Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In the first instance, I note that the Labour Party will support the Bill's passage to Second Stage. However, we have some serious reservations about some of the conditions or content of the Bill and have several questions.

I refer to the issue of electronic tagging. While I need some further clarification, from my reading of the legislation this is the third attempt to legislate for electronic tagging. This legislation seeks to do something which is already on the Statute Books and one wonders about the efficacy of such an effort. I refer specifically to the administrative consolidation of the Bail Act 1997 as prepared by the Law Reform Commission. On page 14 of that consolidation, under the heading F22, it states amendments "Inserted by Criminal Justice Act 2007(29/2007), s. 11, not commenced as of date of revision". That is the first attempt. It then continues with F23, "Substituted (14.08.2017) by Criminal Justice Act 2017 (14/2017), s. 7, not commenced as of date of revision"

Now we have before us a third item of legislation, which seeks to legislate for electronic tagging. Tagging is already on the Statute Books but it has not yet commenced. That is an issue we should explore further on Committee Stage. I am happy to receive clarification if my points are misdirected but I am not entirely sure they are. As such, there are some reservations on that score.

I received a document today from the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, which tallies with the concerns of the Minister. Spokespersons such as Deputy Ó Laoghaire also outlined some of its contents or there is a coincidence between the points he makes and the contents of the IPRT submission. I will quote from that document because it sums it up for me with regard to section 2(a) and fettering discretion of the Judiciary. It states:

It is important to note that the Court already has the power to refuse an application for bail under the 1997 Act (as amended) where they are satisfied that such refusal is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence. In response to concerns over a perceived increase in offending by people while on bail, Article 40.4.6, the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, was inserted in 1996 as a result of a referendum. Section 2(1) of the Bail Act, 1997 gave effect to this amendment, providing that:

"Where an application for bail is made by a person charged with a serious offence, a court mayrefuse the application if the court is satisfied that such refusal is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person."

The issue of recidivism is a great worry to all of us in this House, regardless of our political hue and beliefs. None of us can stomach the fact that there are those who commit crimes while out on bail. Recently in this House, we had passage of a Stage of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017, which is now before the Seanad. We have had some external commentary on the efficacy of that Bill. In dealing with issues around offences committed, I am genuinely concerned that Members are legislating in a way that could put us offside with the Constitution. We are attempting to deal with the issues that are societal or are due to a lack of resources in policing and so on. The solution to all of those problems is not in the making of law which could subsequently be overturned if it is tested, or if it is challenged at a future date. We have to proceed-----

See this speech in context