Hon Chairperson, hon members, the Portfolio Committee on Police undertook a study tour to Canada and the United Kingdom from 24 June to 10 July 2011. The purpose of the trip was to study the impact and implementation of DNA legislation - DNA standing for Deoxyribonucleic Acid - their forensic services, their facilities, procedures and best practices in respect of DNA and national DNA databases.
In choosing to visit these countries, the following factors were considered: one, a country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights or laws that protect human rights; two, a country with an established DNA database; three, a country with legislation governing DNA profiling and DNA databases; four, the sizes of the DNA databases; five, the number of years that the databases had been in existence and legislation had been in effect; and, lastly, the type of reference categories on the databases.
Canada and the United Kingdom were identified by the committee as the best suitable countries, in terms of meeting the factors we have just mentioned. Canada has a Bill of Rights, a DNA database and DNA legislation. It follows a human rights-based approach in its implementation of DNA legislation.
The state has been able to balance its need to collect DNA to fight crime, while also safeguarding the individual's rights. DNA was used for the first time in Canada in 1987 to help solve a criminal case and was first accepted in Canadian courts in 1989.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom does not have a Bill of Rights. However, it has the largest and well-established DNA database in the world. The approach to the implementation of DNA legislation in the United Kingdom is geared more towards crime fighting and less towards the protection of human rights, especially privacy rights. However, the legislation is currently before parliament to address the issue of indiscriminate retention of DNA profiles. As the portfolio committee, we believe that the use of DNA in criminal investigations is scientifically reliable. Based on some important lessons learnt during our tour, we have made a number of recommendations that will serve as a guide only when legislation on DNA is processed.
The portfolio committee recommends that a clearly costed and comprehensive implementation plan that describes the cost of each phase should accompany the processing of the Bill. The protection and limitation of constitutional rights must be taken into account.
As a country, we have to decide on what we want to achieve through DNA legislation, as well as what we can afford in terms of cost. It is important to note that the United Kingdom and Canada are both First World countries with bigger national budgets and better police facilities compared to South Africa.
In conclusion, the report we are tabling for adoption is comprehensive and informative, and we urge members to read it. It includes the history of DNA in South Africa, the work of the ad hoc committee, the work of the Portfolio Committee on Police and a detailed account of our engagement with different institutions, experts, intellectuals, and members of parliament, both in Canada and the United Kingdom.
I want to thank the members of the delegation for the manner in which they conducted themselves. It was hard work and business unusual all the way. We want to thank Parliament for allowing us to undertake this trip.
We now have a better understanding of the subject of DNA. The High Commissioner to Canada, Ms Pheko, was surprised by the manner in which we were organised, focused, hard-working, and honourable in our conduct. I want to thank the delegation once more. We move that the report be adopted. I thank you. [Applause.]
There was no debate.