It is appropriate that I refer to Europe Day and the participation of Members from all parties in the structured debate tomorrow. However, I wish to ask the Taoiseach about another matter. He will be aware that over the past two years 11,000 serious crimes have been committed by people on bail, including 43 homicides, 500 assaults, 750 serious drug offences and thousands of thefts and burglaries. That amounts to more than 100 serious crimes a week committed by people who could and should be behind bars.

I suppose the Taoiseach was not glued to his television set over the weekend, but that was obviously the case with some from the other element of the Government. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, was out of the traps faster than Carl Lewis ever managed. In that regard I wish to ask the Taoiseach about persons committing serious crimes while on bail. The Fine Gael Party proposed at the weekend that, given the trend of 11,000 serious crimes having been committed, the courts should be authorised to tag electronically persons on bail so that their movements might be tracked full-time.

On Friday, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that I had also referred to the electronic tagging of people as a condition of bail, something that, he contended, I well knew was already provided for in the Criminal Justice Bill now before the Dáil. The trouble is that it is not in the Bill before the Dáil. The Minister's Bill contains a provision to tag electronically people who have been convicted, which is what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe proposed last year. Is the Government putting a provision into the Bill giving the courts authorisation, if the judge deems necessary, to electronically tag persons being granted bail? Will the Taoiseach confirm that this provision is not contained in the Bill before the Dáil, contrary to what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said on Friday?

On the first point the Deputy made, the legislative provisions for the granting of bail are very stringent. The 16th amendment to the Constitution provides for the refusal of bail to a person charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. We amended the law to deal with that. The Bail Act 1997 gave effect to the amendment and it tightened up the bail regime generally. That provision exists for the court to deal with it.

The earlier Criminal Justice Act provides that any sentence of imprisonment passed on a person for an offence committed shall be consecutive on any offence passed on him or her for a previous offence. The granting of bail is in accordance with that Act. The amount of bail and sentencing are matters for the courts which are, subject only to the Constitution and law, independent in their exercise of judicial functions. The law is clear and the powers exist. The courts have the provision.

In earlier years people who were out on bail through early release schemes comprised about 15% of the overall prison population. The latest figures I have indicate this is now approximately 2.3%. The provisional figures for last year show that 5.36% of headline offences were committed by persons on bail and the statistics in the Garda Commissioner's report classify offences committed while on bail under the ten headline crime groups under which the reports are categorised. That is all I have to say about that. It is disturbing to read the offences committed by persons on bail. The offence for which a person has received bail may be a fairly minor one, which needs to be taken into account.

On the second question, subject to checking, Deputy Kenny is right. I believe that is the way the Bill is worded, if I recall correctly. I believe the Deputy is correct on that. Whether the Minister brings forward an amendment on Committee Stage is a matter for him. If I recall it, what the Deputy has said is correct.

I wish to give the Taoiseach credit for clarifying what is correct. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said that this provision was already contained in the Bill. I am glad the Taoiseach has asserted his authority in having the Bill passed at the Cabinet table and is now confirming that it is not in the legislation. He who knows everything about these matters——

And everything else as well.

——would be well advised to take note of the Taoiseach's confirmation, which I welcome.

While the referendum tightened the bail conditions in some respects, judges must still draw on a mixture of legislation and precedent when granting bail. It would be appropriate that a new bail Bill setting out all those conditions comprehensively should be introduced by the House.

Does the Taoiseach agree we should have a fast-tracking system by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which would be a necessary addition to the legislative portfolio to deal with issues of release on bail given that the Taoiseach agrees with me that it is of concern that 11,000 serious crimes were committed in two years by persons released on bail? If this continues, almost 500,000 headline crimes will have been committed on the watch of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Will the Taoiseach comment on a fast-tracking system to the DPP and a new bail Bill making crystal clear the conditions which judges should apply so that they do not need to rely on a mixture of legislation and precedent as applies at the moment?

I again make the point I made earlier on bail. Before we changed the law, the courts had no power to keep somebody in prison pending a trial. Regardless of how likely they were to re-offend and even if they were certain to re-offend, the courts could not do that. The purpose of the Act was to give them that right. I do not see the point of setting it down — I think it is clear. While I do not want to repeat myself, the law in this regard following the amendment is clear. While I do not follow these matters from day to day, I have not seen anyone make the case that we need to set it down. I would have thought the Bail Act was clear now. If there is a risk of a serious offence, the courts can act. They can do something they could never do before, which is why it was necessary to have the 16th amendment to the Constitution and to have the Bail Act 1997. While it is not a decade on the Statute Book, perhaps legal minds believe there is an argument on it.

On another point, while I have given no thought to this, if we follow the road Deputy Kenny is advocating and prioritise, fast-track or list cases and specify a particular determination why they should be taken, all we would do would be to lengthen what I understand to be an already quite lengthy case list in the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is constantly under pressure for good reasons because of the list. If there is an argument for doing something on some cases, just to create a longer list for everybody else does not seem to be the solution.