Let it be clear to the House that the Minister of State is replying to the debate.
Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill, 1989 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
That is understood.
Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht tábhachtach ar an mBille seo. Ceapaim gur féidir a rá gur glacadh go ginearálta leis an Dara Céim, agus beidh seans againn é a phlé níos mine ar Chéim an Choiste amach anseo. I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Bill. It is fair to say that Members on all sides of the House have in general welcomed the Bill on which a number of points and questions were raised. Obviously some of these can be carefully teased out on Committee Stage. However, I will try to reply to some of the more general points made.
Deputy Flanagan made a number of points on the DNA test. This test will be done at our own forensic science laboratory which operates to the very highest standards. If an accused wants to have a sample independently tested he may do so and, if he is in receipt of legal aid, then the cost of the test will be met from that source. With regard to the regulations, all the important safeguards——
On a point of order, even though I am a very patient Member of this House I have to complain once again on a Justice Bill that the Minister for Justice is absent.
That is not a point of order. Will the Minister of State please resume his speech?
It should be pointed out that the Minister for Justice is once again absent.
That is not in order. The Deputy is being disorderly.
I do not wish to be.
The Minister of State to resume his speech.
It was very discourteous of the Government not to ensure that the Minister would be here to reply.
Let me repeat the last point I made. If an accused wants to have a sample independently tested he may do so and if he is in receipt of legal aid then the cost of the test will be met from that source. With regard to the regulations, all the important safeguards are included in the Bill. The regulations will outline the detailed procedures.
The DNA test will be introduced as soon as possible. I can assure Deputy Kavanagh that this will be the case. The dangers posed by AIDS have to be taken into account. The Deputy was right to highlight this point. He also stated that the legal technicalities will be used to thwart the provisions of the Bill. This is always a danger but I believe the Bill is carefully drafted. I hope this will not be a problem.
Deputy McCartan raised quite a number of points. He expressed concern at the use of inferences. It should be pointed out that an inference will only arise if consent is refused without good cause. It will not be enough on its own to secure a conviction. Other corroborative evidence must be produced. He also expressed concern about possible abuses such as the use of the power for information gathering. The very exacting safeguards in the Bill rule out this possibility.
What are those safeguards? What safeguards have been included to meet the problem of——
Deputy McCartan realises that the Minister of State is replying to Second Stage, that he should be allowed to do so without interruption and that he should not be expected to respond to interjections. There is no-one better than Deputy McCartan to put all the appropriate questions on Committee Stage. I know that Deputy McCartan accepts that.
I accept your ruling. I had indicated at length in my contribution that I needed very specific information before deciding whether or not to support the Bill.
When the Minister concludes a question may be put. Perhaps Deputy McCartan will hold on until then and it will be a matter for the Minister of State whether to reply or not.
Would your experience of the last three days influence you to accept an interruption in a debate with the aim of eliciting some information?
We learn every day. What we saw in practice was noteworthy but, as our Standing Orders do not provide for it, pro tem we must take the best of our system.
Is it one you would recommend?
I would not object to it. It is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
These Anglophile tendencies are regrettable.
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
Deputy McCartan recommended the use of district justices in the making of authorisations. This simply is not practical. When we come to Committee Stage I will be able to give the Deputy very detailed reasons why this is so. The Deputy also referred to the retention of records. This is in line with what is contained in the 1984 Criminal Justice Act in relation to fingerprints, photographs and swabs. He also mentioned video and audio-taping. This matter can best be considered when the report of the Martin Committee becomes available. The Deputy made a number of points on the way samples should be treated and stored. These points have been noted and the regulations will deal with these matters.
The Deputy referred in detail to the methodology used on the DNA test and its evidential value. As the Minister said, this Bill does not represent an endorsement of the DNA or any other test. The value of the test is a matter for the courts.
Deputy Andrews mentioned the use of force in the taking of samples. The position is that the Garda can use reasonable force to take non-intimate and non-intrusive samples such as head hair, fingernail scrapings or a swab from the hand. What we are talking about is forcefully taking or holding the suspect's hand. The force employed must be reasonable. Nothing would be justified which would cause injury. What is involved is simply the same power which exists in relation to the taking of fingerprints.
Deputy Andrews raised the question of the reliability of the DNA test. I have already dealt with this matter and the Bill makes no claims for any test. The powers provided in the Bill are necessary even if there were no DNA test. The value or the weight to be given to evidence procured for any forensic test is a matter for the courts to decide. I think the Deputy accepts this.
Deputy Dempsey mentioned the value of tests like DNA profiling in securing convictions in rape cases. I very much agree with the Deputy. Evidence may be thus provided which would not otherwise be available.
This is an important Bill which when enacted it will provide the Garda Siochána with a vital weapon in the fight against serious crime. The Bill will enable the Garda to take advantage of modern developments in forensic testing procedures, including the DNA profiling and genetic finger printing test which can provide extremely accurate and reliable information for the purpose of identification. It also must not be forgotten that the powers which are provided for in the Bill currently before the House are not there for the benefit of the prosecuting authorities alone but are just as capable of establishing that a particular person did not commit an offence of which he may have been suspected.
I accept that where important new powers are given to the Garda it is necessary to provide adequate safeguards for persons who may be subjected to these powers. This has been done in the Bill. I do not propose to go over old ground in this respect but it is worth mentioning that no sample could be taken under the Bill without the specific authorisation of a Garda officer of at least superintendent rank, and that officer would have to be satisfied that a sample would help to establish whether a suspect was involved in a particular case. In addition, where intimate samples are required, it will be necessary for the Garda to obtain the consent of the suspect.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom arís mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht thábhachtach seo. Tá me cinnte — agus ghlac me féin é seo ar Chéim an Choiste sa Seanad — go mbeidh deis againn go léir an Bille a chíoradh go mion ar Chéim an Choiste, agus má tá freagra de dhíth maidir le mion cheisteanna beidh siad ar fáil.
I indicated to Deputy McCartan that if he wished at the conclusion of Second Stage, before I put the question, he could restate a question he put earlier.
The Minister of State has indicated that the reasons for many of the positions taken by the Minister will be advanced on Committee Stage. I am happy to leave it there other than joining with Deputy Kavanagh in saying that I am dismayed that yet again on an important Stage of a Bill replies to points made by all the spokespersons were not given by the Minister. It is something that is happening much too often.
Question put and agreed to.
Could we get an indication of the date for Committee Stage?
It is proposed to take Committee Stage next Tuesday, 6 March 1990, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
In respect of that, the Minister had indicated that a very important issue about the Bill would be considered perhaps in the context of the Martin Committee I would invite the Minister of State to consult with the Minister for Justice to see if it would be in order for us not to take Committee Stage until the Martin Committee report is available. I understand that that is due imminently.
I will consult the Minister and, if it is imminent, I am sure the Deputies could be facilitated.
We now have two Bills from the Minister for Justice, the Criminal Justice (Rape) (Amendment) Bill and this Bill. For those of us in Opposition, who do not have the same facilities as the Minister, I wonder if he could give us some indication of when these Bills will come before the House? There is also the Firearms Bill?
That question would not be entirely in order now, Deputy. The Deputy can ask that question on the Order of Business on Tuesday and it would be perfectly in order. For the moment we have indicated next Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
Perhaps I could be helpful to Deputy Kavanagh. I would hope to be in a position to take the Firearms Bill next week.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6 March 1990, subject to agreement between the Whips.