Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Apr 2011

Vol. 730 No. 1

Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Committee Stage

Section 1 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 1. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, be discussed together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 17, after "fine" to insert "and disqualification from driving for 24 months".

The amendment seeks to deal with a situation involving a class A fine. We are concerned that an individual who would refuse to provide a sample would ultimately only receive a fine. It might be more appropriate to ensure that the individual would also be given a disqualification from driving for 24 months. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.

The Minister will be interested to note that amendment No. 2 was proposed in the Seanad by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. I was in agreement with them at the time and I hope he will consider substituting 12 months for six months in that regard.

Our Fianna Fáil colleague made a reasonable case for these amendments, given the importance of ensuring that the Garda Síochána has adequate power to test and invigilate people. In that context, is it the case that the Minister has given some commitments with regard to section 2? An original proposal in that section was that each of the subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) would be followed by the word “or”. In other words, each one of those conditions would be fulfilled separately. I understand the Minister has given some commitments to road safety campaigners — I note that representatives of one of the primary organisations, PARC, are present in the House today — that the section is watertight without the use of the word “or”.

I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his appointment; this is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking before him. Another question arises with regard to the discretionary power of the Garda. Is the Minister confident that this legislation provides for mandatory testing at last? On Second Stage I said that we were delivering on mandatory testing and that the Minister was fulfilling the commitment given by the former Minister, former Deputy Noel Dempsey, early this year to bring this legislation before the House. The issue that has been brought to my attention relates to when a driver is very ill and unconscious. The discretionary power of the gardaí arriving at the scene of the accident is being stretched to the limit under section 2(6). It gives the garda a discretionary power if in his or her opinion such a requirement to undertake a test would be prejudicial to the health of the person.

Is the Minister sure that such discretionary power does not produce an exit strategy for a driver who was guilty of an offence and who perhaps played a primary role in causing a collision in which there was a fatality in another vehicle? Is that covered now or is the Minister stating that we must wait until later this year to get follow-up legislation which will deal with this area in more detail? There is also the question of pre-existing medical conditions. A pre-existing medical condition in the trauma of a crash also may make it difficult for a member to test somebody.

The other big issue that arose on Second Stage, and on the large road traffic Bill which Deputy Dooley will remember us taking at length in Committee, was the follow-up situation of whether there should be a requirement to test blood or urine at the hospital or at the Garda station. As this short Bill stands, are we providing for a follow-up process where we can at long last close off all of the possible escape routes for a guilty driver or a driver who is fit enough to do a test?

I heard the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, on the media remark on the fact that the month of April so far has been one of the better months in terms of road fatalities. We are still running ahead in terms of numbers on this period last year. In observing the Garda Representative Association conference in Mayo, Deputies would be concerned about resources. Will there be resources with a much smaller force to mount the number of checkpoints needed? On Second Stage I dealt with the figures, as I knew them, from the Garda Commissioner and in each of the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was a fall in the numbers of checkpoints. On the basic point, will the staff complement of the Garda traffic corps still be 1,200 strong? Will it have enough resources to be able to mount the number of checkpoints needed to ensure that this good legislation is strictly enforced?

In supporting the basic point as suggested by our Fianna Fáil colleague, I ask the Minister whether he is sure that he has finally brought about a system of mandatory testing in traffic collisions in this country.

Tá roinnt ceisteanna agam ar na leasuithe seo. As I stated on Second Stage, I welcome the Bill. I had concerns. If the Minister wants some movement on the amendments — I am not totally in favour of the full extremes that the amendments seem to suggest — I believe that somebody who has failed to comply with the requirements of mandatory testing as set out here at least should automatically lose his or her licence because it is a road traffic offence.

On the question of imprisonment or threat of imprisonment, the proposal is a major step forward. There should be such a threat. Bear in mind that with the threat of imprisonment for six months or 12 months, the Minister is then criminalising that person. We know what goes on in the prisons. We know how overcrowded they are and how brutal they can be, and we need to be mindful whenever discussion is being had to increase a level of imprisonment, for instance from six to 12 months, that such does not happen. While the Bill provides for a term not exceeding six months, it should be amended to allow for the imposition of loss of licence. If the Minister indicates that he is willing to accept that, then I will not put down an amendment on Report Stage. If not, I will pursue this matter. There are a number of other issues in section 2 which all of these amendments comply with, and I will be coming back to that aspect.

The other aspect is that this is mandatory testing specifically for intoxicating liquor. At some stage we need to look at some type of complementary mechanism which provides mandatory testing for drugs, whether illegal or legal. There are reports stating that there were quite a number of accidents, which caused horrific injuries or deaths, where the problem was not intoxicating liquor, but various types of drugs. We need to find some mechanism in a case where somebody is definitely intoxicated. The breath test involved here can only show alcohol and we need to proved that the Garda can carry out the other steps allowed by section 3, that is, the obligation to provide a blood or urine sample, given that otherwise the person involved would evade the justice system or the punishment for being behind the wheel of a car in an intoxicated state, albeit not of alcohol.

My other suggestion on this section relates to subsection (6), which states:

A member of the Garda Síochána shall not make a requirement under subsection (2) of a person to whom paragraph (a) of subsection (1) applies if, in the opinion of the member, such requirement would be prejudicial to the health of the person.

In that case, the garda should have the power to then transport that person to a hospital or medical facility where the requirement can be complied with where the garda might not be able to force the issue there. That would be an issue where somebody is literally so out of breath that he or she cannot blow into the bag or the apparatus the garda has produced. In such a case, the correct course of action is to bring him or her to a location where a blood or urine sample can be taken by a medically qualified person. That would prevent persons from acting up and stating that they have asthma or whatever, and that they cannot blow to the sufficient strength to allow the garda to prove whether they are intoxicated.

A number of issues have been raised and what I might do, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is address the amendments put down first and then comment on the other issues for which no amendment has been put down.

The amendments all are in the name of Deputy Dooley. At the outset, I congratulate him on his recent appointment as spokesperson. I look forward to working with him over the coming years if I survive that long.

On the amendments, Deputy Dooley wishes to emphasise the seriousness of the offence by providing for stricter sanctions. However, it is important that we apply consistency in road traffic legislation when providing for fines or terms of imprisonment. The sections, as drafted, are appropriate and provide consistency with existing analogous legislation.

Where a person refuses or fails to comply with the requirement to provide a preliminary breath test under section 12 of the 1994 Act or a blood or urine sample under section 15 of that act, he or she commits an offence. In addition to a fine of €5,000 and a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months on summary conviction, section 9 of the principal Act provides for a consequent disqualification for not less than four years in the case of a first offence and not less than six years in the case of a second or subsequent offence. The offence is, therefore, addressed in at least as much if not more thoroughness than the Deputy's amendment provides.

In respect of the proposed amendment to increase the term of imprisonment to 12 months, the Office of the Attorney General advised against introducing such a penalty on summary conviction because it goes against the overall intention of such trials, would be disproportionate and has wider implications for other legislation. Deputy Ó Snodaigh also made a valid point on criminalisation. The only instance where a 12 month term of imprisonment is provided for in road traffic legislation is in section 112 of the principal Act and if we were to introduce a minimum 12 month section for road traffic offences, we should do so across the board rather than in respect of one offence. I ask Deputy Dooley to withdraw the amendments on the basis that the earlier ones are already provided for and the later ones go further than we would prefer.

In regard to the question raised by Deputy Broughan as to whether there should be an "or" conjunction between A, B, C and D, I have received written advice from the Attorney General to the effect that not only is it unnecessary but that it would be a deviation from the standard style and is therefore ill-advised. She argued that it would undermine the consistency and certainty of the system and raise questions as to whether the distinction in language is intended to convey a distinction in meaning. I understand the concerns that have arisen but I have determined this form of conjunction exists in other jurisdictions and the Attorney General advises that changing it could undermine the legislation rather than strengthen it. It behoves me to accept that advice.

In regard to the discretionary power of the Garda, I appreciate the fraught issue that Deputy Broughan raised. The Bill provides for mandatory testing and a garda shall test for alcohol where somebody has been involved in a collision causing injury. However, we need to include a provision that allows a garda discretion in carrying out a mandatory breath test where such a test would be prejudicial to the recipient's health. Circumstances can arise whereby a number of people are injured in serious road traffic accidents involving a drink driver who is exsanguinating or suffering cardiac arrest and requires immediate medical attention. A garda must be able to use discretion in such a situation to ensure the individual concerned receives the medical attention he or she requires immediately. We need this provision because such a person should not be breath tested before receiving lifesaving medical treatment. The only exception to mandatory testing is where a garda is asked to use his or her discretion to ensure someone involved in a road traffic accident receives medical attention in a timely fashion.

I fully accept the Deputy's concerns and do not want to see this provision being misused as a get-out clause for those who are capable of providing a breath test either at the scene of the accident or an hour later. I conveyed these concerns to the Assistant Garda Commissioner yesterday and I made clear to him the Government's intentions for this Bill and my desire to be given evidence of any cases involving such behaviour. We have not been able to come up with a formula of words that protects somebody whose life is at risk while at the same time ensuring discretion is not abused. Unfortunately, that is always the case with discretionary provisions in legislation. Discretion is provided for good reasons but there is always a small risk that it will be abused for nefarious reasons. The Garda advised me that the legislation allows for the arrest of the person concerned in such cases. If the person is shamming or is hyperventilating and cannot give a breath test at the scene of the accident, he or she can be arrested so that the test can be administered at a later stage. I have confidence in these assurances and, while I have not yet been presented with a form of words that provides discretion while preventing abuse, if Deputies wish to put forward an amendment to that effect in the context of the road traffic (No. 2) Bill, I will be happy to consider it.

The issue of an unconscious driver is not adequately addressed in the Bill but we are investigating similar legislation in the United Kingdom with a view to including in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill a provision that allows for the removal of a blood sample from somebody who is unconscious. The individual can subsequently grant or refuse consent for the sample to be used in court. From my medical experience, it is commonplace that somebody who is unconscious is tested for alcohol and drugs.

In regard to Garda resources, we intend to conduct a major public awareness campaign, including gardaí on the streets, when we bring in reduced blood alcohol levels in September. This will let people know about the reduced limits as well as crack down on infractions. As Deputy Broughan noted, there has only been one road traffic fatality so far this month and I hope it will turn out to be the safest month on our roads since records began. We are still ahead of our position for this time last year but that may change in the next week or so if there are no accidents.

Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee adequate resources for the Garda traffic corps. I wish I could but, as Deputies are aware, two thirds of the funds for the Garda come from the taxpayer and one third comes from the IMF and the EU. That money will not be there forever and we are in the middle of a fiscal consolidation process. The final answer to that question can be provided by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, or the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure, Deputy Howlin. I cannot assure Deputies that the IMF will continue to pay the salaries of our gardaí. Some people want the IMF to go home, at which point payment would cease immediately, but I cannot guarantee we can replace that money through increased taxation and cuts in other services.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised a valid point on drug testing. I investigated this issue further since it was raised on Second Stage and found out that the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is at present training gardaí in evidential testing for drug use. This involves a three-day training course through which gardaí are trained in administering neurological tests on individuals who have been stopped for dangerous driving. Deputies may have seen scenes in American movies where an individual is asked to walk along a line, touch his or her nose or do what is known in medicine as a Romberg's test. This would be recognised in law as an evidential test equal to a urine or blood test. The difficulty we face with drugs is the absence of a specific limit beyond which we can be sure driving is unsafe. Furthermore, different tests show up different types of drugs. We want this training programme to be rolled out at the earliest opportunity because drug driving is a significant problem.

I am advised that the vast majority of people caught for drug driving have also consumed alcohol. It is possible in almost all cases to prosecute them under that provision. We also want to be able to deal with persons who have taken cocaine or speed and drive but who have not consumed alcohol. It is not satisfactory that is not entirely the case now.

The legislation tightens the law further. It will, in practice, result in mandatory breath-testing. Anyone involved in an accident which causes an injury will be breath-tested. I am confident that this will happen. I am fully aware of the concerns that the clause could be misused, but I am prepared to test it and see what happens in the meantime. I want to know of any instances where this does not happen.

Other matters can be dealt with in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill, the heads of which will be brought to the Government soon. It will then have to be brought before the committee for the pre-legislative stage, a new stage on which the committee will get to see the heads of the Bill before it is published. The Bill will then be published and go through both Houses of the Oireachtas before being enacted into law. My intention is to have this done by the tail-end of the year.

This legislation does not address all we want it to. For example, it does not address the graduated driver licence issue which will be dealt with in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill. However, in the interregnum, before the road traffic (No. 2) Bill is passed, it will toughen up the law considerably and provide for mandatory testing and a number of other measures. I ask for the support of the House in that regard bearing in mind that if I were to accept any amendments today, we would have to go back to the Seanad. We would then have to wait until after the Seanad election which would further delay the enactment of the Bill. That would raise the question as to whether we should abandon the Bill entirely and wait for the next one. I do not want that to happen and another year to pass without this legislation being in place.

Mar a dúirt mé cheana, tá Sinn Féin i bhfábhar an Bhille seo, atá lán de chiall. As I stated on Second Stage, Sinn Féin welcomes this legislation. However, I reiterate some of the concerns we outlined previously, as there has been no movement by the Government on these issues, although I welcome some of the comments made by the Minister.

I take the opportunity to commend the Road Safety Authority for its initiatives to attempt to make Irish roads safer to drive on, in particular the campaign launched this week on motorway safety, given that six people have died so far this year in collisions on motorways in the Twenty-six Counties.

Sinn Féin supports mandatory breath-testing. However, we are conscious this is proposed in the Bill at the current high blood-alcohol rate. We hope the measures outlined in the Bill will have a positive effect in reducing the number who drink and drive. I note the programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce roadside drug testing programmes to combat the problem of driving under the influence of drugs. I heard what the Minister said about the Garda looking at new methods to deal with this. I urge the Government to consider introducing some form of drug testing.

The legislative programme does not mention alcohol and drugs. We need to approach this issue in a more positive way. A zero tolerance policy would eradicate the confusion surrounding the amount of alcohol a person can drink before he or she gets behind the wheel of a car. There should be no confusion. All too often during the Christmas period, after a party or function, or on bank holidays or at weekends we hear about people who take a drink and then get into a car and drive. As long as they are within a certain limit, this is deemed okay by the State, but it is costing lives. While I am conscious that advocating a zero tolerance policy for drivers would have an effect on rural Ireland where public transport infrastructure is more or less non-existent and very often the local pub is one of the only social outlets, we do not believe this is a reason not to advocate such a policy. It is a reason for the Government to ensure a situation does not develop where rural residents are left isolated because they cannot get to the local pub. On this basis, I call on the Minister for Transport, on behalf of the Government, to invest in rural transport infrastructure adequately.

Speed is another major factor in road deaths. Garda speed cameras are heavily concentrated on motorways.

I am sorry, Deputy, but we are on Committee Stage. The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech.

The Deputy should speak to the amendments. I have given him latitude. I appreciate he is a new Deputy and I do not want to be unkind, but we are on Committee Stage.

I reiterate what Deputy Ó Snodaigh said about people who are seriously injured following an accident. We must legislate carefully to deal with individuals in these situations. It is not easy if one is forced to take samples from someone who is unconscious and has not given consent. There may be a means to have someone present, a doctor or some other person. It is important that we look at these areas. There is no doubt that the quantity of drugs being used is on a par with the amount of alcohol being consumed. We must address this issue.

I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments I tabled. I am happy with the response he has given and will withdraw the amendments in line with his request. We may table further amendments which can be discussed on Report Stage.

I also thank the Minister for his response. I understand the reason Deputy Dooley tried to increase the penalty in his amendments is a central part of the Bill. A terrible crash may occur in which somebody loses his or her life and it will be very difficult to establish the cause or who is responsible if the penalties are low. However, I accept the Minister has taken the Attorney General's advice in that regard.

I wish to ask the Minister about the policy on these matters, the comments he made about unconscious drivers and policy formation in the Department. There are some officials present and I welcome their diligence in pursuing these matters in the previous road traffic legislation and this Bill. Is it the case that the Road Safety Authority only receives detailed reports from the Garda Síochána three to five years after events have taken place? My understanding is that the Department of Transport only knows now what happened in road traffic collisions between 2005 and 2007, inclusive, and that we will have to wait a few years to find out what happened in 2009 and 2010. Is there a legal reason data cannot be given to the agency which has performed very well and has had a considerable role in reducing the number of appalling casualties on the roads within a relatively short period? In other words, can it receive data on what happened in 2010 now and, therefore, give the Minister advice on policy formation in drafting the next Bill to ensure better road safety measures?

Like other Deputies, I welcome the indications the Minister gave in regard to the amendments which will be withdrawn. Many of the issues we have raised and on Second Stage will be dealt with in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill, to which I look forward. It will be a more comprehensive Bill and will deal with a range of issues which need to be addressed. By the time the No. 2 Bill comes along I hope we will have the changes to legislation to deal with the point about the unconscious and drunk drivers in a more formal way than is happening now. I also welcome the fact that the Garda Síochána is in training to ensure it can capture some of the people who cause mayhem on our roads. The tragedy associated with this is not limited to the number of people who die on our roads; it includes the many people left severely disabled. That can have the same effect on a family as someone dying. A whole family can be totally changed trying to care for someone who has been injured in a road accident. It is important to try to deal with people who take risks getting home from or to work, having taken drink or drugs. A car can be a lethal weapon and the message must go out, with two bank holidays in the coming weeks, that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. Drivers should take care, especially at those times. The number of deaths and serious injuries seems to peak at bank holiday weekends.

The Minister or Deputy Broughan mentioned the Garda traffic corps and checkpoints. The Garda Síochána has been doing a tremendous job on road traffic in recent times. However, some of the checkpoints can be over the top in terms of the number of gardaí in attendance. Recently I saw 14 gardaí at a checkpoint with only one line of traffic. If they had split the checkpoint between both sides of the road, they would have captured more people in breach of our road traffic laws. Most drivers are in total compliance and suffer the consequences and the expense of people on our roads with no insurance, breaking the rules. If most people are willing to stick by the rules that were introduced for valid reasons, we should ensure every road traffic user must comply with them. I have no problem with checkpoints, which are a good initiative, and some are located where cars cannot avoid them. We must be careful not to put all the resources into one basket. The threat of the immediate loss of licence should be there when people are found to be in breach of the law.

Section 2(4) states: "A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person who in the member's opinion is committing or has committed an offence under this section." I find it strange that "may" is used. This might be one of the rare occasions when the Minister accepts the change to "shall". If the garda is of the opinion that a person is committing a crime, the garda should arrest the person. There may be room for discretion and I am not suggesting the Minister should delay this Bill. Perhaps it can be corrected in the No. 2 Bill. This is a useful Bill that must be passed at this stage. We can come back to change it, if needed, at a different stage.

I welcome the fact that the amendments are being withdrawn. We need to move ahead and not delay. This Bill is very important. I have always had serious problems with the idea of people leaving the scene of an accident. There may be various reasons for doing so and imposing these major penalties is a dangerous way to go. This proposal puts heavy jail sentences on people and I would be worried. A person could suffer concussion and there may be 1 million reasons someone would leave the scene of an accident. Criminalising people, whether young or old, and the threat of a sentence has a terrible effect on individuals. The health and safety of the injured people is very important. The Minister has outlined this point and I am happy with what he said on it.

I thank the Deputies for their co-operation in this matter. I look forward to working on the No. 2 Bill and particularly trying out the new process of having a pre-legislative phase so that the Parliament can have an earlier input into legislation. Legislation is sometimes published and it becomes impossible to change. It is so difficult to change that it would be better to have earlier input from Members. We will see how that works with the No. 2 Bill.

Two points were raised in this debate. The Garda Síochána has advised me that the same number of people are being stopped at checkpoints as before. However, anecdotally I am told that checkpoints are less frequent. There are fewer checkpoints but the gardaí are stopping more people at each checkpoint. Perhaps this explains why there were 14 gardaí at the checkpoint at which Deputy Ó Snodaigh was stopped. Perhaps it would make more sense and would be more effective in policing terms if there were more checkpoints and fewer people were stopped at each one. I will have discussions with the Garda Síochána on this point.

Deputy Broughan asked about statistics and I am advised that the delay arises from the Coroner's Court and prosecutions. We do not receive the statistics until a decision is made by the Coroner's Court and a prosecution is completed. The initial details go to the Garda Síochána and the RSA in a short period after the event. I will look into this matter. I understand why we cannot receive information if it is a case before the Coroner's Court or the matter goes to prosecution. The conclusion of these cases can take two or three years. When it comes to testing, we should be able to get information at an earlier stage. I will see if it is possible. I want to be assured that concerns that people are availing of the prejudicial health clause as a loophole are not founded. I will endeavour to have a watching brief on this and I want to know of any instances where this occurs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I thank the Minister for his responses and the insight into his thinking on this Bill and the No. 2 Bill he proposes to introduce. I welcome the initiative the Minister intends to pilot, with a pre-legislative phase. My experience of working on committees during my nine years in the Seanad and in this House, was that legislation was brought to committee when it was a done deal. In most instances, if there was an inclination to change minor elements, it became impossible because of the necessity to pass legislation according to a particular schedule. I welcome this idea.

The PARC group has been particularly helpful to the committee, as Deputy Broughan mentioned. PARC is committed to ensuring that we have appropriate legislation and it has been very helpful to the committee by providing us with information and identifying the concerns of those affected by the tragedy of death through drink driving.

The Minister addressed quite well the points raised, in particular the concern relating to a garda having appropriate discretion, which I am sure will be an issue for PARC and many others. The Minister indicated that there are people who might for nefarious reasons decide to fake hyperventilation or cardiac arrest. If it becomes obvious to the general population that there is a route out, it will be exploited. Sadly, there are people who when sober will say they believe that drink driving is wrong but whose attitude unfortunately changes when they are under the influence. People will take a chance. If they are aware of a way out they will exploit it and challenge it through the courts at every available opportunity.

The Minister will be aware that legislation in respect of drink driving is probably the most tested and as a result it has had to be updated. While some people accept it is wrong to drive under the influence of alcohol they do not believe to do so is a criminal act. We must continue to reaffirm that it is a criminal act. It should be open to the Judiciary to impose stringent sentencing which reflects the seriousness of the actions of a drunk driver.

The Bill addresses the concerns expressed by me and other Members in regard to a person experiencing or faking hyperventilation in that such person will be taken to hospital. However, a person who remains at the scene as his or her condition is not considered serious enough to warrant being taken to hospital may find a route out through this provision. While I do not have a formula of words to deal with this matter, I suggest that the Minister provide that in the event of a person who, in the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána, has consumed alcohol and may be over the limit not being taken to hospital such person must be taken to a Garda station.

I accept that the powers in relation to arrest are already in place. However, a person who because of hyperventilation or other condition is constrained from undergoing a breath test should have open to him or her only two options, namely, going to the hospital where the provisions of the legislation kick in or being taken to a Garda station. This will ensure there is no right of passage home in a hyperventilating state or otherwise. There should be only two options open to people, namely, to go to the hospital or the Garda station.

While I do not wish to over-burden the accident and emergency rooms of our hospitals, I believe the inclusion of a provision like this will ensure there is no soft option or route open to allow people to bluff their way out of being tested. I take the Minister's point that he intends to look to the Garda Síochána for evidence in this regard. I can assure him that if there is a chance it will work somebody will try it and many more people will seek a way to challenge it in the courts. Perhaps the Minister will ensure this matter is dealt with in the road transport (No. 2) Bill. It should be clearly stated in that legislation that where an accident occurs a person must attend a hospital or Garda station to have a sample of blood taken.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday or Wednesday, if possible.

It is to be taken next Wednesday.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20 April 2010.