It is against this backdrop that during the month of June Michael McDowell will be working the Oireachtas Justice Committee overtime as he attempts to get his Criminal Justice Bill passed into law. This is the long-promised legislation which, we've been told, will make it easier for gardai to fight crime. The committee members have in recent weeks been examining the vast bill, line by line. They're at the stage now where they're amending the amendments.

Electronic monitoring, like Asbos, is a headline-catching, populist component of the Criminal Justice Bill. But we now know . . . thanks to the justice committee . . . that electronic monitoring is costly and technologically flawed.

The political parties on the committee line up like this: Sinn Fein is fundamentally opposed to e-tagging and sought to have it removed from the legislation. Labour is not against the idea in principle but has questioned the practicalities involved, especially if a GPS tacking system is used . . .watch out for tall buildings and cloudy days as the offenders may not register on the radar. Brendan Howlin of Labour said he would be happier with restriction orders keeping people away from places when they have caused trouble previously. "That is less of a tramping on people's rights than, for example, a requirement for them to be at home for long periods, " he said.

Having recently re-embraced their "hang 'em and flog 'em" past, Fine Gael is a natural cheerleader for e-tagging. "I am very much in favour of the idea of restriction of movement supported and monitored by electronic tagging, " Fine Gael's Jim O'Keeffe said. His party is so taken with the concept it wants it available as a condition in granting bail.

Fine Gael sees nothing in the argument about restriction on civil liberties. "The greatest restriction on civil liberty is placing somebody in custody. I see electronic tagging as an option that can be availed of to avoid placing somebody in custody in order that they can, in general, remain free but subject to certain controls. I see it as having a substantial role to play, " O'Keeffe told the committee.

Minister McDowell was initially in favour.

He met people from Britain who were enthusiastic. On this evidence, he agreed to include it in his new legislation. But then more information started to emerge.

It was time for a rethink. "Ebbing enthusiasm" was McDowell's choice of phrase for his new position. "When the data began to emerge, I wondered where it was worth the candle, but rather than walk away completely from it, it is included in limited form in the legislation." He added, "I have not yet generated plans for its immediate roll out, other than, perhaps, on a pilot basis."

So now a measure is being put into law without the legislators having any idea how it might work. What's more, this justice minister, or another in the future, will be able to introduce e-tagging by means of regulation. The Dail will never debate the idea again. "If we're going to invest a great deal of money, time and effort into something, we want to ensure that it will work, " O Snodaigh said. It seemed a reasonable observation.

Electronic tagging was introduced in the UK in 1999 where it has been used most frequently in cases where offenders have been released early from prison. Of the 202,000 offenders who have been tagged with monitoring devices in the UK, 55% were people on early release programmes while another 30% were individuals under court-applied curfew restrictions.

"So has it worked?" Howlin asked. The minister referred to listening to the wireless. "I know from listening to BBC Radio 4 that a fair number of crimes were committed by people who were under the supervision of the probation service in the UK. I presume the same applies in this instance, " McDowell remarked.

O Snodaigh produced a report from the National Association of Probation Officers in Britain. It concluded that tagging offenders costs twice as much as supervision by a member of the probation service and that even though not keeping an offender in prison saves money, more money would be saved if the probation service was properly funded. The Irish Human Rights Commission has made a similar point.

McDowell actually accepted that e-tagging would require specialised resources before it could be rolled out as an effective system. "It is not a cost-free measure. A total of £800 [ 1200] per month per case [in the UK] means that there is a considerable resource implication. One certainly would not want a district court judge making such orders on a random basis every time the thought occurred to him or her, " the justice minister said. O'Keeffe suggested giving judges quotas. McDowell suggested giving them a budget. The measure was accepted. It will soon be law.