Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Forensic Services

Tuesday 9 November 2021 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Barry Sheerman asked about discussions with the Home Secretary on forensic services quality.
  • The Minister stated willingness to work with Barry Sheerman on forensic issues, noting the importance of forensics in the criminal justice system.
  • Tracey Crouch inquired about welcoming forensic science developments and committing to routine reviews of unsolved cases.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Barry Sheerman Lab
Justice & Courts
Context

The quality of forensic services used in the UK's criminal justice system has been a growing concern among professionals involved.

Question

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the quality of forensic services used in the criminal justice system. This question aims to understand if there have been any formal or informal talks addressing the concerns about the current state and future direction of forensic science in legal proceedings.

Answer from Kit Malthouse

As the Minister with responsibility for cross-departmental criminal justice issues, I spend a lot of time talking to myself. This response avoids addressing the specific discussions requested and provides no substantive information on any formal or informal talks held regarding forensic services quality.

Not addressed: The question about discussions with the Home Secretary was completely avoided by providing an irrelevant statement.

How: Irrelevant Statement

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Barry Sheerman Lab
Justice & Courts
Context

Many individuals within the UK's criminal justice system are deeply concerned about the state of forensic science, which is fundamental to a functioning legal framework.

Question

I am sure the Minister is aware that many people in the criminal justice system are deeply worried about the state of forensic science. Will he not only have a serious look at the evidence from the recent House of Lords inquiry but keep in touch with me and with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to work on getting this urgent matter right again?

Answer from Kit Malthouse

I am more than happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on the issues that he raises. He is quite right that forensics are a critical part of a good and functioning criminal justice system. The Home Office has invested over £25 million in each of the past two years into the transforming forensics programme, bolstering the Forensic Capability Network.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The commitment to review evidence from the House of Lords inquiry and maintaining contact was not specifically addressed.

How: General Agreement

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Tracey Crouch Con
Crime & Law Enforcement Justice & Courts
Context

There has been recent development in forensic science that led to the conviction of David Fuller for two murders and multiple counts of sexual abuse.

Question

Will the Minister welcome the developments in forensic science leading to last week's conviction of David Fuller, and commit to ensuring routine reviews of unsolved cases with every scientific advancement?

Answer from Kit Malthouse

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. She is quite right that as forensic science develops, we are able to revisit some elderly cases and reveal true perpetrators of awful crimes. The killers of Stephen Lawrence were caught nearly 20 years after the killing due to developments in blood microdot assessment.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The commitment to reviewing unsolved cases routinely was not explicitly stated, despite acknowledging the importance of forensic science advancements.

How: Acknowledgment Without Concrete Action

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)