DNA evidence not a 'knight in shining armour' in fight against crime warns Crockart

6 July 2010

Edinburgh West MP Mike Crockart has today spoken in a debate at Westminster Hall on the use of DNA data in tackling crime. The debate, initiated by Shipley MP Philip Davies, also dealth with CCTV and addressed the Government' proposed changes to the use of CCTV and DNA technology in fighting crime.

In the debate Mike urged against overestimating the potential of DNA technology to to act as a 'scientific knight in shining armour for serious crimes.' He emphasised the need to 'protect the right of the innocent to privacy' and expressed his concern at a system which had 'blurred the line between guilt and innocence.'

Mike criticised the 'unrestrained proliferation of CCTV across the country.' Pointing out that there are many more CCTV cameras in Shetland than in San Francisco, he pointed to statistics showing that just one crime per year is solved for every thousand CCTV cameras, which cost the taxpayer £25,000 each. Mike said that the number simply don't add up.

Mike stressed that both CCTV and DNA should be evaluated solely in terms of their effectiveness as tools against crime. Raising questions about the cost-effectiveness of DNA information, Mike pointed out that while the cost of the National DNA database (NDNAD) - the largest of its kind in the world - had doubled in the past two years, the number of detections made using DNA information had fallen by a quarter over the same period due to what he called a 'law of diminishing results.' Mike strongly opposed the suggestion by the Conservative MP David Nuttal that DNA samples should be mandatorily taken from all children at birth.

Speaking after the debate, Mike said: "There are too many people who believe that to have a safer society we need a CCTV camera on every street and to hold the DNA of every citizen. That's not a desciption I recognise.

The move towards the Scottish model for using DNA against crime in England and Wales is long overdue and I welcome it. There should be no hazy middle ground between guilt and innocence - those who have committed crimes have forfeited their right to privacy, but I will oppose any system which threatens the right of innocent people to their privacy.

Of course CCTV is an important weapon against crime if it's used strategically. The problem comes when it becomes something of a comfort blanket, giving people a false sense of security. That's when it can actually work against creating the kind of responsible society we need."