Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Their presence is timely in light of the discussion we had last week. We had a number of sessions. One was with a group from Ireland, North and South, during which issues around electronic monitoring were discussed with regard to sex offences, particularly child sexual offences, and how it might be regulated. We discussed other Bills last week.

Deputy O'Callaghan made the point, which I do not really agree with, that politicians know the people and that is our great asset. I am not so sure about that. It could be said, and the Deputy is absolutely right, that issues of crime and sentencing are issues of significant public interest in which our tabloid media, in particular, play a very damaging role in informing - that is, misinforming - the public on these issues. They actually prey on the hurt that has been done to victims and do not help anybody. Politicians have a responsibility in their responses to the genuine hurt and problems that exist to deal with these things in an evidence-based way. Sometimes what we put forward actually fuels that media problem and does not address it properly. We discussed Bills here last week - one in particular - where it was as plain as could be that the Bill would not achieve anything it was supposed to achieve but was being put forward as an emotional response to an horrific crime. I do not agree with such a method. Deputy O'Callaghan does not normally do that either but I am not sure if he is doing it on this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to make the community safer. That is what it is about. It is about making people safer in response to some of the horrible crimes that have happened while people were out on bail. The problem is it does not do that. It is as simple as that. All it does is tie the hands of judges. That is what it seems to do. We need to tease that out a bit more. If we look at some of the decisions that have been made and some of the court judgments, much of the time the judicial decision was not because the judge decided "I want to let this fella out" but because he or she was given inaccurate information by the gardaí or was not given the full picture. Changing this legislation will not address the deficit in information that is often given to judges. We should hear a little bit more on that point. I very much accept Ms Deane's point that the judges should listen to senior gardaí but there have been some awful cases in recent years where senior gardaí have given very bad evidence. Instinctively judges side with gardaí but there has been much information that indicates they have not always been as good as it says on the tin.

It has been emphasised by the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights that while previous convictions can be considered in bail applications there are serious constitutional issues such as the right to liberty that have to be considered when making previous convictions a reason for mandatory refusal of bail. I would like Deputy O'Callaghan to tease it out a bit more, particularly when it is taking away from a judge the possibility of factoring in other issues such as disability or serious illness or other criteria that should be taken into account.

It is timely that the replies to parliamentary questions we received on prison overcrowding were reported in the media today. What are we saying here? We are going to incarcerate more people pre-trial and put them into a Prison Service that had 676 people sleeping on mattresses in July. How will that impact on the safety of staff, the morale of other prisoners and on education and training?

We know prison numbers have risen to more than 4,000. What level of research has been done? I know Dr. Rogan gave some good figures relating to those in pre-trial detention but what level of analysis has been done to show from where the rise in incarceration is coming, and whether it is linked to bail breaches?

I would also like to hear more about the evidence in much of this, particularly the process of electronic monitoring. It has been provided for since 2006 but it has not been implemented anywhere in the State except with the Irish Prison Service monitoring people on temporary release. Last year's criminal justice Bill was enacted but the impact has not been reflected in any statistics. Would we not be better off analysing this a bit more? Why has it not been implemented? Last week everybody was saying it was not a silver bullet, and everybody here agrees, but the process has not been implemented. Should we not do it first? There were constitutional issues raised about mandatory monitoring and removing judicial discretion but have further issues been raised? Does anybody have information on the lack of safeguards detailed in the provision to operate an effective monitoring system, as this must be taken into account as well?

There is also the matter of cost-effectiveness, as there is a major expense in the monitoring. If we go along with this we are creating the illusion of making society safer but we are ignoring all the evidence indicating that this does not happen. Putting legislation on the Statute Book on that basis is a matter of incredible concern when we could be diverting resources. It is incredibly costly to do electronic monitoring and we would be far better investing in the types of initiatives spoken about by Ms Dean, such as beefing up the Probation Service to give people support while on bail, so they can understand conditions and turn up in court. It is good stuff. This is definitely the wrong direction and I emphasise the point made by Ms Malone in that judges have power. Restrictions are imposed all the time. Perhaps people may wish to comment on judicial guidelines. We could improve sentencing guidelines and how people deal with the pretrial process. It could be a far better basis for this process. I am just asking for a couple of comments as the points have been incredibly well made by the panel.