I move amendment No. 68:
In page 35, paragraph (a), to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
"Roads Act, 1993;"
This is a minor drafting amendment already discussed with amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
SECTION 43.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 36, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(e) in section 53—
(i) by the substitution in subsection (2) (a) for ‘five years' of ‘10 years' and for ‘£3,000' (as inserted by the Act of 1984) of ‘£10,000', and
(ii) by the substitution in subsection (3) for ‘built-up area or special' of ‘built-up area, special or motorway';".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 36, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(g) in section 101B (as inserted by the Act of 1987)—
(i) by the substitution in subsection (2) for ‘90 of this Act' of ‘35 or 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1993', and
(ii) by the substitution in paragraph (b) of subsection (8) for ‘bye-laws or temporary rules under section 90 of this Act' of ‘regulations or bye-laws under section 35 or 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1993';"
This is a technical drafting amendment. It is consequential on the replacement of section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, by sections 35 and 36 of this Bill which provide for regulations for the general control of traffic and local by-laws for the control of parking in parking places. It is necessary because section 101B of the principal Act, as inserted, provides for the immobilisation, removal, etc., of unlawfully parked vehicles, in other words wheel clamping. It is also necessary because the section as enacted refers to vehicles unlawfully parked at the time. Thirdly, the amendment updates the references to permit wheel clamping to be used where vehicles are parked in contravention of the provisions of general regulations or local by-laws under the Bill. Section 101B has not been brought into effect and wheel clamping has not been used in Ireland. However, it is prudent to retain existing traffic management enforcement measures for future use if necessary, for example, arising from the recommendations of the Dublin Transport Initiative.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 36, paragraph (g), line 25, to delete "section 102" and substitute "sections 97 (1) (b), 102, 103, l07, 110, 111, 115, 125 and 126".
The purpose of this amendment is to substitute the collective citation the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1993, for reference to this Act in the sections listed. This is because the amendment is required to put beyond doubt that the provisions in the sections concerned apply to the collective cited Acts and not only to the 1961 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 37, after line 41, to insert the following:
"(2) Reference in section 3 (1) (a) (as inserted by the Act of 1987) of the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act, 1975 to the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1984 and references in the Act of 1993 to the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1987, shall be construed as references to the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1993.
(3) The Act of 1993 is hereby amended—
(a) in section 20 (1) by the substitution for paragraph (1) of the following paragraph:
"(1) provide a specified traffic sign under and in accordance with section 95 of the Act of 1961,", and
(b) in section 23, by the deletion of subsection (3).".
I require permission to move an oral amendment. This arises because of a minor printing error in amendment No. 72. I move:
"That the reference in subsection (3) (a) to:
paragraph (1) in first and third lines should read paragraph (1)."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 72 proposes two consequential changes arising from the Bill. The new subsection (2) of section 43 updates references to the collectively cited Road Traffic Acts contained in the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act, 1975, and in the Roads Act, 1993. The new subsection (3) provides for two amendments to the Roads Act, 1993, they are required to take account of the new provisions governing the provision of traffic signs provided in section 37 of this Bill and to delete references in the Roads Act, 1993, to the seeking of consent of the Garda Commissioner for the provision of traffic signs. We touched on them earlier.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That ssection 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
With reference to the Second Schedule in section 43, do I understand that section correctly to be a list of all the mandatory disqualifications? I have difficulties with this and I expressed them previously in discussion on the different sections to which this Schedule refers. I urge the Minister to think again. I do not like the increasing use of mandatory sentencing as a weapon in our legislation. We have got to the stage that we either do not trust our Judiciary or we feel our Judiciary has a lot to learn. I believe passionately in the independence of the Legislature from the Judiciary and, as we increase the use of mandatory sentencing, it is a clear signal to the Judiciary that we are telling them what sentences they must apply, removing all discretion no matter what defence is offered.
I object to the weapon of mandatory sentencing being so frequently used, this weapon is prevalent throughout the Bill. I am in favour of treating seriously some of the major problems dealt with in this Bill but the Minister has over used the weapon of mandatory sentencing. Therefore, I have major problems with the Second Schedule.
This was discussed at an earlier stage and, since 1961, mandatory sentencing has been part of the philosophy of road traffic legislation. There are two pressures on the Minister for the Environment in relation to all these considerations. On the one hand there is the pressure from the democratic system to pull back and on the other there is pressure from forces in the community to have even more stringent measures to deal with these matters.
In working our way through this Bill there has been consensus and support on all sides, which I appreciate. Differences arose in some areas but none of them was fundamental. In addition there are other areas to be returned to on Report Stage which should bring consensus in the House as to how it wishes to proceed in this matter.
I wish to send a clear signal to the courts regarding how democratically elected people, and myself as Minister for the Environment, feel about the direction in which certain sentencing should proceed in areas in which we have cause for concern. It is not as if I was introducing a new measure. This is a well tried deterrent, enforced by the courts for drink driving and serious bodily injury on the roads, for well over 30 years. If I was introducing a new measure or making a departure from what has been the general practice, I could understand why Deputy Doyle might object but I am merely adding another rung — which incorporates dangerous driving — to the existing position as regards mandatory sentencing.
In discussions with the Minister for Justice and the Garda Commissioner it is clear they are anxious to work towards better enforcement because of the present situation on our roads. I have had personal experience of this over the past couple of days and in conjunction with other reports which I received, the situation is alarming with regard to the speed with which traffic on our roads is moving and the hazards associated with it. In one case reported to me within the last couple of days a driver, at 8 o'clock in the morning, thought he saw a body flying in the air off a motor cycle. He and only one other car pulled up to find a man lying unconscious in the ditch. Visibility was poor at the time and there was a danger of another accident because those cars had to pull up and because of the sheer speed of the ongoing traffic.
Speed and dangerous driving can be lethal but people do not believe they will be involved in an accident. They think it will happen to somebody else. Between 30 and 40 people die each month and between 700 and 900 people are injured, many in that category will never walk again. The question of trying to deal with that situation includes the issue of mandatory sentences as a deterrent.
I shudder at the rate of accidents, the speed and the risks drivers take. If I think they should be disqualified as a result of their actions I am prepared to give that direction to the court.
For the Minister to graphically describe the slaughter and tragedy on our roads is a little disingenuous given that we all agreed with him for many weeks in relation to that area. I continue to feel strongly that the way to proceed is not in virtually all cases to remove discretion from the trial judge in regard to the different cases before him. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving but not everyone is a joyrider. We rehearsed this argument on a previous occasion. There can be awful tragedies when there are transgressions of the law when people drive dangerously, albeit those who perhaps have never broken the law before in their lives. Now the judge will not be allowed to exercise discretion regardless of the circumstances and the case put before him.
The criminal, the hit and run, the persistent dangerous driver and the people who refuse to insure and tax their cars are all categories where there would be no doubt as to how the judge would deal with them. I do not believe that in those cases the judge needs to be directed or in the case of the habitual offender before the courts on a regular basis. We said before that perhaps direction needs to be given to the Judiciary to have uniformity in sentencing in other cases. The public are frustrated by one judge letting a person off under the Probation Act and another giving a defendant five years for what appears to be the same or almost the same offence. More uniformity in sentencing is required but to remove virtually all discretion from our trial judges is an over inteference by us as legislators in the role of the Judiciary.
I, therefore, advise the Minister that I cannot agree with the Second Schedule and in consequence we cannot accept section 43. Much of it is excellent but as a general blanket rule the extent to which the Minister proposes to remove discretion from trial judges has gone too far.
I am surprised at the attitude of Deputy Doyle, even to the offences outlined in the section because the Minister is specific in the areas in which it was felt desirable to ensure that there was a proper level of sentencing. It is known from experience that mandatory sentences in these specific areas are a sufficient motivation for people to desist. Deputy Doyle is making an argument against the attitude held by the Deputy on the Bill as a whole.
That is not so as I have been consistent on this point. I rehearsed this argument from the beginning when it was relevant at earlier stages of the Bill.
We must be especially careful in cases where strengthened and increased penalties are introduced to ensure they can be used as maximum penalties, there must be a direction to the Judiciary to avoid uniformity of sentencing. That is a major problem and with the increased monetary and detention penalties, in two or three years' time there could be maximum sentencing. If, as legislators, we cannot trust our Judiciary there is something seriously wrong with the systems we operate. I urge the Minister not to over use the weapon of mandatory sentencing as discretion is required. Not all cases are the same. Not all dangerous drivers are joyriders.
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 7.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Nolan, M. J. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Ó Cuív, Eamon. |
|
Doherty, Seán. |
O'Keeffe, Batt. |
|
Ellis, John. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Ferris, Michael. |
Smith, Michael. |
|
Kenny, Seán. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
Doyle, Avril. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Currie, Austin. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Nealon, Ted. |
Question declared carried.
Title agreed to.
I propose the following draft report: "The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil".
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
Chairman, may I raise a matter which affects the dignity of this committee? You may have noticed that the Oireachtas restaurant facilities closed at 5.55 p.m. We are working extremely late, until after 8 p.m. and there is nowhere on these premises where one can get a cup of tea or coffee. I think this is unfair and I would like you to make strong recommendations to the relevant committee and authorities so that this does not recur.
I agree with Deputy Broughan. This point was already raised with me at the commencement of the meeting. I gave a commitment to Deputy Avril Doyle that I would write to the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Services Committee and to personnel requesting that when committees sit late minimal canteen facilities would be available — that somebody would be available in the self-service restaurant to look after Members. It is unfair that the Members have been totally ignored, to put it mildly, as far as this committee is concerned because we have sat late. I hope the chairpersons of the other committees will support me in asking that, when committees sit late on non-sitting days, the facilities of the House, such as the Members' bar and the self-service restaurant, would be kept open to facilitate us. They are kept open on other occasions which are less important.
I thank the committee. The Committee Stage of all Bills is the most exacting. A great deal of work went in to the preparation of amendments and, indeed, the general discussion on the complicated aspects of this Bill. I am grateful to all sides and, in particular, to the Front Bench spokespersons for the support that has enabled us to achieve the progress we have to date. I look forward to Report and Final Stages being completed as early as possible.
Did the Minister not give an assurance that it might be possible to have this Bill completed by 31 October? There is a section, I think it is section 39, which is of special interest to Dublin Deputies.
We have looked at the options in terms of Dáil time. I have given Deputies a number of commitments in relation to amendments on Report Stage and if all that work can be completed and we have the opportunity of a debate at an earlier time in the Dáil I will take it.
I thank you, Chairman, and the Minister and his staff for their co-operation over the several sessions we have had on Committee Stage. Naturally, we did not get all we would have liked but it was a useful exercise in terms of extending our understanding of the proposed legislation. I look forward to many of the amendments being retabled on Report Stage so that we can make the Bill even more extensive than it is.
On behalf of the committee I thank the Minister and his officials for the help they gave us prior to the commencement of the work on this Bill. It made the work much easier and I would like to express our sincere thanks to them. The next meeting of the Select Committee will deal with the Presidential Election Bill. Do Members want to take the Bill in private session?
Deputies
No.
The Select Committee adjourned at 8.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 8 October 1993.