to justice and the public can have confidence in the evidence upon which our courts rely. We cannot afford to discover the true value of these skills only after they have been lost. I look forward to the Minister’s response.