I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 46: in subsection (2), line 27, "this section" deleted and "subsection (1)" substituted.
Road Traffic Bill, 1966: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Perhaps amendment No. 2 could be discussed also, as it is consequential?
Section 46 of the Bill provides that a person who provides a specimen of blood or urine, when required to do so, will be given an opportunity of giving an additional specimen to his own doctor or, if he wishes, to the doctor called by the Garda. It will be up to him to show that this has not been done. The amendments, based on a proposal made in the Seanad by Senator O'Quigley, ensure that a person who gives evidence to show this, cannot be questioned on any other issue or made to incriminate himself.
(Cavan): This amendment is, of course, acceptable to me. It seems to be an improvement on section 46 as originally drafted and as carried in this House. It seeks to ensure that an accused person shall have an opportunity of having a second test or tests made by an independent person of a sample of blood or urine as the case may be. It is highly desirable that the new subsection should be inserted. This makes it clear that, if the accused person goes into the witness box to establish as a fact that what I will describe as the technical requirements of subsection (1) of section 46 have not been complied with, he cannot be then asked any questions or called upon to give any evidence and that the case against him fails there and then. That is desirable.
My advice was to the effect that this would not have been allowed anyway. But Senator O'Quigley stated that in his experience cross-examination might be allowed, and in view of that this is making it clear.
(Cavan): The Minister will agree that legislation should leave the Oireachtas as clear as possible? The matter is now beyond doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
The following new subsection added to the section:
"() Where the defendant gives evidence to establish that the provisions of subsection (1) have not been complied with, unless he wishes to do so, he shall not be asked and shall not be required to give evidence about any other matter."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 66: in subsection (1), paragraph (c) deleted and the following substituted:
"(c) carry out such inspection and examination (including a test) as appear to him to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of the investigation,
(d) do such things and make such requirements as appear to him to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular,
(i) require, by summons, the attendance of all such persons as he thinks fit to call before him and examine for the purposes of his report and require answers or returns to any inquiries which he thinks fit to make,
(ii) require any person to produce such books, papers, other documents and any articles (being in that person's custody or under his control) which he may consider relevant and retain such books, papers, documents and articles for such time as he may reasonably require them, and".
Perhaps with amendment No. 3 we could take amendment No. 4, which is consequential?
The aim of amendment No. 3 is to detail some of the requirements which an "authorised person" may make when carrying out an investigation under subsection (1), including the summoning of persons to give information and requiring the production of books, papers et cetera relevant to the investigation.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential on No. 3.
(Cavan): Section 66 provides for the holding of inquiries into road accidents similar to those provided for in air travel legislation and in the Railway Acts. This section might fairly be described as an afterthought by the Minister. It was not in the Bill as originally drafted and the amendment was not introduced by the Minister on the Committee Stage. I think it was introduced by the Minister on the Report Stage and the Bill was then recommitted. We had not a very good opportunity of considering the amendment on Report Stage. This amendment and the other amendments made in the Seanad, which I shall deal with later, are an improvement on the Bill as it left the House. Amendment No. 3 spells out in greater detail what was sought to be put in a very concise form in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 61. I accept it as an improvement on the section.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), line 36, "(d)" deleted and "(e)" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Subsection (2) deleted and the following substituted:
"(2) Whenever the Minister considers it necessary, he may direct that a public inquiry be held into the cause of an accident in which a vehicle was involved."
This amendment is designed to meet a point raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick during the Report Stage in the Dáil when he said that any person having an interest in the outcome of an inquiry should have the right to attend or be represented. The proposed amendment of subsection (2) means that all inquiries will be public.
(Cavan): I am obliged to the Minister for introducing this amendment in the Seanad. Under the section as it was originally drafted it was open to the Minister to hold an inquiry in private or, if he so wished, to direct that it be held in public. As I understand the amendment — and I think this is the Minister's explanation of it, too — if an inquiry is to be held under the subsection now it must be held in public. The Minister has only authority to order a public inquiry. That is desirable.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
In subsection (4), page 37, paragraph (a) (i) deleted and in page 38, lines 1 to 5, subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) deleted and the following substituted:—
"(4) (a) The Minister may by order make provision for —
(i) the payment by the Minister of the expenses reasonably incurred by a person giving evidence or producing documents at an inquiry under this section,
(ii) the payment by the Minister of costs reasonably incurred by a person in connection with an inquiry under this section,
(iii) the recovery from any person of costs incurred by the Minister in connection with an inquiry under this section."
The aim of this amendment is to clarify the position regarding the payment of costs and expenses to persons involved in an inquiry and the recovery from any person of costs incurred by the Minister in connection with an inquiry. It implements an undertaking I gave on the Report Stage in the Dáil to amend the section, if necessary, to ensure that costs and not merely expenses could be paid to persons taking part in an inquiry.
(Cavan): Again I welcome this amendment — introduced, I think, in response to a point made by me on this section during the brief discussion we had on the Report Stage. As the Bill was originally drafted, the Minister had power to make provision for the payment of costs incurred by him in connection with an inquiry under the section but he had not power to make provision for costs incurred by any member of the public or anybody else. I pointed out then that that was an undesirable state of affairs. It is clear now that under the amendment as passed by the Seanad the Minister has power to make provision (1) for the payment by the Minister of expenses incurred by a person giving evidence at an inquiry and (2) for the payment by the Minister of costs reasonably incurred by any person in connection with the inquiry.
This was a serious omission in the Bill as introduced into the House. When a lawyer Deputy speaks about costs he is likely to be misrepresented, but it is not the lawyer who would be at a loss here but the person either dragged before an inquiry or who considered he had very good reason to go before the inquiry in his own interest. As the Bill was originally drafted a person might be wrongly brought before the inquiry or he might have thought it necessary to be represented there and he could be completely cleared of any charge, or any suggestion against him at the inquiry and yet under the Bill as originally drafted, I think it was clear that the Minister had no authority to indemnify that person against costs. Of course if he asked a lawyer to represent him, the lawyer would have to be paid but he would have to pay it himself even if he were completely in the right.
I am glad the Minister has made good that omission in the interests of the public in general. It is also clear that the Minister has the right now under the section to recover costs or expenses from any person who appears at the inquiry and was involved there. I think he already had that power under the Bill as originally drafted. Without being too critical of or severe on the Minister's advisers, the Bill, as originally drafted, is a typical example of the anxiety of the establishment to ensure that their rights are protected. It is also typical of the industry that is shown to ensure that the rights of the State are protected while at the same time sometimes, as in this section as originally drafted, overlooking the rights of the individual.
The discussion here and the subsequent discussion in the Seanad and the introduction of this amendment by the Minister really demonstrate the value of Committee discussion in the House and also highlight the necessity for a second Chamber and the good that such a Chamber can do on occasions like this. There is really much more in this small amendment than meets the eye. The interests of the individual taxpayer and individual citizen have been put on the same level as the interests and rights of the State. I regret to say that was not the position in the section as originally drafted. I thank the Minister for acceding to my request.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Could the Minister hazard a guess as to when the Bill will become law?
No. A number of regulations must be made first and the Bureau must be established.
Surely the Minister, knowing he was bound to get the Bill through, would have done some work on these regulations?
A lot of work has been done in that regard but we must establish the Bureau.
We may take it that the law will not be introduced until after the tourist season?
It is very unlikely.
(Cavan): The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, appears to have been making regulations.
(Interruptions.)
We need not wait to bring it all in together.
When does the breathaliser come in?
It depends on the establishment of the Bureau. Let us hope we shall have it there for Christmas!
You will suspend it for Christmas!