Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)

I am not convinced that giving the gardaí additional powers at this stage is the correct way to tackle the concerns that exist regarding criminality. I am not convinced that as the divisions in Irish society increase, concerns about the performance of the gardaí increase and as concerns mount regarding the treatment of persons in custody that we should be giving the gardaí additional powers. I am not sure we should use high-tech measures such as electronic tagging because I am not convinced the international research indicates it is a worthwhile move for Ireland. We should ensure instead that the gardaí have sufficient manpower to do the job they are trained to do. I am aware the Minister has made a commitment to increase the number of gardaí. While it is impossible to snap one's fingers and increase the number of gardaí overnight, I had hoped that more resources would have been put into ramping up the amount of recruitment to the Garda so that we can get more gardaí on the streets. We should allow the gardaí to function in the way they would wish. Instead of running from one crime scene to another, they should be given the time to walk the beat, talk with people in the community and engage with the citizens they serve. Instead it appears we are providing a significant increase in the powers of detention and Garda control over those whom they wish to investigate. We are concerned about the increase in detention periods, the right to take body samples without permission, electronic tagging and the requirements on firearms.

We are still waiting for the Minister to make a valid case for an increase in the detention period from 12 to 24 hours. Also, the increase of detention periods applies to all arrestable offences, which is too broad. For example, offences such as the destruction of property and rape will have the same detention period. A more focused approach would be better than providing such a broad measure to the Garda Síochána. Increasing the detention period may lead to an abuse of the offender's rights in the context of pressure to sign a statement.

We urge the Minister to ensure that a person can have a lawyer with them during questioning. At present, a person has the right to access a lawyer but does not have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. This significant increase — a doubling — of the detention period puts more psychological pressure on an individual being held in custody. We must ensure somebody is present to assist them in this period.

The Bill should include detailed regulations for the taking of samples. Moreover, the Minister should take account of the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission in regard to the Bill. The commission rightly pointed out that this is an invasive procedure which can be used as a means of humiliation. The spectre of Saddam Hussein being examined following capture by American forces in Iraq shows how one can be humiliated by the taking of samples or intimate handling while in custody. Regulations must be in place before we proceed with this broad permission to take samples. Examples from abroad support this. The Human Rights Commission referred to the specific safeguards in place in Australia to protect the rights of the individual while taking body samples.

It is interesting to consider international experience of electronic tagging. The evidence suggests that utilising the services of a probation officer is as useful as electronic tagging. The rate of recidivism does not decrease if electronic tagging is used. I worry about the loss of contact with the individual in that tagging is more a futuristic surveillance operation than an engagement with the individual in custody. The lesson in regard to Irish criminality of the past ten years is that we must address the root causes of crime in society and the fact that many of those in custody come from a very small cohort of the population. I am not convinced using high-tech measures to monitor this group while they are out of custody is the way forward. We should first address the reasons for their criminality.

A properly resourced probation service would be able to do its job more effectively, particularly in the area of overseeing community service orders. I urge the Minister to take on board the concerns of non-governmental organisations and the advice of the Canadian Government which stated in regard to a report on electronic monitoring that one of its most telling findings was that the recidivism rate for the electronic monitoring of offenders was not different from the rate of probationers after controlling for offender risk. The lack of difference questions the cost-saving value of electronic monitoring.

I worry about the diminished human contact with the individual. This will increase——

See this speech in context