Holyrood debates new DNA powers

Opposition parties have criticised the DNA plans

A shake-up of the regulations governing the DNA of suspected criminals has been debated by MSPs.

It is proposed to allow police to keep DNA samples for three years in violent or sexual offence cases, whether a person is found guilty or not.

Police could then seek court permission to retain them for a further two years.

Opposition parties have criticised Labour MSP Paul Martin's amendment to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

I'm on the side of the victim on this issue Paul Martin Labour MSP

At present, DNA samples taken when a person is arrested in Scotland must be destroyed if they are not charged or convicted.

Mr Martin said the law lords were satisfied his amendment would not infringe civil liberties.

Speaking on BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Martin said: "I'm on the side of the victim on this issue. I appreciate we need to test civil liberties and human rights, but I think it's very firmly on the side of the victim."

Mr Martin said he would be happy to donate his DNA sample as a public duty and felt that his amendment was designed to prevent criminals from re-offending.

The MSP said he had sought a compromise on a number of issues and was confident his amendment would receive support.

'State property'

SNP justice spokesman Kenny MacAskill said the move could "bring in a DNA database by the back door".

Urging the Lib Dems to vote against the amendment, Mr MacAskill said: "They and their coalition partners must remember that the law has a duty to protect the innocent as well as punish the guilty."

Tory MSP David Davidson said a basic tenet of Scots law was the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

Mr Martin said he believed the plans would receive support at Holyrood

"Keeping the DNA of a person who was found not guilty is in total contradiction to these beliefs," he added.

"This move is not a compromise, you cannot compromise on innocence and guilt. Protection either extends to every innocent person, or nobody at all."

Green justice spokesman Patrick Harvie said the proposal meant innocent people's DNA would become "state property".

Human rights lawyer John Scott said the relationship between the state and the individual meant that people with a conviction forfeited certain rights.

"That includes the right to retain their DNA or fingerprints. If people have been acquitted then normally they have been restored to the position of innocent people and this (proposal) ends that," he added.