I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy. We now commence our consideration of the Road Traffic Bill, 2001. I suggest we sit until 1.30 p.m. and take a break until 2.30 p.m. We will then proceed until 5 p.m. when we will review progress.
Road Traffic Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Haughey)
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 15” and substitute “2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 14”.
The reference numbers in subsection (1) regarding the eight offences to which fixed charges do not apply are incorrect and do not correspond with the relevant offences in the First Schedule. Therefore, it is necessary to make this textual amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (3), between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:
"(c) Two or more alleged penalty point offences consisting of a contravention of a single regulatory provision, specified in Part 2 or Part 3 of the First Schedule, shall, if they occur within a period of 3 days of each other, be deemed to have occurred on the same occasion for the purposes of this subsection.".
This amendment seeks to provide for circumstances where somebody receives penalty points for the same offence on subsequent days. It seems a little harsh for someone to receive a penalty point for worn tyres on consecutive days before he or she has had time to take corrective action. The amendment would allow for a period of three days to deal with such problems. The Bill recognises that a number of offences may be committed at the same time and provides for reduced penalty points, of which this is the corollary. It is a reasonable amendment.
Each of the offences listed in Parts 2 and 3 of the First Schedule would put the vehicle user and others at risk of serious injury or death resulting from a road traffic accident. It is for that reason they are proposed in the Bill as offences which will attract penalty points. Some of the offences relate to defects on a vehicle that in themselves constitute a serious risk, for example worn tyres or inadequate brakes. Others such as inadequate mirrors or lights would restrict the ability of a driver to drive safely. A third category of offence relates to the risks to drivers and passengers of failing to comply with the permits on safety restraints or crash helmets. These offences were constituted because of the level of risk each presents to road users. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to diminish the seriousness of such offences by permitting a second offence within a short time before penalty points would accrue. Under such an approach, vehicle users would see an acknowledgement that they could continue to use dangerously defective vehicles or commit other offences for a period without incurring an appropriate penalty. That would be unsatisfactory and send an entirely inappropriate message about defective vehicles at a time when every measure that can improve road safety needs to be put in place. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment. We would be subjected to severe criticism if somebody who was discovered to have defective brakes was allowed to continue to drive, not having been prosecuted for that offence.
Would the Minister consider giving a day's leeway? People have to take their cars to a garage to get them fixed.
I do not think we can do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, and No. 9 are similar and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (5), line 10, after "payment" to insert "and in any event within 28 days thereof".
These amendments are time related. They arise from the procedures that must be undergone and the number of separate steps that must be followed prior to endorsement. A lot of them do not seem to be very clearly time related. The court services are to notify the Minister as "soon as may be after payment". Upon receipt of notification, the Minister must endorse the points, but if there is no entry for the person concerned the penalty points are to be endorsed on such an entry subsequently made. The Minister must "as soon as may be" send a notice to the person concerned. The term "may be" occurs quite often. If strict time limits are not followed in the procedure, it may produce unfair results. For example, if there is a delay in complying with a procedure in respect of an earlier offence but there is no delay with the later offence, it could mean that even if the combined penalty points are committed more than three years apart, one could be disqualified. There could be a run-over between the two three-year periods. The amendments are designed to impose a maximum period for completion of each step in the procedure, it need not necessarily be 28 days.
These amendments appear to be based on a misconception about the way the penalty points scheme will work. I draw the Deputy's attention to section 7 of the Bill which deals with the appropriate date. The Deputy will note that penalty points will only be applied from the appropriate date, which is 28 days from the date of a notice served under section 5. In the circumstances, I fail to see the need for the proposed amendment.
In any event, the system of notification of fixed charge payments and court convictions will be IT based. I envisage such notifications will issue to my Department as soon as payments and convictions are recorded. Points will only be applied 28 days after the serving of the notice.
What happens if there is no entry for the person on whom the notice is served? There seems to me to be a potential for things to run over from one period to another.
This is information technology based so there will not be any great delay between the issuing of the notice and points will not apply for 28 days after that.
I have a feeling this will throw up a lot of anomalies. The Minister of State has said is will be based on information technology, but when will that happen? It will be quite some time before it is completely information technology based.
This cannot start until the information technology is in place and the services are integrated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "by post or otherwise" and substitute "by registered post".
Considering the gravity and implications of this matter, it is reasonable to inform people of the nature of the offence and to ensure they receive the notification by sending it by registered post.
Notice issued under section 5 will be issued following payment of a fixed charge or conviction of an offence. Persons concerned will already be aware that they have committed an offence that attracts penalty points. I do not accept the need to issue notices by registered post confirming the application of penalty points. Apart from the cost implications, registered post cannot be dealt with through the automated post system which is used by my Department for bulk posting. This is a system which will be used to issue notices generated by the national driver file following receipt of notifications from the gardaí and the courts. I can confirm that my Department is considering the use of enhanced postal arrangements for notifications, particularly where the accumulated penalty points have resulted in disqualification. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(b) giving particulars of the date and nature of the offence and of the date of payment, conviction or, in the event of an appeal against conviction, determination of such appeal, and”.
The amendment proposes that an offender be informed of particulars of the date and nature of the offence, the date of payment, conviction or, in the event of an appeal against a conviction, determination of such an appeal. It is reasonable that some level of information be communicated to the offender.
Notice to be issued to a person under section 5 will include information relating to the offence.
Is the Minister certain of that?
Subsections 5(1)(a)(i) and (ii) provide that information relating to the payment of a fixed charge or a conviction is included in a notice under that section. Therefore, the person will be advised of the relevant details. I cannot support the amendment.
Will each offence be notified separately?
Yes.
Will the details of the offence be given in each case?
Yes.
That was not clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 13 is consequential on amendment No. 12 and both amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsections:
"(4) Any person who receives notice in accordance with subsection (1) to the effect that penalty points have been endorsed on his or her entry and who is aggrieved by such endorsements may, within 28 days of the date of such notice, apply to the Minister in the prescribed form to rectify his or her entry, giving details of the reasons for such application.
(5) The Minister may, subject to subsection (9), rectify the entry or refuse to do so and, in any event, shall cause a notice of his decision to be given or sent, by registered post, to the applicant as soon as may be and, in any event, within 28 days, giving, in the case of a refusal, reasons therefore.
(6) Any person whose application for rectification is refused may within 28 days of the date of notice of refusal appeal in the prescribed manner from such refusal to the District Court.
(7) Every person who appeals to the District Court under this section shall in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time give notice of such appeal to the Minister.
(8) On the hearing of such appeal the District Court may either confirm or disallow the refusal and, whenever the District Court so disallows a refusal, the Minister shall as soon as may be and, in any event, within 28 days, cause the entry relating to that person to be rectified.
(9) The only grounds upon which rectification of an entry may be granted are that-
(a) the person did not make a payment in respect of the alleged penalty point offence,
(b) the person was not convicted of a penalty point offence, or, if convicted, appealed successfully against that conviction, or
(c) the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 were not complied with.
(10) The following provisions shall apply to every appeal under this section:
(a) the Minister and no other person shall be entitled to be heard and to adduce evidence in opposition to the appeal;
(b) any ground of refusal mentioned in the notice of refusal and no other ground may be advanced in opposition to the appeal;
(c) whenever the refusal is confirmed the court may order the appellant to pay the costs of the Minister and may measure the amount of such costs;
(d) no appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court.”.
This is an attempt to deal with problems that arise where the system breaks down. I mentioned on Second Stage that there is no leeway for somebody who believes he or she has incorrectly attracted penalty points. It applies to any type of penalty point which was incorrectly imposed, for whatever reason. I am sure there will be mistakes in the system, even when it is technology based. People have no way of appealing except by going to court. That takes time, is expensive and exposes them to the risk of double penalty points. If they have been erroneously penalised, and a genuine mistake can be made, there should be a right of appeal for rectification by the Minister. They should be able to apply to the Minister for rectification of the entry. That is the purpose of both amendments.
I apologise for being late. I misread the notice to mean this meeting was starting immediately after the Order of Business. I was not here to propose amendments Nos. 7 and 8. To an extent they address the point raised by Deputy Mitchell in these amendments. The procedure provided for in the Bill is that one pays one's fine, one is notified of one's penalty points and when one reaches 12 penalty points, one's licence is suspended for a period of six months. With the application of each set of penalty points there is provision for the person to take his or her chances in court, but if he or she loses, he or she end up with more penalty points.
There are situations that might arise and which require some method of appeal before a licence is automatically suspended. Let us suppose a driver has accumulated six penalty points and is not disputing those points. There are variable speed limits on some stretches of our national roads which, incidentally, are not always signposted so let us suppose the driver is hurrying somewhere for understandable reasons but ends up speeding and is caught on camera twice on the same stretch of road. There is no disputing the fact that speeding occurred or that the evidence is on camera. That is four additional penalty points.
Let us suppose the driver is then stopped in Oranmore, on the way into Galway, by a garda who asks him for his licence. He has a driving licence but under existing provisions, unless he has it with him, he is guilty of an offence. If he does not have the driving licence, it is another two penalty points. That is a total of 12 points and the person is automatically off the road for six months. That person might be rushing to a hospital in Galway where a relative is seriously ill. There might be other good reasons.
There are circumstances where there ought to be some means of appeal before the ultimate penalty is applied. Unwittingly, somebody could end up accumulating 12 points in certain circumstances. He or she is not normally the type of driver one would wish to see off the road. There is also a need to provide some precautions against abuse in the application of penalty points. It does not happen often, thankfully, but there have been reported cases where an enforcer of the law may in individual circumstances - I accept that these are exceptional - act vindictively against somebody, which could have the effect of putting that person off the road.
My amendments, which I did not get the opportunity to move, suggested recourse to the district courts. There should be some such mechanism so that if there are special circumstances, they can be argued.
The amendment proposes a system whereby a person who is notified that penalty points have been endorsed on his or her record and is aggrieved can make an appeal to the Minister to rectify the entry. Section 7 of the Bill provides that, with the exception of particular circumstances which are provided for in the section, the operative date for the application of penalty points will always be 28 days after the date of the issue of the notification of the endorsement of penalty points. That date is referred to as the appropriate date. Irrespective of whether penalty points are to be endorsed following the payment of a fixed charge or a conviction by a court, the appropriate date will be the same.
The period of 28 days was decided upon in deference to the fact that where a person is convicted of a summary offence, and all penalty point offences fall within that category, there is an automatic period of 14 days available for the lodgement of an appeal. It would not have been appropriate to commence the period of endorsement of penalty points in advance of the completion of that period. Equally, it was considered that a sufficient period of additional notice should be given in such circumstances. In order to be consistent, the same period of 28 days applies where a person pays a fixed charge. Under section 3, where a person reaches the threshold of 12 points in a three year period, they are disqualified from holding a licence for six months. That period commences on the appropriate date relating to the endorsement of the particular number of penalty points which brought the total to, or to exceed, the threshold level.
Section 2 of the Bill provides that the Courts Service will advise the Minister of the convictions in cases where the person has opted to go to court. The Minister shall then provide for the endorsement of the appropriate number of penalty points on the relevant person's entry in the record. The notification from the Courts Service shall only be forwarded to the Minister where either an appeal against the conviction has failed or where no appeal is made on the expiry of the period for making such an appeal. Where a conviction for a penalty point offence is reversed on appeal, the Courts Service shall not notify the Minister of the conviction.
I cannot accept the amendment. There can be no question of the Minister having any form of appellate role in relation to either decisions taken by the courts or to cases where fixed charges are paid. However, I propose to consider the introduction of an amendment to the section on Report Stage to expressly provide that in the unlikely event of there being an error in the recording of penalty points, this can be rectified. The point made by Deputy Gilmore can be met by the person opting not to pay the fixed charge and taking his or her case to the District Court. Given that I have undertaken to introduce an amendment to deal with errors, the amendment could be withdrawn.
What about the example I gave of somebody who has six points and who is caught by the camera driving over the speed limit twice on the same journey? There is no dispute about the evidence that he was in excess of the speed limit. A garda then stops the driver and the driver does not have his driving licence with him. Again there is no doubt about the evidence. It is an offence not to have one's driving licence with one. If the person went to court on each of those points, presumably he would lose and end up with higher points than would have been applied originally. A mechanism to deal with the cumulative issue is necessary.
I doubt that there would be grounds to appeal each offence. As the driver was over the speed limit twice, the court would have to find that was so. As he or she also did not have his or her driving licence, he or she would have to be convicted of that offence. However, the issue that must be addressed is whether somebody in those circumstances should lose his or her licence.
We discussed the issue of similar offences within a short period earlier. The same offence attracts——
The person concerned does not have to pay the fixed charge and accumulate the points there and then. He or she can decide not to pay the fixed charge and the case will go to the District Court where he or she can argue his or her case. There is the added different value to the number of points that might be awarded against the person, but if he or she is in the inevitable situation, outlined by the Deputy, where he or she will exceed 12 points anyway, it would obviously be in his or her interest to argue his or her case in court rather than automatically disqualify himself or herself.
Will it be open to somebody going to court in those circumstances to make a case on the issue of losing the licence?
He or she would have a better chance of making his or her case in court. What we are discussing is the automatic allocation of a certain level of points for certain offences. When it accumulates to 12 penalty points, the penalty of the six month withdrawal of licence comes into operation.
Let us take the example of the first speeding offence. The camera outside Lucan catches the driver speeding.
I sometimes wonder if it is there at all.
It is very prominent; it is a great reminder. Let us say one is caught speeding outside Lucan and goes to court on that offence. Then one is caught in Kinnegad or Moate, which is the second offence——
At all times one has the choice as to whether to pay the fixed charge.
Yes, but when one goes to court, with what charge is one dealing? Is one not going to court on each offence?
If one feels there are mitigating circumstances and that one can make a case in court, one can take that chance.
Could one argue in court about the issue of losing the licence?
One could argue that it was unreasonable or whatever.
If one is only caught once——
The judge has discretion.
——one will take the penalty. If the camera catches one speeding outside Lucan and one knows one is over the limit, one takes one's medicine.
The judge might decide not to convict. Therefore, the points are not awarded against the driver.
However, does a person have grounds under the Bill to make the case that the effect of the accumulated points is that he or she will lose his or her licence and, taking the circumstances into account, that will be too harsh?
The judge has discretion. He or she can decide to take the circumstances into account and award points should he or she decide to do so.
The Minister says the judge can take the circumstances into account. Is it not the case——
The points will only be added if there is a conviction. That is a matter for decision by the judge.
Let us say, for argument's sake, that we do not dispute that. Then take the example of somebody caught speeding in Lucan, again on the Athlone bypass and, finally, stopped in Oranmore. Would it not be three different District Court judges dealing with the three cases? They are at three separate locations. The judge, therefore, cannot consider the cumulative aspect because three different judges will deal with the three cases. The cases are based on location and one goes before the District Court in the area where the offence occurred.
The Deputy is saying the person might have to appear in two different courts.
Three different courts.
If the person is convicted in the first court and points are awarded and he or she is then convicted in the second court, he or she could argue, if he or she thinks he or she has a case, that points have already been awarded in respect of the same journey. He or she could outline the circumstances and see what attitude the judge takes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This is probably the best place to deal with an issue causing huge concern. The Minister of State might be able to clarify the position. As somebody collects penalty points, he or she increases the risk of losing his or her licence. However, is it not also the case that as he or she collects penalty points, the insurance company is also collating them and will load the insurance premium according to whether the person has two, four, six or so forth penalty points? Will the Minister of State assure us that the insurance industry will not have access to this information to ensure it does not load insurance premia?
Many are concerned about road safety and believe the penalty points system is the right one to adopt. This is also true of many business people and haulage companies. However, their concern is that if their drivers collect two or four penalty points, the insurance company will load their insurance premia or force them to declare the number of points accumulated. This is the biggest stumbling block with the system and if it can be overcome, it will be an excellent one. However, this is a key issue.
The Minister of State has been critical of the insurance industry on certain matters. There is no question that this system will have a dramatic impact on the number of accidents and fatalities on the roads. However, if the insurance industry has access to this information or can force the driver to declare the number of penalty points he or she has collected, insurance costs will increase rather than decrease over time. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on this.
The Deputy asks me to give an assurance that the insurance companies will not have access to the information accumulated in the system on the names and addresses of those against whom penalty points have been awarded. I can give that assurance; they will have no access to that information. Whether an insurance company decides to request such information from applicants for motor insurance is a separate matter outside the remit of the legislation. However, they will not have access to the information accumulated in the various information technology systems. There is no way they would have access to it.
That still does not stop the insurance industry requesting this information.
From the individual.
Yes, from the individual. Normally, if one does not make a full declaration in relation to endorsements - this will also apply to penalty points in the future - one might not legally be insured. Even though the Department database is not accessible, the industry can force individual drivers to make a declaration and if they do not do so, they can end up without insurance. Is there any mechanism we can use to address this? I am aware that this is not within the Minister of State's remit, but it is an important issue that must be addressed.
The insurance companies are obliged to give a quotation if somebody seeks one for motor insurance. I have given the Deputy an assurance that they will have no access to the information contained in the information technology machinery operating this system.
Acting Chairman
The issue does not arise on this section. The Deputy will have to pursue it some other way.
Yes, but it is a vital issue in relation to the implementation of the system.
It is a matter for the insurance company and its potential clients.
I know, but the Minister of State knows as well as I do what will happen.
It is a competitive world. Some of them might seek information on previous motoring convictions.
All of them will seek the information, which means there will be a loading on insurance. One of the objectives in this legislation——
If a client seeks motor insurance, the company can ask if he or she has any convictions for transgressions of the road traffic legislation. The company is entitled to ask that question at present. I presume this would be in a similar category. However, they will not get any information from the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 14 and 92 form a composite proposal. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 14 and 92 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.-The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 11:
'11A.-Without prejudice to section 11 of this Act, a person shall, at all times, drive a vehicle in a public place with the dip head lamp illuminated.'.".
I am sure the Minister will wholeheartedly accept this amendment in view of his statement prior to the October bank holiday weekend in 2000, that drivers should use their lights over that weekend.
I said that in the interests of road safety.
It was better than the white flag of the year before.
The Deputy should look at the road death statistics for that white flag campaign. The drop was extraordinary, although I do not claim it was a direct result of the campaign. However, it was the lowest recorded month.
In the subsequent year there was a reduction in the statistics as well. However, research has been carried out for the European Commission by the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands. It found that if the day time running of lights, or DRL, was used throughout the 15 member states, it would reduce the number of fatalities on European roads by 5% - that would equate to 20 lives per annum in this country given the current frequency of road accidents - and would reduce the number of accidents causing injury by 1,800 per annum. This is not a laughing matter. In Ireland and the northern European countries, it would probably have a more significant impact.
The Government gave a commitment to researching this issue under its road safety strategy. South Dublin County Council carried out a pilot scheme, as did Donegal County Council. The director of traffic in Dublin Corporation has wholeheartedly endorsed the practice. It is almost four years since the Minister made a commitment in this regard and it is about time a decision was made on the issue as it could have a positive effect on motoring. We might even consider over time adopting the use of dipped lights when windscreen wipers are operating. In Florida, for example, a motorist cannot use the wipers in his car without the dipped lights being on too.
Driving to Dublin yesterday under miserable road conditions, I noticed a huge number of cars did not have their dipped head lamps turned on. Those people should be prosecuted. It is extremely difficult, in road conditions such as those we experienced yesterday, to see a vehicle approaching when its head lamps are not on, especially given the amount of spray being generated by the traffic immediately ahead. It is about time we took this issue seriously as it could have a significant positive impact on road safety. The Minister has had the power, since 1961, to introduce this requirement but has not acted on it. There is a commitment in the Government's road safety strategy since 1998 to investigate it but no decision has been forthcoming. Now is the time to take the bull by the horns. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I understand the Deputy's concerns. I have strong personal leanings in regard to the proposal but I believe it would not be in the best interests of road safety to accept it at this time. The road safety strategy, as the Deputy correctly points out, refers to international interest in and experience of day time running lights as an instrument of road safety. The strategy states that day time running lights warrant serious consideration in Ireland although it made no commitment in this regard other than to examine it. I have asked that it be examined.
International research literature on day time running lights indicates differing perceptions of its effectiveness as a road safety tool. It also raises some energy consumption and climate change issues, although they would not be major influences in regard to any decision I would have to make on the matter. The effectiveness of day time running lights is often differentiated on geographic climate grounds. Certain northern European countries, for example, demonstrate more positive results for day time running lights than many southern European countries.
The European Commission has given detailed consideration to this complex question and, as a consequence, it has included day time running lights among road safety priorities to be progressed at European Union level but it has not arrived at a definitive decision in regard to the matter. Part of the difficulty in considering the impact of day time running lights in the Irish situation lies with the scarcity of empirical evidence one way or the other. Dublin City Council proposes to run a pilot scheme next winter and I support this initiative. However, I would like to see the pilot exercise generating benchmarking information to assist in a "before and after" assessment of the effectiveness of day time running lights. In fact, I would like rural and urban local authorities to undertake similar exercises to take account of less well lit roads. It would be helpful if some other local authority undertook a similar pilot experiment in conjunction with Dublin City Council.
A number of representations have been made by Motorcyclists Action Group, MAG, with regard to the introduction of DRL in Ireland. These were taken into account by the high level group on road safety before it decided that Dublin Corporation's pilot scheme should proceed. I discovered from my own discussions with the MAG representatives that they are not enthusiastic about this proposal whereas I thought it would be most beneficial in the case of motorcyclists. Again, there seems to be a need for more research in this area. The intention is to review the results of the pilot campaign before making a decision on whether to extend some form of DRL provision on a countrywide basis.
At the heart of the discussion on this subject is the issue that while DRL can have certain safety benefits for the motor vehicles that use it, its use may lead to additional deaths and injury for more vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, because these are relatively less visible when vehicles are using day time running lights. Therefore, it would be prudent to have more objective evidence of the benefits of DRL before requiring it to be used here compulsorily. For those reasons, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment. There is no need for it because, as the Deputy pointed out, it can be done under existing road traffic legislation. It is only a matter of enacting those sections.
A regulation would have to be introduced by the Minister. Perhaps we could introduce the Florida system where, if people are using their wipers, their dipped head lights must be on. That would have a significant impact. It could be introduced on a pilot basis to assess its success. The Minister is well aware that in poor road conditions it can be extremely difficult to see oncoming vehicles if they do not have dipped lights on. Yesterday was a prime example but there are many others. There is a significant number of head-on collisions and crashes at junctions and many of them are caused by motorists who are unable to see the oncoming vehicles.
I mentioned the argument that it might increase the visibility of the motor vehicle but it decreases the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists.
I accept that it is an issue. However, there are other significant issues relating to pedestrians. Deputy Timmins referred to pedestrians walking at the side of the road who do not wear reflective armbands, etc., and cannot be seen. That is another issue which must be given consideration and if it is a case that we must introduce legislation to ensure that such people are prosecuted, so be it. In many cases pedestrians cause accidents because they are wearing dark clothes and cannot be seen. Even if we introduced, on a pilot basis, a system similar to that in place in Florida, where people are actually——
I had the privilege of driving through Florida on one occasion and——
The weather was probably not that bad at the time.
——there were no cyclists or pedestrians on the turnpikes and motorways there. We must compare like with like. I would be happy to make inquiries with the authorities in Florida about their experience in the matter and whether they feel that their system has been beneficial. As the Deputy is aware, a great deal of research into road safety is carried out in America and I would be glad to make the inquiries to which I refer and provide him with the results.
I wish to make a final point and I will not pursue the matter further after that. Perhaps the Minister of State's Department will contact the authorities - Roscommon County Council and the Western Health Board - in rural areas which are considering introducing the DRL on a pilot basis.
I would be glad to do so.
In my opinion this system could have a major impact. Perhaps the Minister of State will look closely at this matter and even consider introducing an appropriate amendment. I will withdraw the amendment with leave to reintroduce on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) (a) On application made in accordance with subsection (2), the appropriate judge, if not satisfied of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), may, subject to subsection (3), adjourn the application from time to time and on an adjourned date may receive in evidence such additional evidence as may be adduced by the licensing authority.
(b) In the event of application made in accordance with subsection (2) being adjourned in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the licensing authority shall so notify the Minister and shall notify the Minister of the reasons for such adjournment, whereupon the Minister shall request the competent authorities of the State of the offence to provide without delay such supplementary information as may be necessary.
(c) If the appropriate judge remains unsatisfied of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) notwithstanding the additional evidence adduced by the licensing authority on an adjourned date, the appropriate judge shall decline to make an order under subsection (2).
(d) On application made in accordance with subsection (2), any document accompanied by a certificate signed by an officer of the Minister, authorised by the Minister in that behalf, and stating that such document has been received by the Minister from a competent authority of the State of the offence in accordance with the Convention, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated in such documents, and a document purporting to be such certificate shall be deemed to be such certificate and to have been signed by the person purporting to have signed it and to have been so signed in accordance with an authorisation by the Minister in that behalf, unless the contrary is shown.”.
This amendment relates to the new European Convention on driver disqualification which I welcome. My particular concerns, which are reflected in the amendment, relate to the procedure that would be followed in a case where somebody who is normally resident here receives a disqualification outside the State. The amendment really relates to the notification procedure. I understand that the Minister will be notified, I presume by his counterpart in the relevant country, and he will notify the licensing authority which will then apply to the courts to have the same disqualification applied here. I am most concerned about the adequacy of the information being supplied by the state in which the disqualification occurred.
What procedure will be employed in terms of seeking further information before disqualification would be imposed here? It seems that there should be some procedure put in place in that regard and that a limit should be placed on the amount of further information that could be sought. A strict time limit should also be applied in respect of this information. Amendment No. 15 seeks to lay down such a procedure and clarify the position.
I am sure the Minister of State appreciates that significant consideration must be given to the accident statistics in the north-east. Will the penalty point system take account of drivers from Northern Ireland? While I understand that there will be difficulties in implementing any penalty arrangement, will provision be made for a harmonisation of procedures in a cross-Border context?
My question relates to the point raised by Deputy Kirk. Am I correct in understanding that this section provides for a mechanism whereby the Minister will be notified if somebody is disqualified from driving in another member state of the European Union and will pass on that information to the licensing authority which will then seek to have the courts apply such a disqualification in this jurisdiction, but that this provision applies only to persons who are normally resident in the State? Does that mean, as Deputy Kirk stated, that a person who is normally resident in Northern Ireland or in any other member state of the EU and who is disqualified from driving there cannot be disqualified from driving here?
I will deal first with Deputy Kirk's point. It is hoped that there will be interaction, in the long-term, between Northern Ireland and the Republic in respect of our road traffic penalty points system. However, we are nowhere near that point happen at present. If somebody is disqualified from driving in their own country, they are disqualified from driving anywhere else because they are required to have a clean licence from their home state in order to drive elsewhere.
I consider that the provisions contained in paragraphs (a) to (c) in the proposed subsection (3) are inherent in the section as drafted and, consequently, I do not propose to accept the amendment. However, I see merit in the proposal contained in paragraph (d) which provides for the certification documents to be presented before the courts and I am prepared to consider the introduction of an appropriate amendment on Report Stage.
Is the Minister of State referring to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) in amendment No. 15?
Yes.
What would we need to do in order to apply the penalty points system to drivers from Northern Ireland who are resident there? Would legislation be required to harmonise the position or would a penalty arrangement have to be implemented? There are drivers from Northern Ireland who traverse the roads of counties Louth and Meath on a daily basis. I am not suggesting that they are principally responsible for the unfortunately high accident statistics in the area. However, problems with traffic from the North traversing the N1 and N2 is reflected in a loading of insurance premiums generally in the area. This is causing severe difficulties for local drivers.
I want to pursue my earlier point.
May I reply to Deputy Kirk's point first? As Members are aware, we have been seeking to operate closely with the Northern Ireland authorities as required under the Good Friday Agreement. We are involved with them in funding joint road safety programmes and we show the same road safety films in each jurisdiction. It is hoped that we will arrive at a situation where agreement will be reached between the UK authorities and ourselves to have penalty points awarded here and vice versa added to people’s licences in their home jurisdictions. That would require a special convention and legislation would have to be passed. I am not sure whether my Department or the Department of Foreign Affairs would be responsible for such legislation. It would require special legislation and an international agreement between both countries.
Is it being contemplated at this point?
There is a difference between the Northern Ireland and UK systems. The matter will progress as quickly as both sides can reach agreement but as we do not have our system in place yet, it is too early for us to even think about it.
From the point of view of accident statistics and for general harmonisation, the sooner it can be moved along, the better.
I agree. However, our main priority is to get the legislation through and the machinery in place to have it up and running. Then there will be a period of assessment of the system's operation when our own drivers can become more familiar with it before we start introducing new additions, such as adding on Northern Ireland's points. One could go to Ravenhill for a match, for example, and acquire two extra points on the way home.
Let us say somebody has been disqualified from driving in another member state. They apply for and get a provisional driving licence here and then apply to do the driving test. If the Minister manages to get the waiting time for driving tests down to a reasonable length of ten weeks or whatever the target is, they——
It is down there already.
The Minister is a long way from it.
We have reached that target in some places.
Okay. What about a person who applies to do the driving test, passes it and gets an Irish driving licence? Is there anything to stop that happening?
Under European legislation, a person cannot have two driving licences.
The person could be from France, for example, and not have a French driving licence because he is disqualified from driving.
He may be barred from using it but he would have a licence.
What is to stop him doing that under our system? Let us say I am normally resident in Paris but have some connection here and use a convenience address. I get a provisional driving licence from Galway County Council, apply to do the driving test, do the test within a certain number of weeks, pass it and acquire an Irish driving licence. Is there anything to prevent that happening?
Throughout the European Union one must be normally resident in a country before one can legally apply for a driving licence in that country. Normal residence requires at least 185 days' residence.
There is no check. If a person applies to a licensing authority here for——
That is a matter for another agency. We are discussing the legislation here.
Yes, but we are making provision for the enforcement of the European convention on driving disqualifications which will apply to people who are normally resident here and who are disqualified in another state. They will not be able to produce their driving licence from that state. I am simply drawing attention to the loophole that somebody who is disqualified from driving in another state could, perhaps using a convenience address here, easily apply for a provisional licence, get themselves into the system to do the driving test and end up with an Irish driving licence which they could use both here and in any other jurisdiction. Such a driving licence would be perfectly valid. As I understand it, the licensing authorities do not carry out a check to establish whether somebody has been resident for the requisite number of days.
I am not aware of the level of enforcement but a person is breaking the law if they do that. It is a matter for the law enforcement authorities. I have no information regarding the level of enforcement, the number of cases that have been brought and so forth. If the Deputy wants me to check it, I can make inquiries.
I do not want to delay the meeting on it but——
I cannot add any more information.
One is breaking the law but what are the chances of being caught? If the gardaí see the driving licence, that is good enough for them. They do not check the original application to see if one had the residence qualification to apply for it in the first place.
If the person was prosecuted for an offence and the driving licence was investigated, it might emerge then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 16 is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 17 is cognate. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, subsection (5)(b), line 8, before “the person”, to insert “if”.
This is a technical amendment. The word "if" should precede subsections (5)(b) and (c) in the same manner as it precedes subsections (5)(a) and (b).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 10, subsection (5)(c), line 11, before “the period”, to insert “if”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(8)(a) when by reason of the commission, after the entry into force of the Convention, of a specified offence, by a person who is normally resident in another Member State (’the State of residence’), a driving disqualification is imposed on the person by a court of competent jurisdiction within the State, the registrar or clerk of the court concerned or such other member of the staff of the Courts Service as that Service may designate shall notify the Minister of the disqualification as soon as may be and shall comply with any request from the Minister for further details or information relating to the person, the offence committed, the imposition of the disqualification or any other matter for the purposes of the Convention,
(b) upon receipt by the Minister of a notification under paragraph (a), the Minister shall, subject to paragraph (d), without delay notify the central authority of the State of residence of the disqualification,
(c) the Minister shall ensure that a notification under paragraph (b) complies with the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention and shall be empowered to do or cause to be done all things necessary to that end, including the translation, certification and attestation of any document and shall, if necessary, request such further details or information as may be necessary from the person giving the notification referred to in paragraph (a), and shall notify such further details or information to the State of residence in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b),
(d) the Minister shall not be obliged to notify the State of residence in accordance with paragraph (b) in the circumstances provided for in Article 3(2) of the Convention.”.
This amendment deals with the issue Deputy Gilmore mentioned. It is an attempt to give teeth to the convention and to lay down clear procedures in statute to ensure that it does work. It deals with non-residents who are disqualified within this State and notifying the motoring authority or the Minister of the country of residence. If the convention is to mean or achieve anything, we must give thought to how it will work. Disqualifying somebody in this country who is from Northern Ireland, France or elsewhere will not have any consequence for him or her unless it affects him or her where he or she lives. It is important to have a procedure for notifying a person's country of normal residence.
I am grateful to the Deputies for this amendment. I accept it has value and, subject to consideration of the draft text, I am prepared to consider the introduction of an appropriate amendment on Report Stage. I am also considering introducing an amendment on Report Stage to provide in explicit terms that the reference to a person in subsection (1)(a) is, in fact, a reference to a person from this State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 75 is an alternative to amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 19 and 75 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"10.-Each local authority shall, within 6 months from the passing of this Act, make bye-laws prescribing a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in urban residential areas as defined by the bye-laws concerned.".
This amendment proposes that within urban residential areas there should be a new statutory speed limit of 20 miles per hour. At present, the lowest speed limit in operation is a 30 mile per hour limit which applies generally in urban areas. There is, within the existing road traffic legislation, provision for local authorities to make by-laws which provide for speed limits of less than 30 miles per hour but, by and large, those by-laws are not made.
The Legislature needs to take a detailed look at the situation in urban residential areas. I am referring to the typical housing estate where children play on the road and people walk about in the course of their normal lives. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence of excessive speeding in residential areas and they are not areas in which one often finds a member of the Garda Síochána enforcing the speed limit. There are regular requests to local authorities to provide "children at play" and other signs and ramps on the roads to discourage excessive speeding. Often the offenders are people who live in the area or people who are visiting residents. They drive at enormous speeds through streets where children are playing. There is a need to introduce a specific speed limit. The rule should be that within urban residential areas, where it is normal to see children out playing on the road and people out walking, cars should only drive at a crawling speed.
I propose a general limit of 20 mph. It should be done on a local authority basis because there are practical implications in terms of erecting signs and so forth to give effect to it and to put the enforcement system in place. Within six months of this legislation being passed, there should be a new speed limit in urban residential areas of 20 mph. People should be given to understand that the acceptable speed of a vehicle in urban residential areas is to crawl, not drive through them at accelerating speed. I have seen motorists effectively showing off in their cars in areas and streets where children are playing. We must return those residential streets to the people who live in them and the children who play on them. Motorists will have to suffer the inconvenience of driving at a reduced speed through them.
All Members, particularly those who have significant urban populations in their constituencies, have received continual representations on this issue. Is there any survey data available on the accident rate in housing estates? There are demands for the provision of ramps in these estates. Has there been any monitoring of a ramping arrangement in an estate? Does it show that ramping contributed to a decline in the accident rate or has it had the opposite effect of increasing the accident rate due to increased hazard and speeding motorists going through the estates, bouncing over the ramps and ending up in accidents?
Amendment No. 75 provides for the same thing.
It is more politically correct.
Yes. I like to consider myself more European by choosing the 30 kph speed limit.
Does that mean the Deputy will join the forum?
I would not go that far. The sentiments in the two amendments are the same. All Deputies represent urban areas and they realise the futility of the methods used to try to keep car speeds low in urban residential areas. The current methods involve spending millions of pounds building concrete ramps and other structures to encourage motorists to drive at reasonable speeds. They are failing. When ramps are put on one road, people speed onto the next road. It is a symptom of traffic congestion and the inevitable behaviour that results when people see a straight road.
People are now living in high density developments and there is a concentration of pedestrians in urban areas. We would like more pedestrians and fewer motorists but, if that is the case, we will have to give them some protection. A pedestrian is too vulnerable in a clash with a car travelling at even 30 mph. I raised this issue with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on numerous occasions. Some years ago he indicated that he was well disposed towards such a change but was anxious not to do it until the ramping schemes that were being introduced at the time by the Dublin Transportation Office were assessed. We have had ramps to the back teeth and they are not the solution for an urban area. They destroy the environment and, in many cases, their safety is questionable.
We have to project the notion that the pedestrian is sovereign, whether on the streets or the footpaths, particularly in an urban area. The objection in the past was the cost of enforcement from the Garda's point of view - the amount of resources needed would make it almost impossible to enforce and gardaí were having enough difficulty enforcing the 30 mph speed limit. However, with automatic surveillance now available through cameras and so much of the rest of the work capable of being done through technology, a 30 kph speed limit could be automatically enforced through this system. Now is the time, in a significant road traffic Bill such as this, to make that change.
Like Deputy Gilmore, I accept that this, like other speed limits, is to be used where appropriate. There are residential areas where higher speed limits are appropriate. The Stillorgan dual carriageway, for example, is a residential road but I doubt that a speed limit of 30 kph would be envisaged for it. However, there are other areas where such a speed limit is the only solution. If we are to protect life, which is the objective of this legislation, it is inevitable and we should move now to do it.
I endorse the sentiments expressed by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Mitchell. The speed limit of 20 mph should be automatic around schools. It would have a significant impact on the number of accidents. Thankfully, such accidents are infrequent, but there have been cases where children have been hit by cars within the environs of a school. It would be a step in the right direction if such a speed limit was put in place. The National Roads Authority has implemented a process of erecting flashing lights at primary and secondary schools which are on national primary and secondary routes or exit onto such routes. There is a huge volume of traffic exiting and entering schools or parking in their vicinity in the mornings and afternoons. There has been a significant number of accidents but, thankfully, few fatalities. It would be a positive step to implement a 20 mph speed limit in the vicinity of schools.
Part 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, introduced significant changes in the roles of various bodies in relation to the application of speed limits. In particular, it gave power to local authorities to make by-laws to determine how speed limits are to be applied to specified roads in their respective areas.
However, the power to determine the speed limits that may be applied remains with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Through regulations, the Minister may determine the general, special and ordinary speed limits and revise the built up area speed limit and the motorway speed limit, both of which are set out in the road traffic Acts. In making their by-laws local authorities may only apply the speed limits determined by the Minister in the first instance. The speed limits that apply at present generally date back to a review carried out between 1990 and 1992.
The motorway speed limit of 70 mph was introduced under the Road Traffic Act, 1994. The retention of those speed limits was considered in the context of the Road Safety Strategy, 1998-2002. The strategy indicated changes were not proposed in the immediate term and the priority was to secure a much higher level of compliance with the existing speed limits. However, the option of revising speed limits downwards is not ruled out. I acknowledge the cross-party support for the introduction of lower speed limits, such as 20 miles per hour in certain urban areas and the use of lower speed limits should be the main consideration. This issue will be examined both in the context of the consideration of a metric system of speed limits to which we will have to move and also in the preparation of the second road safety strategy, work on which has already commenced. If, following the results of such consideration, a 20 miles per hour speed limit were to be authorised, its application would then be determined by local authorities in the context of their by-law making function, which is reserved for local authority members.
Deputy Kirk referred to the national survey on speeding and the number of accidents in estates. We do not have specific figures for estates but we have figures which relate to urban areas generally. The survey that was undertaken by the NRA showed that on national roads approaching urban areas 90% of vehicles exceeded 30 miles per hour. The response from the motoring public has been very disappointing and the level of compliance with existing speed limits is a major national problem. An entire culture must be changed. I do not say that, because motorists do not comply with the 30 miles per hour speed limit, a 20 miles per hour limit should be introduced in certain circumstances. Whatever the speed limit is, it should be complied with and if there is a need for a 20 miles per hour speed limit, motorists should also comply with it.
When I was in America I visited one residential area in which a ten miles per hour speed limit had been imposed because a major event was taking place in the locality. I asked the man who was driving my vehicle why he was driving so slowly and he said there was a ten miles per hour speed limit. He said he had been caught once by the cops and he was not going to get caught again. Americans have a different attitude. They drive on massive motorways and comply with the law. A small percentage of people break the speed limits there while the percentage here is very high. It makes us look very bad and the public is concerned about the number of people who are involved in accidents and who are tragically killed, yet the very people who express such concern are themselves breaking the existing speed limits. All of us do so. It is in our national psyche and we must pay more attention to speed limits and try to change the culture that exists. Initiatives by the State through the National Safety Council and the work of the high level group on the road safety strategy are undertaken with that purpose but it is a slow, long, tedious effort to achieve the standards of compliance that are necessary to reduce the number of accidents and their terrible consequences.
I am favourably disposed to having this matter seriously examined in the context of drafting the second road safety strategy and the introduction of the metric system. All the speed signs will have to be changed anyway. Given the circumstances that I have outlined, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments. I accept the intent of the amendments but it is not appropriate to accept them.
I am pleased that the Minister of State is positive about what we are trying to do. I ask him to consider the inclusion of the amendment on Report Stage. I acknowledge that he can examine this issue in the context of making regulations under the 1994 Act, which would allow local authorities to introduce reduced speed limits in areas to be decided by them. That is the practical way to do so. We cannot decide to apply speed limits to individual roads or housing estates; it is a matter for local authorities. I also ask the Minister of State not to leave this issue to be discussed in the contest of the second road safety strategy. It is understandable why it did not get high level attention in the drawing up of the first strategy, which focused on the high levels of deaths and serious accidents on our roads and driver behaviour.
There is a reason for reducing speed limits and for sending a message. Our law provides crudely for fast driving within reason, with a 70 miles per hour speed limit on motorways, and slow driving, with a 30 miles per hour speed limit in urban areas generally. It does not provide for crawling, which is required in residential areas. If a car is being driven at 30 miles an hour, for example, along a street where children are playing or elderly people are trying to cross, it is very difficult to distinguish whether it is travelling at 30 or 35 miles per hour but it makes no practical difference because it is still travelling too fast for such an area. If a reduced residential speed limit was reduced, fleets of gardaí would not necessarily have to enforce it. The culture of driving would change because the people living in the area would be almost able to enforce the limit themselves. A new culture would be created whereby driving in higher than second gear would not be contemplated because if one did so, somebody would pick up on it.
The speed limits should be reduced in this legislation. There is general agreement on the desirability of doing so. It may be another day's work deciding which roads or estates the limits are applied to and that is a matter for local authorities to determine but they should be implemented through legislation.
I will withdraw the amendment in response to the positive indications by the Minister of State but I will table it again on Report Stage and I ask him to give serious consideration to reducing speed limits between now and then. There is general agreement on the principle of reducing the speed limit in urban residential areas and its introduction should not be postponed. While it can be introduced by regulation, it should be provided in primary legislation to promulgate the fact a new regime is being introduced in areas with which we are all familiar where residents seek all types of traffic management measures.
I attended a public meeting last night about a proposed housing scheme. Traffic management was one of the major issues that emerged and all the problems associated with rat running through residential areas. Such a law is required. My local authority has received requests from 160 residents' associations seeking ramps on roads. It is daft to build ramps on roads to do physically what can be done in legislation. It should be done now and I ask the Minister of State to table an amendment on this on Report Stage
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Until Report Stage.
We may also introduce a further amendment on Report Stage.
Is the Minister of State saying a lower maximum speed limit can be introduced by regulation? There is no excuse for not doing so as people are dying all the time. Human beings are too vulnerable when they collide with a car travelling at 30 miles per hour in urban areas where we all live on top of one another. There is a large number of cars on our roads and population densities have increased. It is absolutely crazy not to introduce a reduced maximum speed limit. Millions of pounds have been spent on ramps which have not achieved anything and are probably a danger in themselves. It makes absolutely no sense and, while I acknowledge the Minister of State is well disposed to a reduction in speed limits, he has been so disposed for four years. When will it happen? Why not introduce it immediately and save lives now? It does not make sense to keep postponing it for another day.
Deputy Gilmore made the same point.
That does not make it any less valid.
No, but I referred to the cross-party agreement on this issue.
There has been cross-party agreement on this for three or four years. Why are the changes not happening?
The Minister of State has bad memories of cross-party agreement in regard to Committee Stage amendments.
The experience in the United Kingdom regarding reduced speed limits in housing estates is that they are ineffective unless they are accompanied by traffic calming measures which means ramps will still be needed.
I often stand outside my house in my estate and see cars whizzing by. In practice, residents in estates will challenge drivers.
I am inclined to agree with the Deputy.
One cannot do so at the moment. How does one judge the speed at which a car is travelling? A car enters an estate and accelerates. It reaches 35 or 40 miles per hour by the time it reaches the end of the road. There is a qualitative difference and that is why the second gear rule needs to be applied.
I do not dispute anything I have heard.
It might happen that those who are driving at 40 miles per hour might reduce speed to 30 miles per hour.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the people.
On a point of order, I do not understand that ruling. Perhaps the Chairman can clarify it. It is the first time I have heard the expression "a potential charge on the people", as distinct from a potential charge on the Exchequer, as a reason for an amendment being ruled out of order. Amendments are ruled out of order on the ground that they would impose a charge on the Exchequer but this amendment would not. It proposes the imposition of duties on motor vehicle distributors, which would raise revenue for the State and deal with the end of life vehicle problem in the process. This would raise revenue rather than impose a cost on the Exchequer. I am reluctant to challenge rulings of the Chair but I ask that the amendment be re-examined because it would have the opposite effect to the ruling.
Acting Chairman
I will make the legal advice available to the Deputy before Report Stage. Is that in order?
Yes, and I would like to table the amendment again on Report Stage subject to that advice. I do not want to make a major issue about this but it is a perfectly valid amendment which I respectfully submit is in order.
Acting Chairman
The legal advice is that it is not but I will make that advice available to the Deputy.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and amendment No. 23 is consequential. All may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"PART 2*
Measures Against Use of Motor Vehicle by Under-Age Drivers
10.-(1) A person who supplies, or offers to supply, a vehicle to an under-age driver in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the vehicle will be used by that or another under-age driver in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section-
(a) (i) ’supply’ includes giving without payment and supply by way of sale, hire, loan or purported sale, hire, loan, or otherwise, and
(ii) 'under-age driver' means a person who has not attained the age of sixteen, and
(b) it shall not be material whether the person who supplied or offered to supply the vehicle as aforesaid was the lawful owner of the vehicle or otherwise in lawful possession thereof.”.
The amendment is based on a Private Members' Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy Broughan, some time ago, the purpose of which was to deal with the problem of joyriding. This again is largely an urban problem. During the Private Members' debate, Deputy Broughan drew attention to an unfortunately regular occurrence where old motor vehicles are made available to young people who do not have driving licences. They are being sold in garages for £50 or £100 and it is a phenomenon that has occurred more regularly following the introduction of car testing. There are many old vehicles available and they are flogged out of garages by unscrupulous people in the motor trade. These vehicles are picked up by youngsters who drive like lunatics around housing estates and public parks and then burn them out. Last weekend, three separate incidents like this were reported to me by constituents. In one incident a car was burned out in a laneway beside an oil tank, the potential consequences of which were enormous. Had the householder not been alerted at 2 a.m. by a neighbour, an explosion could have occurred, the possible after-effects of which do not bear thinking about.
Deputy Broughan sought to make it an offence to make these vehicles available to people who are not entitled to drive them for the purposes of joyriding. When the Bill was debated, the Government indicated that the issue of joyriding would be dealt with in this legislation. I was disappointed that it did not address the issues raised in Deputy Broughan's Bill and, therefore, I have tabled the core proposals of his Bill in this amendment.
I absolutely support the amendment. Abandoned motor cars have taken over from horses as a plaything for children and people do not even have to buy them. They are left on the streets, with the keys in them for fear they might not be stolen or burnt out, to avoid the charge local authorities apply to remove cars. This matter was to be addressed in the European context with an end-of-life tax and negotiations were going on with the motor industry as to how it would be applied. Cars should not be left on the street for children and it should be obligatory to dispose of them safely through an authorised authority. If there has been no progress on that issue we should include it in legislation.
This proposal provides for the introduction of a number of new sections in the Road Traffic Acts that focus on the use of vehicles by under age drivers. The proposed new sections reflect those presented by Deputy Gilmore's colleague, Deputy Broughan, when he sponsored legislation on joyriding.
Three substantive proposals are presented in the proposed new sections. In the first instance, it is proposed to apply a prohibition on the supply of vehicles to a person under 16 years of age in circumstances where there would be a reasonable expectation that the vehicle would be used by that person, or another, in a public place. A second proposal provides that it would be an offence to organise, direct or participate in the taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner for the purpose of driving the vehicle in a public place in a manner dangerous to the public. The final proposal provides that the penalties relating to offences related to drink driving should apply to the new offences.
Joyriding is already prosecutable under a range of headings, depending on the circumstances involved. Charges of manslaughter, larceny, dangerous driving, unauthorised taking of or being in charge of a vehicle and of uninsured or drink driving may each be appropriate according to the circumstances. In addition, section 41 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, provides the Garda with the power to detain vehicles that are driven by underage drivers. There is, therefore, no lack of or deficiency in the legal powers available to address joyriding and the Garda has not sought any further powers.
It is a reasonable assumption that the majority of vehicles used for joyriding are stolen. Measures directed at the sale, hire or loan of vehicles to underage drinkers will address only a small number of cases and present formidable difficulties in terms of providing for both the actual supply of the vehicles and the reasonable expectation of their intended use. It would be difficult to know in advance whether a car will be driven recklessly by an underage driver. In view of what I have said, I ask Deputies to withdraw their amendments.
I accept that joyriding is a modern phenomena in our housing estates and that it is the use of a lethal weapon by inexperienced and underage persons who are in many cases under the influence of drugs or drink. It is a shocking development and presents a real danger to people and property in these areas. Many of the incidents conclude with the burning of the vehicle, often in dangerous proximity to houses. It is not confined to Dublin and the souping-up of the engines in the cars is of major concern. I cannot accept the amendment, however, but I will have another look at it on Report Stage and will discuss with my colleagues whether some other Department's legislation might be more appropriate to deal with the issue. I would be happy to do something if I thought it would work and bring about the required results. That is not the Deputy's objective in proposing this amendment, but I cannot accept it as it stands.
The Minister is right that there are existing provisions under which joyriders can be prosecuted - for example, joyriders may have no licence, the car is probably not insured, it is probably stolen, the tyres may not be good and seat belts may not be worn. Twelve penalty points would probably be accumulated quickly but the problem is that the culprits are not being caught. To be fair, that is not entirely the fault of the Garda.
There is a problem, however, and this amendment focuses on it. The problem is the ready availability of cars for joyriding. Deputy Mitchell was correct. Since the introduction of the NCT, old vehicles are no longer being kept because they cannot be taxed. These old bangers are abandoned or returned to the motor trade from where they are either given away or sold for a nominal amount of money. There is a ready supply and joyriders no longer have to steal cars.
The earlier amendment which was ruled out of order attempted to introduce a mandatory regime for dealing with end-of-life vehicles. We know the Minister has been in discussion for some time with the motor trade about a voluntary arrangement for these vehicles. We have no mandatory arrangement but responsibility should be put on the motor trade to deal with them and distributors should have primary responsibility for their recovery and disposal. Unfortunately, that requirement does not exist and we have this huge supply of untaxable bangers which end up in the hands of joyriders or being burnt out. It is a huge problem.
This is a Road Traffic Bill and I would like it to deal with the problem which should not be postponed. Burning and joyriding are nightly occurrences, particularly in urban Ireland. This Bill deals, for the most part, with normally law-abiding drivers. We are introducing penalty points and, by and large, the legislation deals with licensed drivers whose cars are taxed and insured who commit an offence. I have no difficulty with that because the legislation is needed to improve road safety, save lives and prevent accidents. However, there is a new category of offenders. Some people are getting vehicles, driving them at abnormal speeds for kicks and putting themselves and others at risk. Their actions are fuelled by the free availability of vehicles for that purpose. There is an urgent need to close off that availability and that is why Deputy Broughan introduced a Private Members' Bill over two years ago. The Government voted against his proposal but told us it was sympathetic and would consider the issue. We expected the issue to be covered in the Road Traffic Bill, but it is not. I want it included in this Bill. I intend to press this issue and if I do not call a division now, if the Minister is not prepared to do something I will certainly call a division on Report Stage.
I accept the problem but it is largely down to enforcement of the large body of law which is in existence. The law is being transgressed by these teenage drivers in these vehicles. I will bring it to the attention of the Minister and we will examine it before Report Stage.
I will withdraw the amendment until Report Stage but I feel very strongly about this. It is the most serious aspect of road safety in many parts of the country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
SECTION 10.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 33, 51, 56, 57, 68, 76, 77, 79 to 84, inclusive, and 87, are cognate to amendment No. 24, and I propose that they be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, line 7, to delete "(£1,974)".
The Euro Changeover Board has advised that the Irish pound amounts in dual display Bills as in the case of the Road Traffic Bill are now redundant and may be removed. This is being done by way of individual amendments. It is proposed that all references to the Irish pound amounts be deleted in this manner. This also facilitates the deletion of subsection (2) of section 22 and of column 4 of the table to that section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 31, 43 and 49 are cognate to amendment No. 25 and it is proposed to take them together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 13, after "notice", to insert "a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating".
Amendments Nos. 25 and 31 provide that section 11, subsection (4) and (8), and amendments Nos. 43 and 49, provide that section 12, subsection (3) and (7), be amended to provide that where the registered owner of a vehicle was not driving or using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, he or she must furnish in a prescribed document the name and address of the person who was driving or using the vehicle.
What happens if the vehicle has been stolen?
If the vehicle is stolen then the owner of the vehicle can make a written statement setting out the facts.
What happens if the owner of the vehicle——
He may have reported the vehicle as stolen.
What happens if the owner of the vehicle makes the vehicle available to a driver who does not have a driving licence or may be prohibited from driving, but the owner of the vehicle is not aware of those facts?
He can write a letter to that effect stating that position. He has a defence.
Can he write a letter?
Yes. The points will not be applied to him if he can make a case.
But he must go to court to make the case.
In a case where he is confronted with a garda stopping him, he can respond to that garda with those details that the Deputy has mentioned. That would be considered a defence on his part. The points would not be applied.
What if he is not there when the offence occurs and the driver of the vehicle is the one who is caught? The points would apply to the owner of the car.
Ultimately they apply to the owner if the driver is unidentified. The driver can respond in writing and inform the authorities.
I do not think that is possible. One automatically attracts points once one pays and if one does not pay, one must go to court. There is no allowance for writing a letter.
If the vehicle has been stolen or used by somebody in a manner which the owner had not permitted, it is a good defence for him to make it known to the authorities.
Would that be in a court case? He also has to pay for a court case.
The Garda have discretion as to whether they would apply the points.
But this is to be an automatic points system. The points will apply automatically. The Garda have no discretion in this.
Section 11 states:
to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden within such period as may be specified by a member or a warden at the Garda station or other place aforesaid, such other information within his or her knowledge or procurement as a member or a warden may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying or establishing the whereabouts of the person.
All these things are acceptable to the authorities in the event of an attempt being made to apply the points.
A person can go to the Garda and say that they were not driving, but what proof must they provide?
The person must give whatever knowledge he has and he must seek to procure whatever knowledge he can in relation to the driver.
Is the owner to carry out the equivalent of a Garda investigation himself?
He must make a defence.
This is the rock on which it will perish.
He will be forced to do that in court.
Or in a Garda station.
He will have to do that in court. If the gardaí do not accept his arguments and they pursue him to court then——
Could they pursue him?
No.
Does it not happen automatically if he does not pay the penalty points?
If he does not pay the penalty points then he must go to court anyway and that is where the case will end up more than likely. If he does not regard himself as the guilty party then he will not pay the fixed charge. If he does not pay the fixed charge the Garda has the option of prosecuting him. If the Garda prosecuting his case goes to court and he can state his evidence to the judge——
The garda has have no option about prosecuting. He must go to court if he does not pay his penalty points.
He has the opportunity in court to state his defence.
Will there be no opportunity before that? A garda will issue points or a fine to the registered owner of a car, even if it is not the registered owner who is caught on camera for speeding or for not wearing a seatbelt.
The points are not issued until after 28 days.
There is no mechanism in the Bill whereby the registered owner of the car can go to the Garda station and say the driver of the car did not have his permission or that he did not know that the driver did not have a driving licence.
The provision is in section 11 with the additional changes that we are making here.
On a related issue, suppose the registered owner is a body corporate, who would get the penalty points? I will relate a scenario with which I had personal experience. I had a car provided by my employer and made it available to somebody who I subsequently discovered did not have a driving licence. The car was involved in an accident. In those circumstances, who gets the penalty points?
Is the Deputy referring to a corporate body?
Yes.
There has to be a named owner and the named owner gets the points.
The named owner could be the chief executive of a body corporate, which might have a fleet of 20 cars.
In the case the Deputy referred to the driver was unauthorised.
Let us say a driver——
If the owner of the car then informs the Garda as to who the driver was——
Let us consider any offence. If the registered owner of a car is a company which has a fleet of cars——
There has to be a named owner.
No. For example, a company could have a fleet of cars and there may not be specific drivers attached to each car. So the named owner is the chief executive of the company.
Somebody signs on behalf of the company and that is the person who will accumulate the points.
So the chief executive of a company with a fleet of cars could be off the road in a very short period of time.
They have to take responsibility under this Bill.
There are many companies that have fleets of vehicles and they have employees who drive them. In cases where a specific vehicle is assigned to a specific employee, presumably the employer can put that employee's name down as the registered owner of the car, although employers may not want to do so for other reasons. In those cases the person who will accumulate the points will be the principal officer of the company.
In all cases where the person whom the gardaí are pursuing claims not to have been driving the car, that defence will be used. He will not pay the fine and so will not have the points assigned to him automatically. It would go to court, where he can make his case that he was not the driver of the car.
He will end up all the time in court.
The provision here is to enable a person to have a defence that he was not the driver of the car.
This would not apply where a person was stopped by a garda and was asked to produce a driving licence. In that case it is quite clear who the offender is. In cases caught on camera, the registered owner is the only link that the system can pursue.
There will be the option of either paying or not paying the fixed charge.
That is a wonderful option if a chief executive is back in the office and there are 200 people out on the road breaking the law. He would spend the rest of his life in court.
Section 11(4) sets out the position that will apply where the registered owner of the vehicle having been served with a notice was not driving or using the vehicle at the relevant time. The subsection places a requirement on the registered owner to furnish to the garda or traffic warden with the name and address of the person who was driving or using the vehicle. The registered owner must also supply to the garda or traffic warden any information required to assist in the identification of the driver.
Section 11(5) provides that where the registered owner was not driving or using the vehicle and has given the information necessary for the gardaí to establish the name and address of the driver, the gardaí have 28 days in which to issue a notice to that person. If a name and address is given, that is where the gardaí go.
We are back——
We are amending this to provide that where the registered owner of a vehicle was not driving or using a vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, he or she must furnish in a prescribed document the name and address of the person who was using the vehicle. It is not enough to just tell them; a prescribed form must be completed so that a record exists.
Will that be sent to the owner?
It will be given to the gardaí.
Let us consider a practical case. A vehicle is stopped by the Garda, who send out the fine to the——
If the vehicle is stopped, then the Garda know who was driving the vehicle.
So this is in the case of an offence being caught on camera.
Yes.
Will this form be sent out with notification of the fine?
Yes.
So the person pays the fine or sends back the form.
If you pay the fine, the penalty points are applied to the person that was addressed and if not the form is returned and the Garda deal with it.
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.40 p.m.
We move to amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 32, 39, 44, 50 and 59 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 26, 32, 39, 44, 50 and 59 may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "or procurement".
These amendments are related to what was discussed before lunch. I recognise that this Bill is largely a question of balancing the rights of the individual against the common good. It is right that the balance should tip in favour of the common good. However, I am picking holes in this particular provision because I feel that it will be contested. It is the kind of thing that will not stand up in court and will undermine the efficacy of the Act.
This subsection requires that the licence holder has to disclose information on who was driving a car at the time of an offence. However, he or she also has a duty to procure that information if he or she does not have it. That puts the person in the role of investigating offences. That is not the role of the individual but the role of the Garda. We discussed at length the possible scenarios that might evolve in the case of company cars - there are companies that have fleets of cars and no particular method of allocating cars to individuals. It would be impossible for the chief executive of a company to state with accuracy who was driving a car at a particular time, although I admit it might be possible to put some system in place to do that. Nevertheless, the evidence could come into question later on. The time lapse between the offence taking place and a court case - at which point a person who was not the driver is accused - is so great that it would not be possible to say with any certainty who was driving the car. The idea that such people would have to procure this information and pursue it as if they were Garda investigating officers is not reasonable.
We should change this to "or can with reasonable diligence ascertain" that information, or something like that, rather than "or procurement". That is less prescriptive than asking somebody to procure the information. The idea is to safeguard the Bill rather than to safeguard offenders in any way.
These amendments propose the word procurement be removed from subsection (4)(b)(ii) and (8)(d)(ii) and (14) of section 11 and subsections (3), (6)(ii), (7)(d)(ii) and (13) of section 12. The removal of this word would limit the obligation to provide information and would seriously weaken the effect of the section. It is perfectly reasonable that a registered owner should provide assistance to gardaí in identifying the driver of a vehicle owned by that registered owner. The only requirement that would apply to the registered owner in the circumstances proposed by this amendment would be to furnish the name and address of the person involved. While this may prove to be sufficient for the gardaí in many instances, it would be unwise to restrict the extent of the information that the registered owner might reasonably be expected to provide in any particular circumstances. I emphasise the word “reasonably” which Deputy Mitchell also emphasised. I cannot accept the amendment which would have the effect that I have outlined. I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
I cannot find the amendment I thought I tabled. The Minister has proposed an amendment to insert the words "and that he or she has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information" after the word "procurement". That is amendment No. 40 in the Minister's name. That makes procurement even more difficult and it would be more reasonable to insert the words "or that he or she has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information".
I propose in amendment No. 40 to insert after "procurement" the words "and that he or she has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information".
"Or" is preferable.
What wording does the Deputy suggest?
"Or that he or she . . . ".
I do not see a difference.
There is a difference. "Or" is less onerous than having an obligation to procure the information.
Registered owners are only being asked to take reasonable steps to obtain the information.
No, they are asked to procure the information.
Yes, but only to take reasonable steps to procure the information.
That is not the meaning. It uses the wording "and that he or she has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information". If the word "or" is inserted——
It is the same thing.
No, it is completely different.
I will have another look at it and perhaps leave it until Report Stage.
I withdraw my amendment with leave to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 45 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 13, subsection (1), to delete lines 25 to 28, and substitute the following:
"(5) The Commissioner shall, not later than 28 days after a document referred to in subsection (4) of this section containing the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle concerned at the time of the commission of the alleged offence concerned is given or sent to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden, cause a notice under this section to be served, personally or by post, on the person.".
These amendments provide that subsection (5) of section 11 and subsection (4) of section 12 be replaced by new subsections which provide that, not later than 28 days after the receipt of the documents referred to in subsection (4) of section 11 and subsection (3) of section 12, a notice under the section be issued or served on the person named in that document.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29, 46 and 47 are cognate to amendment No. 28, and amendments Nos. 28, 29, 46 and 47 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, subsection (1), lines 6 and 7, to delete "a prescribed" and substitute "an".
Subsections (7)(c) and (8)(c) of section 11 and subsections (6)(c) and (7)(c) of section 12 provide reference to the provision through which a person who does not pay a fixed charge within 28 days of the date of the notice is offered the opportunity to pay the initial fixed charge plus 50%. As this amount represents an increase on the initial prescribed amount, the reference to the increased amount being prescribed is not necessary and is potentially confusing. I am therefore proposing that the reference to the word “prescribed” in relation to the increased amounts should be deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, subsection (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete "a prescribed" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 40 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 44, after "the" where it secondly occurs, to insert "alleged".
Amendments Nos. 30 and 40 present a minor correction to the text of the section as originally proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 50, before "the" where it firstly occurs, to insert "a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "(£631)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 41, 52, 54 and 61 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 7, to delete "by the accused person".
These amendments present minor corrections and amendments to the text of section 11 as originally proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 53 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 13, after "in", to insert "paragraph (i) of”.
These amendments present minor consequential changes to the text of this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 16, subsection (1), lines 16 and 17, to delete "by the owner".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 55 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 18, after "offence", to insert "but it shall not be necessary for the purpose of rebutting that presumption for the owner to provide the information specified in subsection (4)".
This amendment relates to the point I have already made about the necessity of procuring information about the actual offender in a case where the registered owner is not the driver. If the registered owner chooses not to pay a fine in such a case and instead goes to court, this amendment would mean that it would not be necessary for him or her to procure for the court information in respect of the actual driver, if such information is not known to him or her. The amendment follows on from the one I withdrew with the possibility of reintroducing it on Report Stage. It seems a little unfair that a driver will not be allowed to make the only defence he or she has to offer, quite apart from the fact that the matter may be challenged in court.
Sections 11(11) and section 12(10) to which these amendments relate provide that where a registered owner of a vehicle claims that he or she was not driving or using a vehicle and does not provide information relating to the driver, it is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the registered owner was driving. I appreciate that in bringing forward these amendments the Deputy is expressing concern that there may be difficulties in placing a requirement such as is presented in this subsection on the registered owner. In order to ensure the degree of certainty needed to pursue those who breach traffic laws, however, such a requirement must be applied. The requirement is perfectly reasonable and I do not favour the proposed amendment. The section 11(11) provision, which states that the registered owner should be pursued in the courts in the absence of an indication from him or her that another person was driving, is absolutely necessary. It is open to registered owners to present to the courts any evidence they may have in defence of their claim.
I appreciate that we need to strike a balance, but my opinion on this matter is informed by the fact that my two children regularly drive my car. I could not say which of them was driving the car at any particular time last week, never mind two years later when the cases finally get to the courts. This unreasonable demand will end up being tested in the courts.
The Deputy would be in a position to procure information on her children.
The Minster of State does not know my children.
I assume——
They would not be aware that they had committed an offence if they were caught by a fixed camera; not that my children would dream of speeding.
I wish I could say the same.
I have to rely on what I am told.
This section makes an unreasonable demand, as although some may not have children, difficulties may arise in relation to company cars, for example. It may be difficult to withstand the onslaught of cases that will be taken against this measure. I realise that we need to strike a balance, however, and that we need to be quite draconian if we are to be serious about road traffic law. I do not know if it will stand up in the courts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 58 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 16, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(14) A person who, in purported compliance with subsection (4), knowingly furnishes false or misleading information shall be guilty of an offence.".
I suppose the flipside of this is that if somebody has information and deliberately tries to mislead the courts or the Garda, he or she would equally be guilty of an offence. It is the corollary of the previous point I made. The Bill, as far as I can tell, does not make it an offence to mislead the authorities in relation to the true identity of the driver at the time of the offence, although perhaps it is inherent in it.
The Deputy is also proposing through these amendments to create a new subsection which would make it an offence to knowingly furnish "false or misleading information." I welcome and support such a proposal in principle, but would like to consider the text as presented in the context of proposing an appropriate amended text on Report Stage.
I will withdraw the amendment.
I also consider that there is a case for the introduction into this section of a provision through which the registered owner is given the opportunity to present evidence as to the identity of the driver in a prescribed format. I am considering bringing forward an amendment to this effect on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 60 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 31, after "procurement", to insert "and that he or she had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information".
I consider this amendment to be a reasonable addition to subsection (14) as it provides that it is fair to require that a person asked to provide the information referred to in subsection (4) should make all reasonable attempts to obtain it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 16, subsection (1), lines 34 and 35, to delete "by the accused person, that he or she" and substitute ", that the accused person".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 62 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 16, to delete lines 37 to 42.
The reason I have tabled this amendment is again related to the issue of procuring information by way of a defence. If one has little chance of knowing who drove one's car last week, one will have very little chance of knowing who drove it when two years have passed and the court case ensues. If the Minister of State had accepted my previous amendments in this regard, it would be a logical follow-on to accept this amendment and delete the subsection as I propose.
This amendment would provide for the removal of sections 11(16) and 12(15), which provide that the provisions of section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, should not apply to offences under these sections. I consider it perfectly reasonable that a period of two years should be available for the purpose of bringing summary proceedings in relation to offences created in these sections.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 49, after "notice", to insert "a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 19, subsection (1), to delete lines 10 to 14, and substitute the following:
"(4) Where a document referred to in subsection (3) of this section containing the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle concerned at the time of the commission of the alleged offence concerned is given or sent to a traffic warden employed by a local authority, the authority shall, not later than 28 days thereafter, cause a notice under this section to be served, personally or by post, on the person.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 19, subsection (1), line 33, to delete "a prescribed" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "a prescribed" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 16, after "the" where it secondly occurs, to insert "alleged".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 20, after "specified", to insert "a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 51, to delete "(£631)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 28, to delete "by the accused person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 34, after "in", to insert "paragraph (i) of".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 21, subsection (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete "by the owner".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 55 not moved.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 47, to delete "(£631)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 50, to delete "(£631)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 2, after "procurement", to insert "and that he or she had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the information".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 22, subsection (1), lines 5 and 6, to delete "by the accused person, that he or she" and substitute ", that the accused person".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am a little confused about what is being done in this section. Does it mean that tickets issued by traffic wardens will not carry penalty points, whereas those issued by a garda for the same offence will?
A traffic warden does not deal with cases where penalty points apply, only with those where a fixed charge applies.
The traffic warden can issue on-the-spot fines and no offence which he or she can address carries penalty points. Therefore, no offence related to parking and the displaying of disks, irrespective of whether a traffic warden or a garda issues the ticket, incurs penalty points?
Yes, the traffic warden does not deal with moving offences.
Are all offences under the remit of the traffic wardens now exempt from penalty points, even if the offence is identified by a garda?
That is correct, because such offences only relate to parking and the display of tax disks.
There are, to be fair——
Such offences do not relate to road safety. I should not have said that.
Parking in a dangerous place could be a road safety matter.
I withdraw what I said.
Not having the NCT disk——
Penalty points were generally aimed at road safety issues.
Certain offences are being left out because traffic wardens will have something to do with them.
The traffic warden is not empowered to charge for offences to which penalty points are attached.
I just wanted to be clear.
There is talk in local authorities of extending the role of traffic wardens, certainly in urban areas, to cover traffic movement and control. Would the Act have to be revised to change the status of offences to allow traffic wardens to prosecute?
Only a garda can stop a vehicle. The Act provides that a person driving a vehicle in a public place must stop on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána, not by anybody else.
It would require legislation to extend the functions of traffic wardens.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 46, to delete "vehicle emissions, vehicle noise" and substitute "emissions from, or noise of, vehicles constituting environmental pollution (within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992)".
Amendments to this section are proposed because definitions of terms in the text which relate to the environment are being cross-referenced to relevant definitions in the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992.
We spoke earlier about souped-up cars, the exhausts of which are altered to create high-pitched noises. Under the revised terms in the legislation, will it be possible for the Garda to prosecute for that?
It would be possible to create regulations making that an offence.
There would have to be regulations along with this legislation?
One could get them on the noise factor.
Gardaí have been very frustrated by the problem of souped-up cars going through residential areas. The drivers are not travelling in excess of 30 miles per hour, but their exhausts are emitting a high-pitched noise. They cannot be prosecuted for that. If regulations were implemented, it would allow gardaí to clamp down on these drivers. The noise constitutes a huge nuisance in certain residential areas. Can the Minister of State look at this and ensure that regulations are introduced immediately? It is a very important issue.
It would be possible to make regulations. When the Bill is enacted, this section will empower the Minister to make regulations relating to a range of road traffic matters for the specific purpose of protecting the environment, the person, animals or property from damage, distress or discomfort caused by emissions or excessive noise from traffic.
Can the Minister of State make a categorical commitment to bring forward regulations in this respect as soon as the Bill is enacted?
I am around long enough to know that one should not make categorical statements, but I will make a serious commitment to examine this matter with a view to doing what the Deputy suggests. I will make a commitment to examine this matter very seriously with a view to doing what the Deputy is suggesting.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 24, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Where the Minister proposes to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) he or she shall cause a draft of the agreement to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and he or she shall not enter into such agreement until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.”.
I am not happy at all with section 14 for a variety of reasons, which primarily have to do with the fact that it gives the Minister power to delegate functions to others which are proper to the Minister and to do so without reference to the Dáil. That is not a good idea given that the functions are significant under the Road Traffic Act and concern the administration of justice. This is a power that should at least be laid before the Dáil in some way. The issue may not be as serious as I think it is but I am not happy that section 14 should stand as it is. There has to be some control on the Minister. Regulations or conferring of powers that concern the administration of justice should come before the Dáil. They are too important not to, no matter what they are or who is the Minister.
This is an astonishing section. It is so sweeping it beggars belief. The Progressive Democrats wing of the Government has a tendency to look at State services with a view to privatisation, but this is taking privatisation to the extreme. This section proposes to allow the Minister to privatise literally everything covered by the Road Traffic Acts except the making of statutory instruments, which he makes himself. It states: "The Minister may, by an agreement in writing entered into with any person, upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement, provide for the performance by that person, subject to such terms and conditions (if any) as may be so specified, of such functions as may be so specified."
Subsection (7) defines what is meant by a function. It states: "In this section "function" includes a power and a duty; and the references to a function are references to a function conferred on the Minister, a licensing authority, a local authority, a road authority or the Commissioner by, or by a statutory instrument (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act, 1937), under the Acts or this Act other than a function of the Minister under this section, or a power to make, approve of, or consult in relation to, the making of, a statutory instrument (within the meaning aforesaid). It states that a function is everything other than the making of a statutory instrument. This section would allow the Minister, at his volition, without further reference to the Dáil, privatise the entire road traffic management of the country. It would allow the Minister to privatise the driver testing service. The Minister had a report commissioned last year on the driver testing service. It recommended the establishment of an agency. That is not what is proposed here. The agency is not proposed in the Bill, which is a little surprising given that there was a recommendation for it. The privatisation of the driver testing service has been widely rumoured within the service itself, but the Minister has denied it to date.
The section would allow the Minister to privatise the licensing function or the issuing of driving licences, which is carried out by local authorities. The motor taxation service, which is provided by local authorities, could be privatised under this section. The entire traffic warden system could be privatised under this section. The school warden system operated by local authorities could be privatised. Everything to do with the signage, marking of roads and the operation of by-laws by local authorities could be privatised. For example, the operation of parking regimes or controlled parking, which is already in place in some areas and under consideration in others, could be privatised, not on the decision of the local authority that introduced it but by direction of the Minister under this section.
I have already indicated in the amendments I have submitted that the Labour Party is opposing this section. If the Minister has proposals, I would like him to tell the committee today what has prompted this section. What is he proposing to privatise under our road traffic legislation? If there are proposals for privatising a service or an aspect of any of the functions that can be performed under the Road Traffic Acts, let us hear them and the case for them, and then we will assess them on their merits. I do not think that the Oireachtas should, under any circumstances, empower the Minister to privatise anything covered under the Road Traffic Acts. The section refers to anything "under the Acts or this Act". The Acts are defined as the Road Traffic Acts, 1951 to 1995. Of course, the one under discussion is the 2002 Act.
The power the Minister is giving himself is astonishing. The Labour Party will oppose this section. It is not agreeable to giving any Minister such a wide-ranging power to privatise services. Since the section has been proposed in the Bill, I would like to hear from the Minister what is behind it. Why is this section being proposed? What has the Minister in mind to privatise? Let us hear the case for it.
I too opposed this section from another angle. I endorse the sentiments of both my colleagues. Privatisation means lack of accountability. All legislation I have dealt with on Committee Stage displays this lack of accountability coming through. I have opposed typical NRA-style legislation and have tried to have it amended. Again, we see it here. For example, if we privatised the driving test system and a Member of this House wanted to get figures on the backlogs or delays concerning applicants waiting to be tested and raised a question in the Dáil to that effect, I am sure the response would be that the Minister has no official responsibility to the House in respect of this matter. Probably the most frustrating thing for a Member of this House is dealing with the National Roads Authority. Anything to do with the upgrading of roads and so forth is ruled out in this House because the Minister has no official responsibility to the House even though the House is the instrument that provides the money for the NRA. There is no element of accountability.
For example, the funding for the safety measures on our national primary roads this year has been reduced from €25 million to €12.5 million. Most of that will be used on covering over-expenditure in 2001. This means there is no funding for additional road safety measures this year under the NRA budget. Yet, we are not allowed to raise that in the House. It is pointless talking of bringing in legislation like this, the sole purpose of which is to improve road safety and driving standards, when the NRA is not providing resources to upgrade dangerous sections of our national primary and secondary routes. It remains unaccountable to this House. As Deputy Gilmore said, we could see the privatisation of various elements for which the Department of the Environment is now responsible. We will then get a rehash in parliamentary replies to the effect that the Minister has no official responsibility to the House in this regard. The whole system will be unaccountable.
This section needs to be looked at again and radically amended before we can even consider accepting it.
This section permits privatisation by stealth. There are lots of functions that might well be done better by the private sector but Deputy Naughten is absolutely right when he says accountability is critical. There are some aspects that could be privatised but there are other very important aspects, such as the functions of the Garda Commissioner regarding the approval of road traffic apparatus on which thousands of court cases will depend, which in theory could be delegated to a private contractor under the legislation. Maybe none of these things will happen but this section gives permission for them to happen without the need for reference to the Dáil. There are so many different contracts that would come under this section that it would be impossible to enumerate and provide for each of them. The Minister has tried to overcome this by giving a broad right to delegate functions to private contractors, but we cannot do that without having some control and accountability. The best way to overcome that is to require any such agreement to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas before such a contract is entered into.
I am surprised at the tone of the contributions. Nothing radically new is being introduced here. The purpose of section 14 is to provide a more defined framework for agreement between the Minister and persons to carry out functions and provide services. The functions in question are those to which the Minister has been assigned authority under the Road Traffic Acts. In general, existing legislation enables the Minister to assign functions to other persons. The purpose of section 14 is to strengthen these arrangements. One item in particular clarifies the powers for the collection of fees.
Government and public administration is growing increasingly complex in our modern and ever-changing society. Simultaneously, there are increasing expectations and demands for more efficiency and effectiveness in the exercise of functions in the provision of public services. The driver testing service highlights the difficulties we have experienced in the past. We have to find ways of meeting these expectations, and to do that we have to look at new and different ways to carry out the business of Government. Already there is a range of options when considering how best to deliver public services and exercise related functions. The concept of public private partnership is just one model. This can be a productive approach since the private sector can bring expertise, flexibility and additional resources to particular tasks.
The buying of services by way of contracts with other organisations in the private or public sectors is another approach. The delivery of the national car test and the driver theory test are examples of how the contract approach can work fairly well. In both cases the approach has facilitated a speedy roll-out of the service and the performance of the operator is subject to continuous monitoring and supervision by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in accordance with the terms of agreement with the service providers.
Section 14 will strengthen the framework within which any such arrangements can be entered into. It provides a specific mechanism for the treatment of fees and charges. It also ensures that a person, usually a Minister, to whom a function was originally assigned will retain control of those who carry out a function under any agreement permitted by the State. It is set out quite clearly in subsection (6) which provides that where a function of the Minister is conferred on a person the Minister still retains responsibility for that function, both to the Dáil and as a member of the Government. The section also ensures that the Minister's responsibilities to Dáil Éireann are not diluted or removed. The section provides a sound framework for agreements to enable certain public services to be delivered more effectively and efficiently without diluting the Minister's accountability to the Dáil. It is not a new or radical move. We have already established this for the national car test and the driver theory test. We have proposed changes and discussions are ongoing with the unions regarding the driver test service, which will continue to operate out of Ballina.
A substantial portion of the agreements under section 14 will deal with sense of information, such as the way in which a party has arranged its financial affairs, costs and other financial projections, intellectual property, other trade secrets or other information that may be sensitive in particular agreements. In many cases, particularly those involved in the private sector, a party can be expected to insist upon these matters to be treated as confidential. Not doing so could erode their competitive advantage or otherwise place a person or company at a disadvantage. The direct consequence of this for the public sector would be to reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the benefits of the agreements under the section. This would result from a reduced participation in the procurement process or less competitive tenders. For these reasons, I am sure the Deputies will appreciate the need to protect the confidentiality and integrity of commercially sensitive information. The proposed amendment could have the effect of undermining this important consideration. Accordingly, I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendment.
I understand what the Minister is saying. I have no problems with the vast majority of such contracts, but we are dealing with very important functions that relate to the administration of justice. I feel some of them should not be privatised. Our choices are to oppose the section or limit it by amendment and I feel it is more reasonable to limit it by amendment. Placing draft agreements before the House will ensure some accountability. I am determined that we make some amendment to this section.
Let us take as an example the NCT, which is carried out under a similar mechanism. Driver testing will probably be privatised at some stage in the future. Even if the commercial sensitivities regarding the agreement signed with the Department could not be disclosed for the reasons outlined by the Minister, the actual cost for the consumer is an issue that would have to be teased out. For example, the Department could sign a contract with a company and the price to the consumer may not be fixed, although it probably would, but it might be seen as excessive by the public and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Yet the mechanism by which we might question the Minister on the pricing scheme is not available. Once the contract comes into force it must last for the period set out no matter what argument is made in the House. Certain conditions or criteria may be laid down as part of the contract which would be of public concern and should be teased out and explained in the Houses of the Oireachtas prior to the contract being signed.
Even with the Freedom of Information Act, which gives tremendous access, information which is commercially sensitive is not disclosed. Organisations would not submit tenders if their proposals were to be available to their competitors. I do not understand the concern. The national car test is an example. The price to the consumer is controlled in the contract with the Department and the Department monitors it. Any attempt to increase fees is put through a most rigorous examination before a decision is made. The company must comply with extremely rigid sections of the contract regarding the quality and standard of service. That example has worked well. Some of the expectations the company had at the outset were not fulfilled and it made its case to the Department about the volume of cars going through. We made adjustments to the contract because we live in a commercial world, but it worked from the point of view of the consumer and there were no capital costs. That was a tremendous bonus to taxpayers. We would not enter these contracts if there was not an advantage to the consumer and taxpayer.
I do not dispute the point the Minister of State is making but elements of the contract may not be down to the tendering process. Two organisations could tender for a contract. One might argue that it will do A, B and C, and the price for the driving test will be €25, but for other reasons the Department accepts a higher tender, with a higher price for the consumer. We should be able to tease out such issues in the House prior to the approval of the contract. Commercial sensitivities are not available under the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister can give the NCT example but there may not be a Minister as responsible as him when another contract is signed in the future. It is important that we protect the right of approval prior to implementation.
There are two sides to this and I am not happy with my amendment either. It is not desirable for the Dáil to spend its time discussing a contract for clamping and so on. It is because the provision is so broad, however, that I am uncertain about it. The section allows delegation of functions which should be properly left to the Garda Commissioner. The provision gives carte blanche to delegate any function. The Minister cited the specific example of car testing as giving effect to provisions in the Bill but there are more significant implications to the section. It is too broad.
I intended raising this on the section but if we deal with it now we can avoid a separate debate on the section.
We will deal with the amendment and then we can discuss the section.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
If the Minister is empowered to make an agreement with any person for the performance of functions specified in this section, and the functions specified are those of the Garda Commissioner, would this section allow the Minister to make an agreement with a private body to establish a private traffic corps or police force and to transfer to it from the Garda Síochána the enforcement of traffic law? If functions can be agreed with a third party, all functions of local authorities related to road traffic legislation - licensing, taxation, traffic and school wardens - could become private services. The driver testing service could be privatised under this section. The only thing the Minister cannot privatise under this section is the making of statutory regulations by him.
The powers of the Garda Síochána are granted by the Oireachtas and not by the Road Traffic Acts and motor taxation is a matter for the Local Government Act. The power the Deputy is talking about has existed since the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Functions are assigned to the Minister under that Act and we have exercised them in the past without anyone finding problems. Here we seek to tidy up aspects on the charging of fees, over which there was a question mark. There is no intention other than that, to strengthen the statutory basis for the delivery of these functions in this way. There are already excellent examples of it being done.
That does not answer my question. The Road Traffic Acts give certain powers to the gardaí. This Act will give gardaí the power to issue on-the-spot fines and penalty points. If the Minister can agree that a private company can carry out such activities, the functions of the Garda Commissioner can be moved to the private sector . That is my reading of the section.
The only function the gardaí will be granted under this legislation is the awarding of penalty points. The core powers of the Garda Síochána are not granted under this Act.
Powers are granted under the Road Traffic Acts. Subsection (7) defines the functions which the Minister may agree to give to any other person. Among them are the function of the Commissioner "under the Acts or this Act". The Acts are defined as the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1965, and this Act which deals largely with the penalty points regime. In regard to the functions of the Garda under the Road Traffic Acts, my understanding is that the Minister could enter into an arrangement with a company, establish that company as a private traffic corps and give it all the functions currently performed by the Garda. A company could put white suits and peaked caps on its officers and send them out to stop traffic, issue on-the-spot fines and so on. That is my understanding of what could be done under the Bill.
I am not into the business of what is at the back of the Minister's mind or what has caused this section to be on the agenda - that is another day's work. What we have to deal with as a Legislature is the powers it is proposed to transfer to the Minister. My reading of it is that if this section is passed the Minister will have the power to establish a private traffic police and transfer the existing powers of the Garda to that private traffic police company.
There is no such proposal.
That is the power that would be transferred. Am I not correct in saying that that could be done?
The power relates to whatever is in this Bill or whatever is in the Acts——
That is right, that is, all the Road Traffic Acts.
"The Acts" is defined here as the Road Traffic Acts, 1965 to 1995.
For example, everything from the breathalyser laws to all the drink driving laws. Under this section a Minister could decide, without further reference to the Dáil, to transfer from the Garda to a private company the functions of breathalysing, stopping people for driver licences and tax discs, and a private company could be established as a traffic corps.
I endorse what Deputy Gilmore has said. Section 14(7) clearly states that all the functions, as defined under these Acts, which are conferred on the Minister, a licensing authority, a local authority, a road authority or the commissioner, can be privatised. While I accept it is not the Minister's intention to have a privatised road traffic police, under the provisions of this subsection he is conferring these powers on any subsequent Minister. It is much too broad a power to give to any Minister without recourse to the House.
I have absolutely no intention of transferring what are correctly Garda functions to any private organisation or any other group. Reading the section as drafted, I can understand how those fears arise, but I want to dispel them. If that requires an amendment to this section I would be happy to bring forward such an amendment. Certainly, there is absolutely no intention of transferring functions to any other group. I heard what Deputies have said. I will have the issue looked at again and will consult the Attorney General to ensure no such possibility can arise out of any interpretation of this Bill.
I am glad to hear that. That would fire-proof the functions of the Garda Síochána. If the intention does not relate to the Garda, what is the intention?
We have examples already. As I have said, there is no intention at present to privatise the driver testing service. There is a proposal to set it up as a State organisation separate from the Department, an independent group working on its own, properly funded with a view to meeting the peak levels of demand which arise. The existing system was not capable of meeting those levels of demand and we ran into the ridiculous situation where applicants had to wait 30 to 40 weeks to take a driving test in Ireland. It was laughable. I was the Minister charged with responsibility for this service and it was very difficult to justify it. I was not trying to justify it but I was trying to improve it. A more modern structure was needed to help it respond to modern day needs. That is what it is proposed to do through consultation with the staff representatives, with the minimum disturbance to those employed in the system.
The intention is to have an efficient and effective organisation to provide the motoring public and those coming forward for driving tests with a top class service, which is what we should be able to give them. I expect ways of doing that will be worked out. It is not intended to have the service privatised but somebody may decide to do so in the future. The national car test service was an obvious example. The theory test is working satisfactorily with huge numbers going through and there are no complaints. That is also done at arm's length from the Department. If in the future it is decided some other service should be operated in that way, so be it. Neither I nor the Government have any intention of extending this. It is to strengthen the support for the actions taken to date in relation to the charging of fees by both of the organisations set up under it the national car test and the theory test organisations. We shall look at it before Report Stage with a view to ensuring it cannot be interpreted in such a way that Garda functions could be transferred under it by some wayward Minister in the future.
The local authority in my area is in the process of introducing a controlled parking regime. The intention is that the service would be countywide but at present it is confined to part of the county. As I read this subsection, the Minister could, without reference to the local authority, decide to transfer that function to a private company. The local authority envisages an arrangement whereby people will pay into meters and pay for residential parking permits, visitors permits and so on. Under this arrangement the Minister could make an agreement with the company and say it was to take over the controlled parking service as currently operated by a local authority.
I do not think the local authority would want to operate it in our case.
The Minister has said it is his intention at this juncture to privatise the driver testing service and that he has nothing in mind in relation to further privatisation along the lines of the theory test and the national car test. In regard to section 18 which proposes to establish the long-awaited driving instructors' register——
We will have to stay with section 14.
I know, but I am talking about section 14.
The Deputy is talking to section 18.
No. Under this legislation a regulatory framework for training, educating and certifying driving instructors will be set up. Is it the intention under section 14 to privatise testing of driving instructors?
There are no proposals to privatise any other service.
How will it be implemented?
The existing arrangements are being entered into.
The Minister of State must have wanted to strengthen it for some reason.
I said we would look at it again. It might be wiser to leave it for Report Stage because one aspect needs examination.
It is too broad a section.
No, I do not agree to it.
No.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 65 is in the names of Deputies Mitchell and Naughten. Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 form a composite proposal so it is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 65 and 66 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 34, to delete "more" and substitute "less".
On my reading of this section it appears to be wrongly worded. It appears to state that the draft by-laws cannot be on display for more than a month, but it should be for not less than four weeks. Amendment No. 66 is related in that it states that the draft by-laws in respect of taxis should be made available for inspection and purchase by the public at a place within the functional area of the authority for a period not less than one month. The legislation as it stands states "not more than . . . ", which does not appear to make much sense.
It is proposed that the period during which draft by-laws may be inspected and purchased by the public should be of not less than one month duration instead of the existing provision which specifies a period of not more than one month. I oppose the proposed amendment on the basis that it could lead to prolonged periods of inspection with consequent long delays in the completion of the by-law making process. However, I support in principle amendment No. 66, subject to further examination of the text, and I will consider bringing forward a suitable amendment on Report Stage.
Is there a minimum period, say, a week or two weeks, in which the Minister of State would require them to be displayed in the interests of transparency?
We do not want long delays.
What about proposing a period of one month or 30 days, not more or less? As the section stands it is open to interpretation that someone could put it on display for one day——
A Deputy
Or half an hour.
——and meet the criteria.
Four weeks seems reasonable enough. We will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.
Will the Minister of State revisit both amendments?
I will examine amendment No. 66.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 66 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this proposal and hope it will be enforced. This section amends section 85 of the principal Act. It states that a road authority may, by notice in writing, direct, in respect of a route upon which buses are operated . . . ". Does that include school buses? Is a school bus route considered to be a route operated under the definition? I want clarification on that.
It only applies to scheduled bus services——
Only to scheduled bus services.
——which are licensed by the Department of Public Enterprise.
This comes back to the argument made earlier on safety around schools. We should examine that area. The Department is considering recommendations in a report on the regulations governing school buses, one of which concerns proper stops for school buses. Another recommendation is to prohibit vehicles overtaking school buses when pupils are getting on or off buses. This is an ideal vehicle with which to amend the road traffic legislation, if that is the Minister of State's intention, in line with the proposals under consideration in his Department. This section should be extended to include school buses and we should consider reducing speed limits around school bus stops because pupils may run in front of the bus and be critically injured. I ask the Minister of State to re-examine this issue because it is important. This is an ideal opportunity to meet the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science which is currently with the Department.
There are proposals under consideration in relation to safety aspects of the school bus service, including seat belts, numbers, etc. This matter would be more appropriately considered at that time. I am happy to agree to the Deputy's suggestion that it be examined in that context.
Will the Minister examine it with a possibility of amending it on Report Stage?
The road safety aspect of school buses is being examined and will include the location of bus stops. The way stops are selected for school buses is a little haphazard. The Department of Education and Science, the local committee which operates from the Department and CIE are of the view that we should hire private operators with their own buses.
Four years ago in the Minister of State's road strategy he committed himself to reviewing safety on school buses.
That is right.
The review is only taking place now. The Oireachtas joint committee has made its recommendations on various measures. I accept that some aspects - seat belts, NCTs, etc. - are not relevant to this legislation, but some elements could be easily included in it rather than waiting for two separate legislative measures to be brought forward at some future date. No one would dispute some of these measures. I realise there are cost implications in regard to seat belts and so forth, which have to be discussed with the Department of Finance, but there is no financial cost involved in terms of some of the road traffic elements. The principle behind this legislation is to try to improve road safety and reduce the number of deaths on our roads, and this would be an ideal vehicle with which to do that. I ask the Minister of State to examine this section with a view to bringing forward an amendment to include some of the recommendations of the joint committee. That would strengthen the section. We may propose amendments on this section for Report Stage.
We will have a look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 67 is in the name of the Minister of State. Amendment No. 74 is an alternative so it is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 67 and 74 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 27, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
17.-Section 40 of the Principal Act (as inserted by the Act of 1994) is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsections:
'(1A)(a) A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person who is driving in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle and is not the holder of a driving licence the production to him or her of a provisional licence then having effect and licensing the person to drive the vehicle, and if the person refuses or fails so to produce the licence and is a person falling within section 35(1) of this Act, he or she shall be guilty of an offence.
(b) References in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (1), and in the subsequent subsections of this section to a driving licence shall be construed, in relation to a person specified in subsection (1) who is a person falling within the said section 35(1), as references to a provisional licence.
(1B) Where a person who is driving in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle and of whom the production of a driving licence is demanded under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section or is required under paragraph (b) of that subsection produces, in accordance with the demand or request, a provisional licence then having effect and licensing the person to drive the vehicle concerned-
(a) the person shall not be guilty of an offence under the said paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, the said paragraph (b), and
(b) paragraph (d) of that subsection shall be construed, in relation to any production of the provisional licence in accordance with the said paragraph (b), as if the references in the said paragraph (d) to a driving licence were references to a provisional licence.’.”.
The successful application of penalty points is critically dependent on the imposition on drivers of a requirement that they carry their driving licence at all times when they are driving. Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, inserted by section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, provides that the holders of full driving licences must carry them when using a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place. That requirement also applies to a fully licensed driver accompanying a provisionally licensed holder when he or she is driving. Under the requirement, the current section does not apply to the holder of a provisional licence. Therefore, as the penalty points system applies to drivers holding either a full licence or a provisional licence, it is essential that section 40 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, be amended so that it applies to all licensed drivers.
I am surprised at the amendment proposed by Deputy Gilmore. Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, inserted a new section 40 into the 1961 Act which effectively requires drivers to carry their driving licences with them while driving, as they must be able to produce their driving licence on demand to a member of the Garda Síochána. I referred to that matter earlier. While this provision was not commenced, it is the intention to do so in conjunction with the introduction of a penalty points system. It was signalled in the road safety strategy which stated that section 25 of the 1994 Act would be commenced to assist in the administration of the penalty points system.
The carrying of a full or provisional driving licence is a requirement that I consider essential for the effective operation of a penalty points system. It is essential that a member of the Garda Síochána has ready access to a person's driving licence to obtain the relevant information relating to the licence and to establish the licence status of the driver and the categories of vehicle that person is allowed to drive. Access to the licence is also necessary to ensure the penalty points are awarded against the correct person's licence record. It is for this reason that I am proposing an amendment to section 25 of the 1994 Act that will extend the requirement to carry a licence to provisional licence holders also. I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment in light of what I have said.
One of the problems with our road traffic and road safety legislation is that it is not being enforced. If the road safety legislation that is on the Statute Book were to be enforced we certainly would not be experiencing the current amount of carnage on the roads, nor would it be necessary to strengthen the legislation. There is a serious problem of lack of enforcement of the road traffic legislation and it is something to which the National Safety Council has drawn attention on a number of occasions. The number of prosecutions and the level of fines arising are far below those which apply in other countries.
It is significant that the relevant section of the 1994 Act, requiring drivers to carry their licences with them when driving, has remained on the Statue Book for eight years without having been commenced. When it does commence, however, I am not sure the provision will be complied with by everybody, neither am I sure that the full significance of this has been thought out.
I see nothing wrong if somebody is asked to produce his or her driving licence when stopped in relation to a traffic matter. If he or she is not able to produce it, he or she should be required to do so at a Garda station within a specified period. The current arrangement stipulates that a driver must produce the licence within ten days but I would have no difficulty if that was reduced to a shorter period, such as 24 hours, 48 hours or whatever is regarded as reasonable. I do not necessarily think there should be a long time-lapse in producing a driving licence. However, if we end up with a situation where people will be prosecuted because they do not have their driving licence on them when stopped by a member of the Garda Síochána, it will give rise to difficulties. I am not even sure that such a requirement will be enforced. If there is an attempt to enforce it, however, issues will arise as to whether citizens should be required to carry forms of identification with them, including licences. It is entering into an area that has not been common practice. This country is not like South Africa in the days of apartheid when, if one was of a particular colour, one had to carry a pass card.
They did not have cars.
That is right. I am not sure that drivers here will readily accept a regime under which they would have to carry their driving licences and, thus, be in a position to produce them immediately. I do not think the Legislature should pass laws about which there is doubt as to their enforceability. There is much road traffic legislation on the Statute Book which is not being enforced, such as the laws on speeding. The drink driving laws are not being enforced either, except at Christmas and periodically here and there. The idea of adding a provision that may not be enforced consistently, if it is enforced at all, needs to be re-examined.
At EU level it is intended to redesign the existing driving licence. On a practical level, therefore, if it is proposed to oblige people to carry the licence around with them it will have to be redesigned. The Minister should consider that point.
Does the Deputy mean a better quality licence?
Yes, a better quality one.
Disintegration.
Yes, there is no question but that if one is carrying a driving licence around the whole time it will disintegrate. My second point concerns work vehicle categories. I have had my current driving licence for about eight or nine years. If I renew it tomorrow, however, and I happen to be stopped by a garda while driving a tractor, under this legislation I will be neither insured nor licensed to drive the tractor. That is because the work vehicle category has been removed for the renewed licence. When I raised this matter with the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the reply was that an insert will be provided. The problem, however, is that the insert is not being supplied with the renewed licence. Unless one realises that in time and requests it, the insert will not be included in the renewed licence. Thousands of people are in that position because the work vehicle section is removed from renewed licences that have been slightly altered for purposes of standardisation throughout the EU.
If I sit a driving theory test I may have to answer questions relating to work vehicles, yet when I receive my provisional or full licence the work vehicle category is not included. Why then should I have to answer questions relating to a work vehicle when the licence I receive does not include a work vehicle category? I cannot understand that, but perhaps the Minister will be able to provide an answer.
The objective of the legislation is that someone on a full licence will have to clock up 12 penalty points over a period before losing the licence. In Northern Ireland a restricted registration plate was introduced for people who had recently passed the driving test, but the difficulty there was one of enforcement. At present here, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between a provisional and a full licence, and I know the Minister is concerned about that. There is a difference for insurance purposes but as far as enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts is concerned, there is no difference between both types of licence.
Will the Minister consider reducing the maximum number of penalty points for a provisional driving licence holder? A provisional licence holder would have to be much more conscious of the speed limits, etc., because he or she could clock up the points much more quickly and could lose his or her licence. The situation at the moment where a provisional licence has, to all intents and purposes, the same function as a full licence does not encourage people to get their full licence. We all know of people who are on their fourth or fifth provisional licence. There is a significant number of such individuals on the road.
I support Deputy Naughten's suggestion on the availability of fewer penalty points to provisional licence holders to encourage them to get a full driving licence. In regard to amendment No. 73, carrying a driving licence is fundamental to the implementation of this legislation. I do not accept people will not get used to it because they have not done so in the past. People get used to carrying their car keys and their credit cards and to not going out without money. This is just another item they will have to remember if they are to drive. It does not matter that it will not be fully enforced in that not everybody will be stopped to check to see whether they are carrying their driving licences. If we are serious about road safety, the requirement to carry a driving licence is a minor one. It is a good thing that people should have some form of identification on them.
However, I am anxious that there are necessary safeguards in place. For example, if somebody produces my driving licence when stopped, there should be some way of identifying that that person is not me and of ensuring I do not attract her penalty points. It is critical that there is a way of identifying the person and that somebody else's penalty points cannot be attributed to me simply because she might look somewhat like me. What safeguards are in place in terms of the licence? On Second Stage, there was a great deal of discussion about how the person could be linked to a specific driving licence.
On that last point, a specific number will be allocated. I agree with what the Deputy said about the cards. Under EU rules, it is possible to have a single card as one's driving licence rather than the currently designed driving licence with which we are familiar and which would not last very long if one had it in one's wallet every day, particularly if one had a ten year licence. Category B covers category W so I think the difficulty about the tractors seems to be explained in that.
Is category B being amalgamated with category W?
Correct.
The reply I got from the Department was different but I must check up on it. The reply from the Secretary General's office was that in such cases an insert was put in but I am only recalling it from memory because I do not have it here.
I will write to the Deputy on that.
I would like clarification on the number. Is the number in one's head rather than on one's licence?
Each licence holder will have a number.
Will it be on the card? How does that protect me if somebody who picks up or finds my licence sees the number? I thought it was a double check.
The system records the number one has been given so if somebody uses one's card, one will not be prosecuted if the system shows that person used one's card falsely. Is that what the Deputy is concerned about?
That is what I am concerned about but I cannot see how having a number can do that unless I am the only one who knows the number. If the number is on my licence, that provides no protection and that is what I am worried about. It is like a Pass card. My Pass card is no good to anyone because I am the only one who knows the number.
There is the photograph as well so there is a double check.
If it all depends on a photograph——
One can eliminate half the population anyway.
I do not particularly fancy attracting the penalty points of only half the population either. I appreciate the Minister of State might not have all the information to hand but if a foolproof system is envisaged, this would be critical to it.
One's signature, photograph and number is recorded so one must criss-cross the three of them.
It is all on the licence - that is my problem.
If a person was not involved, he could challenge it. If he is fined, he will not pay the fine. He will write in, state his case and say the car had been used by someone else.
The point is the system should obviate the need for someone to do that. Only I should know the number of my licence. I am sure there are other foolproof systems. Anyone can copy my signature or look like me. Women change their appearance all the time, or try to anyway.
I would like to come back to this business of carrying the driving licence and for us to reflect on what we are doing here. We all agree we want to strengthen the law to make our roads safer and produce better driver behaviour. There are many things we can do, some of which we discussed earlier and which the Minister of State was somewhat reluctant to go along with fully. I am trying to envisage a situation where somebody who is a perfectly good and careful driver is stopped on the road by a garda and, because she took a different handbag with her that morning, is issued with an on-the-spot fine for not having a driving licence and a penalty point is attached to her licence.
I recall when the 1994 legislation was being debated and what happened after the legislation was enacted on the issue of drink driving offences. While I agree those provisions had to be made, I predict that when this measure hits public consciousness, that is, that people will be fined for not having a driving licence with them and that a penalty point will be attached to their driving licence not because they were speeding, had bald tyres or any of the things people would accept as legitimate grounds for a penalty point, but simply because they did not have their licence on them, it will not be publicly accepted. There will be enormous difficulty in enforcing it and, if it is enforced at all, it will be enforced inconsistently. We are likely to end up with situations where there will be accusations of it being enforced selectively and vindictively in some cases. We will have problems with it.
It is very easy to pass law here and then to see what the consequences are when we come to enforce and implement it. This is one of those provisions that sounds very correct at the legislative stage but when it reaches the stage of implementation, it will come a cropper. As a Legislature, we should think again about carrying a driving licence.
I do not agree. When section 25 was introduced by the then Government in the 1994 Act, it created an expectation among the public that there was now a law, which would be implemented at some stage, requiring the carrying of a driving licence. All we are doing here is commencing that section. I do not see how it can be viewed as a surprising development, it has been expected for some time.
All parties are agreed on the need to introduce a penalty points system and the public generally welcomes it, although those affected by it may not be so welcoming. The purpose of the system is to improve the road safety record, to help reduce the numbers being injured and killed, to impress on drivers a more responsible attitude and to act as a deterrent to people to break what some may consider to be the more minor aspects of road traffic legislation.
The penalty points system cannot operate unless each driver carries a licence which provides a form of identity and confirmation that the driver is an authorised one. In view of this I will not entertain any proposal not to proceed with this provision. We are used to carrying forms of identification. I cannot get in or out of Government Buildings nor can I attend Government meetings without a card. People get used to carrying their credit and other cards and I see no great difficulty with imposing an obligation on drivers to carry a licence. If they want the privilege of driving a car on the roads and if they are to act responsibly in relation to other road users, they should be obliged to carry their driving licence.
On a point of clarification, if, say, John and Mary go for a Sunday drive with Mary driving and she slips, hurts her legs and is put in the passenger seat while John drives home, is it possible that John could be fined and given a penalty point because he did not have his licence? That is what is being proposed here.
In such circumstances the driver can explain to the garda, who has discretion in these matters. He does not always have to prosecute and having listened to the facts he may decide to give only a warning.
Is the Minister of State in favour of reduced penalty points for drivers with provisional licences?
I do not favour a two tier system. Everybody must be treated equally and it would be wrong to introduce lower penalties to certain categories of driver. Every driver has the same responsibility.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 28, line 2, to delete "(£157,977)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am advised that the decision should be in the negative.
Question put and declared lost.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this positive development, which will provide for the regulation of driving instructors. What penalties are involved if a person does not have the requisite certificate or qualification? Can a driving instructor practice without being certified? What time-scale is involved in terms of the implementation of the provisions of the section? What is meant by exemptions? The Minister of State said that under the penalty points system drivers must be treated equally, regardless of whether they are provisional or full licence holders, yet exemptions are to be provided in the case of driving instructors. There is no statutory regulations or certification system in place at present.
Will the Deputy summarise his concerns?
What will be the time-scale for the implementation of these provisions? I presume the Minister of State has held discussions with representatives of the driving instructors.
Discussions are ongoing.
The proposed new subsection (1A)(b)(i) of section 18 of the 1968 Act provides that regulations under this section may provide for “the exemption from the regulations or specified provisions of the regulations of holders of instruction certificates as respects vehicles to which the certificates relate”. Does this mean there will be an exemption for some category of certificate that may have been in place previously, for example, if somebody has a qualification from the statutory registration in the UK or from the DIR, as it was then? Does it mean that there will be a replacement of the DIR? What type of penalties are envisaged if a person does not have an instruction certificate? Can a person establish a driving school without meeting the requirement set out in this section?
Instructors who are accredited by accreditation bodies will not have to undergo the test but their qualifications must be verified by a third party.
Will the Minister of State regulate for accredited bodies?
Yes, the regulations will include those bodies already in existence which have achieved accreditation. Seven or eight different groups would be seeking accreditation.
Will this not cause logistical problems?
We are seeking to provide a regulatory regime. This is the way to proceed because it means that instructors will be accredited if they have achieved certain standards.
The theory test is done to a recognised standard by an organisation that is regulated and supervised by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Similarly, NCTs are regulated and supervised by the Department and there is one recognised national body.
The National Accreditation Board has informed us that we cannot restrict it to one body. If they meet the requirements of the National Accreditation Board, then they are accredited.
Will they all receive the same recognised accreditation? For example, will it be a national certificate? Will there be just one qualification?
There will be one standard. As I said, it is owned by the National Accreditation Board and it is monitored by the board.
It is monitored, but the point I am trying to make is that there will be six or seven accredited bodies and they will all issue certificates. Will they all issue the same certificate? For example, if I do a national diploma in biology in the IT in Athlone, it is the same standard as every other third level institution in Ireland and is recognised as such. I am afraid that there will be three or four acronyms. A driving instructor could say that he is accredited to the NDAB or whatever.
That will be recorded on his certificate.
Yes, but the driving instructor down the road could be accredited to the ADAB and, from a consumer's point of view, one does not know if it is really a national accreditation. For example, at present one sees DIR qualified instructors advertised in the Yellow Pages and elsewhere. Will there be one standard criteria, stating that the instructor has national accreditation rather than six or seven different titles for the qualifications they receive?
There will be one standard.
Will they all be known as one?
It will be recorded on the certificate. We are in the middle of those discussions at present.
I know that.
That is what we are seeking. That is what the discussions are about.
The second element is if somebody does not comply with section 18 of the amended 1968 Act, what penalties are involved? Can somebody practise as a driving instructor without meeting the criteria laid down in the new section 18?
They will not be able to practise their profession if they are not accredited. That is the penalty.
Perhaps the Minister of State would point out where that is stated in section 18. I apologise if I missed it.
If the person does not have an instruction certificate, he or she will not be able to practise.
Perhaps I missed it. I do not see where that is stated in the new section 18.
It will be covered when the regulations are made. The regulations will be made under the 1968 Act, which states:
A person who contravenes a regulation under this section which is stated to be penal regulation [which it will be] shall be guilty of an offence and, in the case a contravention of a regulation prohibiting or restricting the giving for reward of instruction by a person other than a licensed driving instructor or prohibiting the employment of such a person for the purpose of giving instruction . . .
It is dealt with under section 18(7) of that Act.
Will penalties be involved?
Yes.
My concern is if those powers already exist under section 18 of the 1968 Act, why have they not been enforced to date? The position, as we all know, is that anybody can become a driving instructor in the morning.
Yes, because we did not have those provisions. We did not go that further step.
Is it that we did not opt for certification?
That is a new step.
The penalties were contained in the 1968 Act, but the criteria were never laid down. Is that what the Minister of State is telling me?
The certification of instructors was never laid down.
I have not gone into section 18 in detail and perhaps it is best that I have a look at it. I may submit an amendment to it on Report Stage if I am not satisfied that it will guarantee that no loophole will be left there.
We do not want to leave loopholes.
I know that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendments Nos. 70 to 72, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 69, while amendment No. 72 is consequential on amendment No. 71. Therefore, amendments Nos. 69 to 72, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 30, subsection (1), lines 5 and 6, to delete "and it shall not be necessary to prove" and substitute "and it shall be presumed".
These are not so much loopholes as parts of the Bill which certainly will be tested in subsequent court cases. There have been similar court cases already about the testing of apparatus which is used to measure alcohol levels and I am sure other such apparatus will be introduced in the future.
The wording of the section is too draconian and opens it up to challenge. Rather than stating that it shall not be necessary to prove that such an apparatus was accurate or in good working order, I am suggesting that it should be presumed that it is in good working order. In an appropriate case, that would allow somebody to rebut the assertion that it is in good working order. There are probably occasions when such apparatus is not in good working order. It is a small issue but, as we all know, lawyers are wonderful at finding ways around legislation and the Minister of State should be aware that every possible loophole in the Bill will be challenged.
Similarly, in the other amendment, rather than stating that the apparatus is of a type approved and that does not need to be proven, as the legislation provides, I am suggesting instead that it be proved by way of an endorsement on the record which is produced in court with the findings of the apparatus regarding the alcohol levels which are established.
The general focus of the amendments tabled by Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Naughten is to provide for the introduction of a type of approval regime which will encompass the use of any equipment which may be used for the purposes of this section. In that context, the amendments specifically provide that there would be an onus on the Garda to establish in all instances that a particular instrument conforms with any such type approval.
The section provides that any equipment to be used must be of a type approved either by the Garda Commissioner or a senior member of the force not below the rank of chief superintendent or chief executive officer or other authorised officer of the National Roads Authority. This, in effect, creates a rebuttal presumption relating to the equipment. This approach reflects the practice applied in relation to other services provided for under the Road Traffic Acts which depend on the use of equipment for the purpose of establishing evidence. I consider that it would be prudent to allow that practice in this section and, accordingly, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.
I will withdraw the amendments, but we will see more of it in the courts.
We would see a great deal more of it if I acceded to the Deputy's request.
I am not sure.
Every machine would be involved.
Perhaps there would be court cases, but the Minister of State will see this challenged in the Supreme Court.
One will always see these issues challenged. For example, the EPT was challenged. I wish the best of luck to a challenge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 70 to 72, inclusive, not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 30, subsection (1), line 47, after "shall," to insert "on being required to do so,".
The provision requires a person to produce his or her licence to the Courts Service and the amendment requires that to be made clear so that an automatic penalty is not incurred for not producing the licence. I do not argue with the requirement to produce the licence to the service, but there could be a case where the defendant is not informed that he or she must produce his or her licence to the Courts Service and, by default, he or she may not do so and commit another offence. People will not automatically know they must produce their licences unless someone tells them to do so.
On the issue of the penalty points incurred for failure to carry a licence, if a person has a genuine crisis and loss of memory and fails to carry his or her licence and he or she goes to court, the penalty points incurred are trebled instead of being doubled. That is a little too onerous in the case of a person who did not set out to do something illegal. The penalty is the same as that for applying for a licence when disqualified from doing so or driving a vehicle before remedying dangerous defects. Failing to carry a licence does not appear to be on the same scale and the trebling of points is a little too onerous, especially in the early years when people will not be used to carrying a driving licence. Penalty points generally double when one must go to court rather than paying fines. To treble them in this case is a little too onerous.
I will deal with the amendment first.
My point is related to the amendment.
The proposed amendment to section 21 makes the requirement to present a licence to the courts conditional on a requirement being specifically imposed on a person to present a licence. The section already contains a general requirement to present a licence which will apply automatically to all people who are summonsed to appear in court relating to a penalty point offence or an offence which attracts a consequential disqualification order. There will be occasions when this requirement will not have to be imposed and these are set out in subsection (2). It provides that, where the accused person has produced his or her licence to a member of the Garda at a time between the commission of the offence and the hearing of the proceedings in court, the requirement in subsection (1) will not apply. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
If someone is charged with an offence and he or she goes to court, unless someone tells him or her that he or she must present his or her licence to the court, he or she will not necessarily know he or she must do so. It cannot be presumed every motorist will be familiar with section 21. There should be some requirement in the summons from the court or whatever that the licence must be produced. That is all I seek. Otherwise a person could be summonsed to court who has not produced his or her licence and could discover he or she is also being charged with not producing his or her licence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 31, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
"22.-Local Authorities may, as they consider appropriate and after consultation with the Gardaí apply a statutory maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour.".
I wish to resubmit this amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 31, lines 29 to 31, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 31, lines 35 to 46, and in page 32, lines 1 to 42, to delete column 4.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 32, column 3, line 40, to delete "€2,500" and substitute "€10,000".
To what offence does this refer?
One of the fines set out in euro in the section is incorrect and the amendment proposes to rectify this position.
It is not an increase in the fine.
No, it is just a correction.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 33, lines 3 to 12, to delete column 4.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 33, lines 15 to 23, to delete column 4.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 33, lines 26 to 41, to delete column 4.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 3, to delete "(£157)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 5, to delete "(£315)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 7, to delete "(£631)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 85, 86, and 88 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 9, to delete "4,000" and substitute "5,000".
These are textual amendments. Some of the weights and euro amounts referred to in subsection (3) are incorrect and relevant amendments have been proposed to correct them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 9, to delete "€2,500" and substitute "€1,600".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 34, subsection (3), line 9, to delete "(£1,974)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 34, subsection (3), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"Where the excess weight is 5,000 kilograms or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . €3,000'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 34, subsection (2), to delete all words from and including "and" in line 20, down to and including "Act" in line 24.
I accept the amendment.
That is fine.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 34, subsection (4), line 28, to delete "(other than subsection (2))”.
Does this refer to section 14?
I am not aware that it does.
I am surprised by the proposal to amend section 23(4). The section as drafted taken in association with subsection (5) provides that regulations under subsection (2) must be confirmed by resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas given their importance. I oppose the amendment and ask that it be withdrawn.
Deputy Mitchell is still looking at amendment No. 89 while we are on amendment No. 90. They are two different amendments.
I realise that. This is consequential on another amendment or deletion I was looking for.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 35, line 8, after "order" to insert "but does include dangerous driving where a person is convicted under section 53 of the Principal Act of such an offence but the court declines to make a consequential disqualification order".
This amendment refers to disqualification as a result of accumulating penalty points. As far as I can recall, penalty points do not apply to cases where disqualification would automatically result after a court case. There are some court cases where disqualification is not automatic and while I know those cases are rare, this amendment is to allow for them.
When a person is convicted of an offence which attracts a consequential disqualification order, that order must be applied. The court does not have discretion in relation to this, therefore the circumstances envisaged by this amendment could not occur. Accordingly the Deputy might withdraw the amendment.
I understood the 1994 Road Traffic Act allows a court to decline to make a consequential disqualification order in the case of a person convicted of an offence under section 53 if it is his or her first conviction under the section or for a special reason. Surely penalty points should apply to those exceptions.
My advice is that the court does not have discretion in the matter.
Maybe we could check that out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 35, column 2, line 43, to delete "38" and substitute "39".
In Part I of the Schedule, reference No. 5, the Schedule refers to an offence under section 38 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. This is incorrect and should refer to section 39.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 38, column 3, line 17, to delete "mirror" and substitute "underrun".
Part II of the Schedule, reference No. 13, wrongly describes the offence in question as using a vehicle not equipped with rear mirror protective device. A textual amendment is proposed to delete the word "mirror" and to substitute it with "underrun".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the First Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
This is the Schedule which sets out different offences, how many penalty points a person gets for each and what he ends up getting if he goes to court. I seek clarification as to how we came up with this Schedule of points. Is it based on something, such as Schedules in other jurisdictions? How were distinctions made between one type of offence and another?
In Part I there are a number of offences for which no penalty points are to be applied on payment of fixed charge, while penalty points are to be applied only on conviction. For example, using a vehicle without a test certificate gets a person five points if convicted but there are no penalty points on payment of fixed charge. Driving a vehicle before remedying a dangerous defects carries three points if the person is convicted but none on payment of a fixed charge and so on.
I seek specific clarification of the offence under section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, which is driving a vehicle while suffering a disability. What is meant by that? What kinds of disabilities are covered by that section? Is it possible to have an offence of that kind, having regard to the equal status legislation?
My next query relates to how one distinguishes between one type of offence and another and my examples come from Part II of the Schedule. Using a vehicle not fitted with adequate anchorage points for safety belts gets one two penalty points on payment of fixed charge and four on conviction but using a vehicle from which a driver has an inadequate view of road and traffic, or using a vehicle whose windscreen is not of safety glass or gives a distorted view gets a person only one point. To my simple mind, someone who cannot see out the window or whose view is distorted is a greater danger on the road than someone without anchorage points for safety belts, particularly if they do not have passengers in the car in the first place and they wear belts themselves.
The Deputy's first point referred to no penalty points being issued for using a vehicle without a test certificate. There is no fixed charge because on second or third conviction penalty points or fixed charge cannot apply. It is a consequential loss of licence.
Regarding a vehicle not fitted with an efficient windscreen wiper or with anchorage points, having no anchorage points for the safety belts leaves the driver and passengers in a very vulnerable position. Therefore it is weighted as heavier than having an inefficient windscreen wiper.
It is not a windscreen wiper; it says a distorted view from the windscreen. I would have thought that more serious.
They are all serious offences, but anchorage points for safety belts are a fundamental requirement of any car.
I know but how did the Minister of State decide that it was two points for the safety belt and one for the distorted windscreen?
If the Deputy looks at the safety strategy he will see we have highlighted the importance of the use of safety belts in vehicles. That is why we gave this a higher weighting. These matters are subjective and one can argue one way or the other but on balance we gave the heavier weighting to seat belts. The distortion could be a distortion affecting only one part of the glass.
There is a huge amount of points here, with different points for different elements. I accept there is a judgment element. Did the Minister of State go through them one by one or was there some kind of scheme or framework by which this was decided?
They were gone through separately and weighted according to the balance of opinion regarding which requirements were considered more fundamental. One is talking about one or two points and we wished to emphasise those which we thought were potentially more serious than others. It is always dangerous when one is talking about these issues as any one of these offences could result in loss of life depending on the circumstances.
We agreed to conclude the meeting at 5 p.m. Is it agreed that we continue until the conclusion of Committee Stage? Agreed.
There are no amendments regarding the weightings.
The Opposition is handicapped by not knowing the basis. We can only assume that there is a well-researched basis for these proposals. I wished to tease out the basis for the different penalties on Committee Stage. This issue will need to be looked at in light of experience.
They can be adjusted in light of experience.
We might all differ as to which offences are more serious than others.
I have no doubt that no two people would come up with exactly the same weighting.
Will the Minister of State deal with the disability issue?
A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place when he is, or to his knowledge, suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability which would be likely to cause the driving of the vehicle by him in a public place to be a source of danger to the public.
This is a fairly general description, but it might need to be looked at. This provision was introduced in 1961 when there was a different view of disability than today. The provision might need to be looked at in the context of the Equal Status Act. For example, we do not want a garda to stop someone because he or she suffers from a disability.
Disabled people are perfectly competent when using a disabled driver's car.
Yes.
I accept the Deputy's point.
We discussed the requirement to carry a licence. The Minister of State pointed out that this provision was introduced in the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and is being given effect now. Which part of the Schedule refers to that offence? Is it No. 6 on page 35?
It is provided for in section 40 of the 1961 Act, as amended in section 25 of the 1994 Act.
The general description of the offence is a failure to produce a licence to a member of the Garda Síochána. Does that refer to the failure to carry a licence when required?
When requested.
People are sometimes asked to leave their——
It is at the discretion of the garda. He or she can give one an opportunity to present the licence later.
Is that still the case?
Yes, it is at the garda's discretion.
Does the offence refer to the failure to do so? If a garda does not use his or her discretion, is it not a little severe that one should get three penalty points if the case goes to court for not carrying a licence even if one feels one had a good excuse for not doing so?
One does not have to accept the penalty points. One always has a choice.
I know that one has the choice of going to court, but what if one gets a judge on a bad day and he or she finds that there was no excuse for not carrying the licence and one receives three penalty points? Does that not seem a little severe compared to, for example, furnishing false and misleading particulars in connection with an application for a licence which attracts the same penalty points, but which seems a much more deliberate attempt to break the law? There seems to be an imbalance.
These points are designed to act as a deterrent against breaking the law.
Fair enough.
I am considering some further amendments, but not today. I am considering a further amendment to Part 2 of the First Schedule to add a reference to an offence that is being considered regarding the use of hand held mobile telephones. The offence will be considered in the context of the construction of vehicles and the use of vehicle equipment under section 11 of the 1961 Act. I give the committee notice of this point.
I wish to raise an issue on which I have not tabled an amendment, but which will need some consideration. I am not sure how to raise this matter in the context of legislation dealing with penalty points regarding motor vehicles.
With the increase in the number of cycle lanes and, in some cases, the overlapping of cycle lanes and pedestrian footpaths at intersections, it has been brought to my attention that dangerous cycling is becoming more of an issue. In some cases pedestrians have found themselves having to cope with a minority of cyclists who do not seem to show a great deal of courtesy to them. Some bicycles are capable of travelling at high speeds and someone hit by such a bicycle would suffer considerable injuries. This is not the type of issue which can be dealt with by way of penalty points on a licence as one does not need one to use a bicycle. However, would the Minister of State consider how this issue might be dealt with in the context of the Bill? We might look at this issue on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister of State, his officials and members of the committee for their contributions and for facilitating Committee Stage. I also thank the clerk to the committee, the staff in the Bills Office, support staff and staff of the committee secretariat for their assistance. I also thank colleagues for giving me the opportunity to chair the meeting.
I wish to express my appreciation to you, Chairman, and your staff for the arrangements for this meeting. I also thank the Opposition spokespersons who worked diligently on the Bill and tabled worthwhile amendments which stimulated a good discussion.
I am a Member of the House for a long time and I do not think I ever experienced the type of situation with which we were confronted yesterday when we were landed with about 60 amendments. It is important that I speak up because the officials like to remain anonymous and in the background. The rules of the House need to be changed. We must receive amendments at least two or three days before the debate commences. Staff of the House, including others who worked with them, continued working until 3 a.m, pouring over the amendments that were tabled. Some of them were not received until 4 p.m. yesterday. The staff are not complaining but I suggest it is important for the House to recognise this is putting an extraordinary imposition on staff and ourselves as Members. It is appropriate that a recommendation should come before the appropriate committee of the House. From my experience in the past 24 hours, such a change is urgently needed.
I thank the Minister of State, the Chairman, staff and officials who put much work into this Bill. I thank them for their co-operation and for the acceptance of some of the amendments.
I join the words of appreciation to the Chairman, staff of the committee and officials of the Department. The Minister of State has made a fair point in regard to the preparation of amendments. However, one of the difficulties is that Opposition parties or spokespersons - the Minister of State will know this from his experience - are not resourced to deal with legislation. We are unique among Legislatures that Members of Parliament in this country do not have the same research staff and so on as other Legislatures.
Members of the House must perform the range of functions expected of them and Opposition spokespersons are expected to produce amendments as if they had the same resources as Ministers in Government. We are not playing on the same pitch and this issue needs to be addressed. However, I understand and accept what the Minister of State said. Apart from anything else, it does not allow a great deal of time to consider amendments and it also causes inconvenience for staff in the Departments and Houses who must deal with these issues at short notice.