Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

While I accept what the Deputy says about the concerns of the Human Rights Commission, there are more than the accused's human rights to be concerned with. The human rights, for instance, of victims of child sexual abuse and serious assault and the relatives of victims of homicides must be taken into account, as well as the human right of the rest of the community to have an effective system of law. Some people seem to think that human rights centre on accused persons. If one consults Article 40 of the Constitution, one sees that the State is obliged to uphold everyone's human rights. The focus sometimes slips so that we begin to discuss rigid exclusionary rules and massive safeguards for people suspected of having committed serious offences while stripping away reasonable measures to bring people to justice, the ultimate human right for victims of crime. I do not wish to sound dismissive of human rights, but they apply across the board. The human rights of someone mugged in the street are violated, but those of the alleged mugger may or may not be violated by how that person is dealt with in the criminal justice process.

The State has an obligation to both of those people rather than simply to one. We would otherwise have an ineffectual criminal justice system. I listened to Deputy Kenny's comments about rebalancing the system, and Prime Minister Blair says the same in the United Kingdom. If we constantly concentrate on the human rights of alleged perpetrators and never on those of victims, we skew the whole language of such rights.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh has mentioned that some things may infringe human rights or have certain implications. I would be much more impressed if he said that something represented a clear violation. In a phrase I used on another occasion relating to the Human Rights Commission, tendentious remarks are made that something may have a certain effect, but it is also the case that it may not. If the Human Rights Commission is of the opinion that a measure is not justified by reference to human rights considerations, it should say so rather than advancing a tentative position that something could have human rights implications and leaving it out for Deputy Ó Snodaigh to attend the House and say that the Human Rights Commission has said something is not necessarily the best way to deal with such issues. We all have human rights and rely on the Garda to protect them. It can only do so if it has effective means at its disposal, both preventative and detective, regarding crime. I make the point that we seem to be losing our focus.

The second thing is that taking a swab with a cotton bud from the inside of someone's cheek is a hell of a lot less invasive than keeping someone in a cell for 12, 24 or 36 hours. This set of proposed safeguards is not applied in those circumstances. Therefore, I do not know why we are so afraid of DNA sampling but quite happy to force someone to stick his or her finger on an ink pad and put it on a piece of paper, or to provide a palm or footprint. What is so different about a swab in one's mouth? We seem to have a phobia about any new technology that is effective. It is not the case that substantial numbers of crimes are being solved using DNA evidence, although I believe that we will have far more extensive use of DNA. In the context of a database being provided for in the rebuilding of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Garda headquarters, I have great hopes that it will happen.

This is rather ritualistic stuff. If taking a swab requires so urgently to be circumscribed by so many protections, why is that not so with taking a hair sample or the print of a finger, thumb or palm? What is it about DNA that has everyone up in arms compared with other legitimate investigative techniques? The Deputy will appreciate that I do not propose to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context