Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I presume the Tánaiste will rebut the arguments. With regard to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's comments, the Home Office in Britain said that rather than diverting people away from prison, more than 80% of electronic tagging orders were used for people who would not have received custodial sentences in the first place. That, therefore, implies an additional cost rather than a saving. There is a presumption of innocence and, therefore, tagging represents a diminution of civil liberties. Politicians rather than judges will have to take the cost implications into account. In fact, Members' ability to make proposals is restricted by Standing Orders on the basis of cost. This means that judges will impose electronic tagging orders on a wide range of people, which will constitute an additional cost.

In itself, tagging will not prevent people from reoffending. Those at whom the Minister stated this legislation is aimed, namely, major drug barons who order or organise crime empires, can so do from their homes and nothing in a tagging order will prevent this.

Another problem with this measure concerns someone who is on a charge but who has a livelihood that requires him or her to move away as this would be prevented by a tagging order. For example, fishermen and fisherwomen around the coast would be affected by this legislation. Will such individuals be tagged to remain at home with a resultant loss of livelihood because they breached some fishing regulations? This Bill has implications for that industry.

See this speech in context