Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I thank the Oireachtas Library and research service for, once again, producing an excellent digest on the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill 2010 that is before us today. The topic covered by this legislation generates much interest and debate. We in Fine Gael have long called for the introduction of DNA related legislation. The subject of DNA and forensic evidence and its application to crime has captured the imagination of the public, with numerous television programmes, films and novels portraying a system where criminals are eventually made to pay for their crimes thanks to the application of scientific methodology. We started with the "Scooby Doo" cartoons but these have now evolved into the "CSI" series currently on our televisions. We have seen this interest in forensics manifest itself through our education system, with an ever increasing demand by students for courses at university and third level colleges in this field. However, this portrayal of forensics does not really reflect the more mundane reality.

I would like to deal first with the issue of funding for the operation of the DNA database. I note that the Minister has set aside €4.1 million of his 2010 capital budget for the development of the DNA database. If I were the Minister, I would review some of this State's more recent forays into the world of information technology. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, should take a good look at our record on electronic voting, PPARS and various other IT initiatives. These very quickly ran out of control from a cost point of view and ultimately were scrapped, providing none of the advantages to the Irish public they were supposed to bring.

The fact that the database system is electronic means that the Minister must take the point of view that the system is corruptible. I would welcome it if the Minister indicated whether he has considered this and invite him to address the issue in his response to the debate. Has he put in place the relevant safeguards to optimise the performance of the DNA database? The subsequent annual costs of maintenance and oversight must also be nailed down at this early stage. It is somewhat ironic that we are embarking on this interaction of science technology and the law when representative associations inform us that many of our Garda stations are not yet e-mail enabled. This is difficult to believe.

I would prefer that in publishing this Bill the Minister placed more emphasis on the area of juvenile justice. Statistics and data, as published by the Irish youth justice service and backed up by the Garda, show a marked drop off in criminal behaviour once a youth reaches the approximate age of 16 or 17. I would like to see a change in the period of time for which data is held for people of this age. There is a strong body of opinion that our juvenile justice system should be distinct from the adult criminal justice system. The Minister, in establishing similar sample retention times for those under and over 18, is flying in the face of the reforms his Department is pursuing in the area of juvenile justice. I hope this anomaly is addressed on Committee Stage. Deputy Rabbitte also referred to this.

The historical international experience in the use of DNA databases seems to have been one of establishment, followed by expansion, followed by review and then, to a certain extent, row-back. The operational systems of many countries have changed over the years. I understand that in this legislation the Minister has taken due cognisance of the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S. and Marper v. United Kingdom. The results of this case are interesting in that the initial evidence for the original UK DNA database was provided when both S. and Marper were juveniles. I repeat my request to the Minister to create more of a distinction between juveniles and adults in the legislation.

The contentious element of the Bill is no doubt the retention of information on the DNA database from people who have not been convicted of or charged with any crime. The Minister must tread carefully, and the Bill requires more work in this regard. No matter how many times the Minister states there is no implication of guilt, when a person's details are maintained on a database as proposed in this Bill, this will not always be the case. The interaction between science and the law can be interpreted as an undermining of the basic tenet of innocent until proven guilty.

The review mechanisms proposed by the Minister need more scrutiny. Section 69(6) provides that in publishing any report or laying a copy of a report before each House of the Oireachtas, the Minister may

omit any matter from the copy of the report that is so laid or published if he or she is of opinion that the disclosure of the matter---

(a) would be prejudicial to the security of the DNA Database System, the security of the State or the investigation of criminal offences, or

(b) may infringe the constitutional rights of any person.

Paragraph (a) could ultimately be interpreted as allowing for the prevention of any questioning of the system or the manner in which it operates. As I have already stated, we cannot make such an assumption with regard to something that is by nature electronically based. I would like to see this aspect of the review mechanism discussed further on Committee Stage.

I welcome the publication of the Bill, which will, on balance, be an asset to the State in the fight against crime. It is a contentious Bill and still requires some work during its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

See this speech in context