Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is my current reading of the legislation. I will reflect on it again if there is a report to be written. I have two remaining points which I will make together. People can address them but I am not looking for a response. My view is that there needs to be more resourcing, especially for the Garda, to pursue people where there are significant breaches of bail. Numerous cases have been highlighted. The case of Shane O'Farrell is well-known but there are other cases where significant breaches of bail happened and nothing was done to address it. The issue of conditions being laid down but not being pursued is as significant as what we have before us.

Electronic monitoring is already possible. I believe it has a role. Deputy O'Callaghan said it can sometimes be defined as liberal, conservative, reactionary or however one wants to describe it. I believe that with certain safeguards, in certain circumstances, it can have a role. The safeguards need to exist and we need a sense of how effective it can be in particular circumstances. We discussed this issue generally last week with a different set of guests. I am of the view that electronic monitoring is only as effective as those who are charged with monitoring the information it provides. If the information provided by electronic tagging shows that people are in places where they are not meant to be or are not in the place they are meant to be in, that does not put us in a different situation to the current one where people are breaching conditions of bail regarding location. Electronic tagging might provide us with additional information but it will not necessarily prevent anybody from doing those things unless the resources exist within the Garda to pursue people about this.

My final question is specifically for the IPRT but if Dr. Rogan or Ms Deane want to address the issue, they may as well. I think I understand the point about constitutional issues relating to the imperative but want to see it elaborated on if possible. An imperative is provided in this Bill that the judge shall refuse bail. Having said that, within the same section, there is something of a safeguard relating to whether such a refusal is "considered necessary to prevent the commission of a relevant offence by that person". In the witnesses' view, does that save it constitutionally?