Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We are treating all individuals sentenced to terms of imprisonment equally. If ten years have elapsed since someone was imprisoned, this ceases to be relevant to him or her. All those who have served terms of imprisonment will be treated equally in that context. There is no legislation under the Good Friday Agreement relating to the circumstances I have described. Measures have been implemented and complied with as agreed, but I cannot take this any further beyond the response I have given which sets out clearly the different steps that can arise under this legislation and the circumstances in which protection is provided. I do not see this being an issue of particular concern in the context of the Bill's provisions, but I cannot distinguish in it between individuals who have served prison sentences and been released for less than ten years and others. There has to be a reason for someone seeking to obtain the DNA information. It cannot simply be a case of "Whoops! There is some and I want it." Specific provisions will apply to An Garda Síochána in seeking to ensure the appropriate steps are taken. A series of in-built protections apply in this regard. If someone falls into the category about which the Deputy is concerned, there are substantial reasons for concern that he or she is engaged incriminality and there is a reason to seek a DNA profile, in these circumstances someone should not be excluded from seeking it. The provision deals with issues that are in the public interest, treats people equally and tries to ensure safeguards are in place in order that the possibility of obtaining a DNA profile is not abused in any circumstance. There have to be solid reasons for seeking it and, ultimately, if the individual who is requested to co-operate declines to do so, there can be a prosecution. However, in the context of the prosecution, clearly the court would have to be satisfied that it was reasonable for the Garda to seek the profile in the circumstances prescribed by the Bill.

I understand the Deputy's concerns, but the amendment is not necessary. Clearly, there are technical, legal reasons as to why it is not feasible to accept it.