Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

This section deals with electronic monitoring. I am opposed to this proposal for a number of reasons. In the context of the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, the Tánaiste said electronic tagging would have to prove more efficient and less expensive than traditional probation and welfare measures. However, we have not seen any evidence to prove this.

The only information I have been able to locate on electronic tagging is contained in a report by the British probation service which found that electronic tagging cost twice as much as supervision by members of the probation service. The private security companies which administered the electronic tagging schemes did not routinely follow up violations by individual offenders and the British Government paid private tagging companies approximately three times the actual cost of each offender monitored. The report concluded that electronic monitoring did not lead to a reduction in the level of reoffending.

I cited that report last year and have not yet been contradicted. It is a pity we do not have sufficient time to debate this issue. When the Tánaiste heard our argument, he said he was initially in favour of electronic tagging but as more evidence emerged, he agreed to reconsider the issue because he said his enthusiasm for it was ebbing. He stated:

When the data began to emerge, I wondered where it was worth the candle, but rather than walk away completely from it, it is included in limited form in the legislation ... I have not yet generated plans for its immediate roll out, other than, perhaps, on a pilot basis.

That statement concerned people who were convicted but we have not seen the pilot project, the new evidence which proves electronic tagging is the greatest thing since sliced bread or the additional investment needed in the probation and welfare service to ensure it has the capacity to monitor persons on bail or after release. Deputy Howlin asked for evidence on whether electronic tagging worked and data on the numbers tagged in Britain, to which the Tánaiste replied:

I know from listening to BBC Radio 4 that a fair number of crimes were committed by people who were under the supervision of the probation service in the UK. I presume the same applies in this instance.

He is correct that no system is infallible but we need to examine the matter in closer detail before we start to undermine the rights of people who are presumed innocent. In last year's instance, we addressed people convicted by the courts. The provision needs further examination. With regard to last year's proposition, the Irish Human Rights Commission, which has not had an opportunity to prepare its considered opinion of this legislation such is the haste with which it is being processed, stated electronic tagging should not be used as a replacement for the Probation and Welfare Service and should not result in resources being diverted away from this service, which is under resourced. The commission favours alternatives to electronic tagging.

Judges in other jurisdictions have issued tagging orders like Smarties because they can avoid the procedures such as those proposed by the Tánaiste regarding bail applications. I am inclined not to agree this proposal because evidence has not been presented to us and because, since the Tánaiste stated electronic tagging will be monitored by the private sector, further elements of the criminal justice system will be privatised.

See this speech in context