Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

Courts in this jurisdiction are reluctant to deny bail without a compelling reason due to the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. People on bail are obviously awaiting a determination of the court. We are arguing that where there is a real likelihood of an offence being committed, the individual should be kept in custody. The notion that 50,000 people would be subject to curfew indicates that where there is a lesser option such as electronic monitoring, it would become more readily used. How would that fit in with our Constitution, which guarantees people liberty? Monitoring is a curtailment of liberty.

I do not know what percentage the 50,000 cases would be of the overall number of bail application cases in the United Kingdom but it appears to be a significant proportion. I am worried that it could be perceived as not a major step to delimit somebody's freedom to the extent of requiring them to be subject to curfew or monitored in this way. Is it an option that might, if it was overused, fall foul of our Constitution's right to liberty and free movement and, second, the right to be determined to be innocent until proven guilty?

Is there further information on cost? The Minister told us last week that the more people who are involved, the cheaper it will be. Will there be an economic reason for having the system used more often rather than less often?

See this speech in context