Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss this issue. This is a topical subject on the tagging of people who are out on bail and proposals that those on early release from prison, having served some of their sentences, would also be tagged. Much has been made of some of the incidents that have happened recently in rural Ireland, especially in Tipperary. There has also been an increasing number of robberies taking place in Dublin. The concept of tagging has been discussed as if it is a new concept.I asked the Minister why she has not invoked section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which allows for tagging of criminals. The reason it would make sense is the economic cost of €6.45 per day and that its use in other jurisdictions has seen crime reduced. Some 62% of those released early from prison end up reoffending, with 80% of those doing so in the first year. When electronic tagging or smart tagging was brought in in other jurisdictions, the level of reoffending dropped by 85% to 95%. What I cannot understand is the Department of Justice and Equality talking about bringing in legislation on this when there is already section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act of nearly ten years ago that would allow for the tagging of those who are out on bail. I am merely asking the Minister why the Department is not putting that into effect immediately without having to wait for more legislation to do exactly what is provided for already.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising the issue. I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, who unfortunately cannot be here today for reasons I am sure the Senator will understand.

I wish to outline the reasoning behind alternative sanctions and the value of supervision as opposed to monitoring. I understand perfectly the argument the Senator makes. Section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which I assume is what the Senator is referring to, provides for the electronic monitoring of the restrictions on an offender's movements imposed by a court under section 101 of the same Act. Section 101 provides that a court, which convicts a person of certain offences and considers a prison sentence of three months or more is appropriate, may make an order restricting the offender's movements as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment. It is only available to the courts as an alternative sanction for a limited number of offences and does not apply, for example, to burglary. The restrictions on an offender's movements may include a requirement for him or her to be in a certain place or places for a specified period or to stay away from a certain place or places. The order may also include conditions as the court considers necessary to ensure that while the order is in force, the offender will keep the peace, be of good behaviour and will not commence any further offences.

The previous Government commenced section 101 but did not commence section 102. To the best of my knowledge, restriction of movement orders have not been used extensively by the Judiciary. The addition of monitoring a person's compliance with the conditions of the restriction of movement order by electronic means under section 102 is not necessarily the most cost-effective way to challenge and change the offending behaviour of a convicted person.

The Government's focus has been on the use of alternative sanctions to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. In that context the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Act 2011, introduced by the previous Minister, made it a requirement that the courts first consider the appropriateness of community service when considering the imposition of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less and extended the possibility of community service to offences attracting a sentence of more than 12 months. Supervised community service is available for a wide range of offences, including burglary, and offers the possibility of holding an offender to account for his or her behaviour and, through a range of targeted interventions and programmes, bring about positive changes in the offender's life with the aim of avoiding further offending. At a minimum, community service provides for the opportunity to pay back to a community the harm done by offending behaviour. Monitoring a convicted offender's movements, whether by electronic means or otherwise, provides neither a focus on rehabilitation in the same way that supervision does nor the security of a prison sentence in preventing further offences. We all are agreed on that.

Section 108 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 also provided for the use of electronic monitoring for prisoners on temporary release. This provision was commenced by the previous Government. A pilot project indicated that it is only cost-effective in a limited number of circumstances. Electronic monitoring continues to be used in a small number of cases for prisoners on temporary release. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provided for the electronic monitoring of certain persons admitted to bail. The previous Government also did not commence this section. I note that concerns have been raised about the workability of this section as drafted.

The Minister's preference for serial offenders, such as those charged with burglary offences who are likely to commit further serious offences, is that they should be refused bail and removed from our communities pending their hearing. It is for that reason the Minister has brought forward the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Bill. The burglary of a person's home is a particularly horrible crime and this Bill is designed to keep repeat burglars off the streets and improve the safety of our communities. It facilitates the refusal of bail and tougher sentencing for those 25% of burglars responsible for 75% of burglaries. No amount of electronic monitoring will be as effective as the provisions in the burglary Bill.

In cases where bail is granted, the Minister recognises that the targeted use of electronic monitoring has potential in reducing reoffending while on bail. With this in mind, the Minister is bringing forward new, workable proposals in the new bail Bill to allow the use of electronic monitoring in cases where the prosecution thinks it may be appropriate.

I hope that is satisfactory. I think it is what the Senator is looking for.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, there were many references to sections 101 and 108, and I will be writing a letter to the Cathaoirleach seeking that when I ask about section 102 or whatever and I, the Minister of State and everybody else goes to the bother of coming to the House, we actually get an answer. If I deleted everything that had nothing to do with my question, there would be a paragraph, but that would be too embarrassing. Section 102 is referred to approximately twice. It is not appropriate.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly well knows the Cathaoirleach has no role to play in what Ministers say when they come to the House or the Ministers' replies to the House.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be asking the Cathaoirleach to write to the Minister and, specifically, to the officials. It is not appropriate that a Minister would be given a reply to give a Member of the Oireachtas which amounts to an answer to a question that was not asked. That is the point I am making.

The reply, even when it referred to section 102, did not answer the question why the section has not been commenced. It stated it is not necessarily the most cost-effective, and prison costs €263 a day. This is an alternative to prison that costs €6.45 and, somehow or other, it is not the most cost-effective way of dealing with this issue, which is a lie.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A question, Senator.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Minister would agree. It costs €6.45 to put an electronic tag on a person - that is what the mechanism costs - whereas it costs €263 a day to put him or her in prison. The Minister of State was allowed to give a reply to the House that this is not necessarily the most cost-effective way to challenge and change an offender's behaviour.

I will read the alternative - that is what section 102 was - from the Library and Research Service.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly cannot make another speech on this. Has the Senator a question for the Minister of State?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It notes the section was not commenced and has not been put into operation. Section 102 was an alternative sentence to imprisonment.

I will write to the Cathaoirleach and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, although it is not her area. I will write to the Minister.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no role in this.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most important of all, the Minister of State was allowed to come to House and deliver this reply. Whatever official wrote it should be brought before the Minister and asked how he or she could allow a Minister to say to the House that spending €6.45 on electronic tagging is not more cost-efficient than the judge's alternative of putting a person in prison. That is a disgraceful answer to allow a Minister to give. I am not blaming the Minister of State because she is only given the research that was done by the official, but it is an appalling answer.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not understand the argument. Maybe it is something lacking in me. Clearly, one does not just put a tag on a person's ankle. A monitoring process must put in place. If one reads the Criminal Justice Act and the research, one will see it is as much about rehabilitation as it is about confinement or monitoring, and therefore it has to be a combination of issues.

If that section of the Act was not commenced, that is an issue not for the current Government but for the previous one which brought it in.I am not justifying the answer in any way. I am just expanding the argument. The Minister for Justice and Equality has initiated the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Bill 2015 and has indicated that it will be part of it process to deal with offenders. That is the Government's contribution. It is clear that action must be taken because people reoffend and we need to deal with that fact. The Senator stated that a tag costs in the region of €6. Tagging burglars is not simply a matter of putting tags on them, there must be a monitoring process as well. If we are serious about changing people's behaviour, because that is what this should involve, there must surely be a role for the probation service to play in terms of engagement with those people.

The solution is not just as the Senator outlined. I do not have in my possession the in-depth details required to answer the question in its entirety. The cost cannot be just €6 or so per tag. We must also take account of the process behind this - which involves monitoring and supervision to ensure a person does not reoffend - because that adds to the overall cost. Things do not exist in a vacuum. I do not necessarily think that tagging is the solution to all burglaries but it is part of such a solution. Equally, I know that a repeat offender would be able to find a way to defeat it because people find ways and means around everything. The Minister has referred to the fact that 75% of burglaries are committed by 25% of burglars and we need to deal with that in a far more comprehensive way. The Senator cannot blame this Administration for something that the Government led by his party did not commence.