3rd Report - Forensic science and the criminal justice system: a blueprint for change

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government agrees that "change is needed" and says implementing the joint-review will address many of the Committee's concerns, while it will evaluate the Committee's recommendations "in partnership with stakeholders" and amend plans only "where there is a strong business case to do so".

• On a Forensic Science Board, it agrees Home Office and Ministry of Justice leadership is needed but is reviewing the existing steering group, and will determine with the Criminal Justice Board whether that group "should take on formal Board status".
• On statutory powers for the Regulator, it is "committed to giving statutory powers" by legislation "at the first opportunity" and is "actively exploring" a government Bill "as parliamentary time allows". It considers compliance notices and barring non-compliant providers from giving evidence to be "sufficient", and says the Regulator cannot rescind accreditation because UKAS is the awarding body.
• On market regulation, it agrees with the "ends" in the report but says the proposed model "requires significant consideration", and will study other models and consult other bodies that may be better placed than the Regulator.
• On a National Institute for Forensic Science, it will "carefully consider the business case", while saying work in progress is "a significant step in the right direction". On advocate training, it can encourage the independent regulators but is "unable to accept these recommendations as binding on the government".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error