Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of electronic monitoring is to monitor compliance with bail conditions. Its intended effect is to encourage a person on bail to comply with the conditions the court has imposed. There are a range of safeguards to ensure it is used appropriately already in the Bail Act. The Act requires a person subject to electronic monitoring to consent to it and the provisions only apply to adults charged with serious offences. It is also not possible to restrict the movements of a person on bail to such an extent they must remain in any specific place or residence at all times. It is clear that most of the conditions this amendment seeks to impose are already provided for in the Bail Act. Imposing additional conditions on the use of electronic monitoring will simply make it more difficult to impose and will result in people being refused bail where they may otherwise be granted bail subject to electronic monitoring. That is the impact the Deputy's amendment will have.

With regard to data protection, the Deputy quoted the Council of Europe but the Data Protection Acts set out the law governing all data in any form that can be processed. All data gathered as a result of any provision of this Bill or the Bail Act are subject to the Data Protection Acts. It is already subject to the Data Protection Acts. One of the features of those Acts is that personal and sensitive data may only be processed in accordance with law. Therefore, where specific provision is made in this Bill or in the Bail Act for data to be gathered, processed and used for certain purposes and in a certain way, it is the specific provision in this Bill or the Bail Act that will apply. Gathering, storing and processing the relevant data under the provisions of the Bail Acts is of itself complying with the Data Protection Acts. The Deputy's concerns are ill-founded. The Data Protection Acts already do what the Deputy is trying to do by way of amendment. It is not necessary.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to amend section 6D and to restrict the provision of electronic monitoring services to non-commercial or not-for-profit providers. It would prevent current arrangements used for electronic monitoring by the Prison Service. It would restrict the possible options for providing electronic monitoring. I do not share the Deputy's concerns that a commercial operator cannot appropriately and effectively provide the electronic monitoring service. Such a provider would be bound to operate the service in accordance with the statutory provisions and contractual obligations imposed by the State. Limiting the provision to non-commercial operators would restrict the available operators and possibly lead to circumstances in which electronic monitoring services could not be implemented in some locations or perhaps not at all. It would also be likely to increase costs. I am not inclined to accept the amendment on that basis.

See this speech in context