Are these interruptions necessary?
Private Members' Business. - Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.
Deputies Cox and McManus rose.
(Interruptions)
I think they are.
Let us hear them.
I seek clarification because there is no time limit on the various contributions. As we have only 45 minutes left I suggest we each take ten minutes and allow five minutes at the end for the Minister.
That is a matter for the Whips, the Chair will not intervene there.
We will try to oblige everybody by keeping our contributions short.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The need for this Bill stems from issues which arose in the context of prosecutions for drink-driving offences. The issues relate to the form in which the register of medical practitioners was maintained by the Medical Council under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978, and the certification procedures arising from that. I have been advised that it is proper to amend, by way of this Bill, some provisions in the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978, and the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, to ensure that their provisions are placed beyond doubt.
The purpose of the Bill is to give express authority to the Medical Council to keep the general register of medical practitioners on computer and, also, to give express authority to the registrar of the council to issue certificates attesting to matters contained in the register.
The Bill also amends the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, to extend the presumption that certain persons are registered medical practitioners to include proceedings where persons are charged with offences of refusing or failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine to a registered medical practitioner. At present, that presumption only applies for the purposes of prosecutions under section 49 or 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Prosecutions under these sections relate to the offences of driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or where the blood or urine alcohol level exceeds specified maximum limits. The amendments contained in the Bill extend the presumption to all circumstances where a person refuses to co-operate in the giving of a specimen of blood or urine.
Taken as a whole, the Bill seeks to tighten up provisions of both the medical practitioners and road traffic legislation which will assist in road traffic—and, indeed, in any other—legal proceedings. The reason for bringing forward amending legislation at this stage is to copperfasten the provision in the Medical Practitioners Act relating to the form of the register and to make suitable provision for certification of entries contained in it. If left unattended to, these have the possibility for endangering the success of prosecutions for drink driving offences under road traffic legislation. I have been advised that this matter should be dealt with urgently in association with the Road Traffic Bill which, I understand, will be before the House tomorrow.
The provisions of the Bill are quite straightforward. The first part of section 2 gives express authority to the Medical Council to keep the general register of medical practitioners on computer which, in this day and age, I suggest, can only be considered non-controversial.
The remainder of section 2 (2A), reintroduces a provision that appeared in somewhat similar form originally in the Medical Practitioners Act, 1927. It provides, among other things, that a certificate from the registrar of the council attesting to an entry in the register shall be evidence of the matters attested to unless the contrary is shown. Apart from any other reason, the certification provision is absolutely vital in the context of the register existing, for all practical purposes, in computerised form. It is a standard provision in legislation of this and similar kinds where records, written or computerised, are referred to.
So far as the health professions are concerned, a provision along these lines is included in the Nurses Act and the Dentists Act, both of which date from 1985. The registrar of the Medical Council has been issuing certificates relating to the registration of doctors since the council commenced operations. These are required for general certification purposes, such as for employers, for purposes of working abroad, for taking higher level examinations and any number of other reasons.
In the context of legal proceedings, where the success or failure of a case may depend on the legal status of a certificate issued by the registrar of the Medical Council, it is clear that there can be no room for equivocation.
Section 3 is a consequential amendment relating to the computerised form of the register. Sections 4 and 5 contain the amendments to the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. Section 4 brings the offence in section 17 of that Act into line with the offences in sections 13 and 14. It puts beyond doubt that it is an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement of a registered general medical practitioner in relation to the provision of a specimen of urine. Section 5 extends the presumption that persons are registered medical practitioners to prosecutions for "refusal offences" under the Act.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that this short Bill is fundamentally a Bill which simply ensures that a number of issues relating to the general register of medical practitioners is placed beyond doubt.
The amendments to the drink driving legislation are repeated in the Road Traffic Bill, 1993, which will come before the House tomorrow and these amendments will only operate pending the enactment of the road traffic legislation. I am advised that those particular requirements are so urgent that they should be enacted immediately. They will be overtaken by the Road Traffic Bill when it is debated in Special Committee. Members will have an opportunity for a broad ranging debate on all aspects of the Road Traffic Bill when it comes before the House tomorrow for Second Stage and will be dealt with in more leisurely detail in the Special Committee in due course. I commend the Bill to the House.
First, I want to state my utter dissatisfaction at the manner in which this Bill is being taken tonight. I have no difficulty with facilitating the passage of this legislation in one day. However, it is ridiculous to expect that Dáil Éireann should pass all Stages of a Bill in less than three-quarters of an hour. It is absurd that the Minister should state in his final remarks that Members will have an opportunity during the debate on another Bill to discuss the provision of this Bill. Is that what the Minister is telling us?
The provisions are repeated verbatim in another Bill.
We should deal with this Bill on its own merits. The Minister is asking us to pass legislation here tonight and debate it tomorrow morning under the Road Traffic Bill. That is outrageous. However, as Members of other parties wish to contribute, I will be suitably restrained.
I support the Bill and accept that it, together with the Road Traffic Bill, is a further example of the will of the Legislature to minimise the number of legal defences, justifiable or otherwise, that may be available to an offender indulging in alcohol and driving a car. The elimination of loopholes by Parliament reflects the widespread social opposition to drinking and driving that has changed considerably since the introduction of the breathalyser in 1978. It is no longer socially acceptable to drive a car immediately after the consumption of alcohol and the change in attitude in this regard throughout society is welcome.
In that context it is appropriate to give credit to the Garda for their vigilance, and positive action and the success of the recent Christmas crackdowns which were carried out in many parts of the country. That has resulted in far fewer drinkers risking life and limb of themselves and others in taking to the roads and, thankfully, far less carnage. Garda traffic units throughout the country deserve our acknowledgement and appreciation for the reduction on drink driving offences. Statistics clearly show that in spite of a considerable increase in the number of cars on our roads, the courts are dealing with considerably reduced numbers of drink driving cases. The display of bravado by way of flashing the keys of the car while tanked up at closing time has been replaced by the indignity, stupidity and foolish spectacle of driving a car while under the influence of alcohol. Much credit is due also to many licensed vintners for giving a good example in the area of drink driving by providing alternative modes of transport as well as positively discouraging their patrons from driving.
Tribute must be paid also to the medical profession and its contribution to law enforcement. Without the availability of general practitioners in every part of the city and country our drink driving laws could not be applied and the law would be completely unenforceable. Driving while drinking is no longer a socially acceptable practice.
Since the enactment of the Road Traffic Act, 1978, the Supreme Court has in many respects judicially amended the Act by many judgments which are fundamental to the present law. Although those decisions have little to do with the role of the medical practitioner, it is living proof that both the letter and the spirit of what we as legislators might mean or intend may not be interpreted accordingly by the courts. That is all the more reason we should have an opportunity of debating this legislation line by line.
The Bill before us therefore is necessary, as the Minister has stated, first, because of a loophole in the matter of the definition of the medical register and, second, to accord the same burden of proof in cases under the Road Traffic Act, 1978, as exists in cases that have become known as "the old section 49" or "ordinary drunken driving". The Bill spells out the extended definition of the medical register and clearly establishes the matter of the burden of proof on determining the status of the designated medical practitioner.
The Bill provides for two changes to the Medical Practitioners Act of 1978 and two changes to the Road Traffic Act, 1978. The Medical Practitioners Act of 1978, and in particular section 26 of this Act, provides for the establishment of a register of medical practitioners and for the issue to every person on this register of a certificate sealed with the seal of the Medical Council as per section 8. This sealed document may be admitted in evidence and deemed to be in order without proof unless the contrary is shown.
The Amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act are welcome in that they clarify the confusion that exists at present on the matter of the status of the medical register. Under the law as it stands the existence of a permanent up to date single register is referred to. The computerisation of records and data however has rendered the concept of a ledger type register somewhat obsolete. The definition of the register was amplified and deliberated upon in a 1980 case stated to the High Court entitled Martin v Quinn. In fact the need to change the law in the manner we are doing tonight is indicated by reference to this case, where the defendant in the Garda station questioned the doctor as to his qualifications. Under the law an individual is required to provide a specimen of either blood or urine to a doctor described as “a designated registered medical practitioner”.
The designation is at the behest of the Garda, while the registration is a matter for the health authorities. In the Quinn case oral evidence was given in the Circuit Court by the doctor that he was in fact a registered medical practitioner and this was accepted as prima facie evidence of that fact. This evidence however could have been rebutted by the defendant, but the burden of proof was firmly on the shoulder of the defendant and in the particular case he could not rebut the fact.
It is my belief that any defendant does however have a fundamental right to ascertain the name of the designated registered practitioner and this is not always observed. This may be so because the certificate of the doctor will not be available to the defendant before the hearing of the case. This certificate merely sets out the name and address of the defendant and contains a certificate by the medical practitioner that he either took a specimen of blood or was provided with a specimen of urine. The doctor signs twice, at the beginning and in the recital at the end. I recall a Roscommon case where a defendant wished to ascertain the name and address of the doctor and in due course he sought the information from the local superintendent.
The information was refused and application was made to the High Court, which duly referred the matter back to the District Court.
It is only right and proper and in keeping with the principles of natural justice that the name of the doctor be known, especially if any point is to be made as to his or her status, be it registered or otherwise. In practice however the use of this certificate is very limited and it is worth bearing in mind that failure on the part of the doctor to sign the certificate is not fatal to the actual case. However, the certificate may be of use to the defendant on the basis that the back of the certificate is stamped by the medical bureau, which stamp contains the date on which the sample was received in the bureau. This indicates the speed with which the analysis was carried out as well as the speed with which the sample was posted from the Garda station, both of which may be fundamental to the action.
There is one area of concern however on which I would like to hear the views of the Minister and that is the matter of doctors attending, or failing to attend, if a colleague is to be tested. Recently it has been reported that where a member of the medical profession was taken to a Garda station, having failed a breath test, it proved impossible on the part of the Garda to have a designated medical practitioner attend at the station within the timescale for the purpose of requiring a sample to be taken. This is an outrageous practice on the part of a small number of members of the profession and if there are no Medical Council Regulations in place to ban this gross abuse the Minister should himself regulate the matter.
The matter of the existence of the medical register however is important. His Honour, Judge Henchy, while satisfying himself about the oral evidence of the doctor since the doctor was present to give evidence, dealt at some length in the Quinn case with the register itself. While accepting the evidence of the doctor as prima facie, the evidence of the register would have been conclusive, provided of course the register was at the time available. The judge accepted that the production in evidence of the register in each necessary case was impractical because “such prosecutions regularly take place simultaneously throughout the State”. It would of course be quite impossible for the register to be available to every court in every town and even the production and maintenance of copies of an up to date nature would be cumbersome, to say the least.
In the Quinn case the defence team then contended that it was not sufficient for the doctor to provide evidence as to his qualifications, but further that there was an onus on him to provide evidence that he had recently inspected the register and that his name was contained therein. On this point, thankfully, commonsense prevailed and it was ruled that such evidence would, in effect, be hearsay. It was also held that expert witnesses who appear in court on a daily basis such as engineers, architects, doctors and accountants must, because of their special qualifications, be treated as competent witnesses without the need for them to carry around their degrees and diplomas in their briefcases. However, there could well have been problems in cases where the doctor was not in court to prove his qualifications and where the register was, for practical reasons, unavailable.
This is what I think happened in the Jock Haughey case and which has promoted the Department of Health to close the loophole. This was a case where there was no register. A doctor appeared in the Garda station, he was registered and was a designated medical practitioner, however, he did not come to court to prove that point and the case fell. Section 2 of this Act deals with the form of the register and it is interesting to note that similar provisions were contained in the Solicitors Bill of the last Government which fell on the election. The Minister also made reference to the Dental Bill and the nurses register.
Another case which indicated the difficulty was that of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. O'Donoghue in 1991. Here a defendant was charged with failing to provide a specimen under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act, 1978. The case was dismissed in the District Court by the judge on the basis that it had not been proven that the doctor who attended at the Garda station on the night was a designated medical practitioner. However, it was established that he had been introduced to the defendant as, such and, further, that on the date of the case he was a registered practitioner. However, the sequence of events was flawed as there was no proof that on the night in question he was registered.
It was held by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon that the evidence at the initial hearing was deficient in so far as there was a failure to establish that the witness in question had been a registered medical practitioner at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed and that in the absence of the essential proof — probably the register — the District Justice was correct in dismissing the charge. An essential link in the chain of proof that would lead to a conviction was missing. Under the legislation before us, we have ensured that this cumbersome chain of links will no longer be necessary.
The High Court based its decision on the Quinn case which had established that in order to support a conviction under section 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1978, it was necessary to prove that the person for whom the defendant had failed to provide a specimen of his urine was in fact a registered medical practitioner. This placed an extraordinary burden of proof on the doctor. The case against O'Donoghue was dismissed as the necessary level of formal evidence was not provided and there was not sufficient proof at the time of the offence, or in the consequent District Court hearing, that the doctor was registered. This situation warranted the change we now see in section 5 of this Bill where section 23 of the Road Traffic Act is amended to transfer the burden of proof from the registered medical practitioner to the defendant.
This has always been the case under the old section 49 and I am glad it has been extended to cover offences under the 1978 Act. The section sets out that there shall be a presumption that the designated person is a medical practitioner and it is clearly up to the defendant to show otherwise. It must be remembered that in the O'Donoghue case and in others like it, the clear opinion was formed by the prosecuting garda that the defendant was over the limit, further, that the breathalyser test was failed and that an invitation to provide a specimen was refused. It is obviously unjust that such persons be acquitted without sanction. Up to now, the presumption contained in the new section 5 applied only to charges under sections 49 and 50 of the Road Traffic Act. Thus a failure to provide a specimen or, indeed, a refusal to provide a specimen under sections 13 or 14 of the 1978 Act required specific evidence that the doctor involved was on the register and was a practitioner.
Because this Bill was so rushed I did not have an opportunity to look at the 1978 Act. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why were sections 13 and 14 left out in the context of the 1978 Act and yet we could allow the presumption under the old sections 49 and 50. There must have been a reason. I would like to know why.
The extension, by virtue of section 5 of this Act, of section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1978, means that it is now no longer necessary for the prosecution to prove that the doctor called to the Garda station by the garda and duly employed for the purposes of obtaining the specimen, is on the medical register. However, it appears that while we are addressing the matter of registration there may, at some future date, be a problem with the designation. The Bill presumes that a doctor is a registered medical practitioner but the law requires that a specimen be provided to a designated medical practitioner. There is an onus on the prosecution to show that a particular practitioner was designated to take that specimen. At present it is assumed that the summoning of the doctor by the garda officer is in essence designation but, in my view, this may be further tested by the courts.
This essentially technical Bill is welcome in view of the lengths to which defendants have gone, and will no doubt go in the future, to avoid a conviction and automatic loss of licence. There have been many ingenious defences, carefully designed and delicately crafted. The extent to which people will proceed to find a loophole must serve as a warning to us as legislators to be vigilant and to amend the law speedily and effectively where necessary.
I would again counsel caution to the Minister because of the manner in which he proceeded with this legislation. I fundamentally object to the taking of all Stages of a Bill being taken together. I have some amendments which I hope we may have time to discuss later.
Deputy Flanagan's contribution would convince us all that this legislation is complicated. I am reminded of something that Mr. Peter Sutherland said the other night when talking about GATT matters. He said that if one is not confused one is not listening properly. It is very unsatisfactory to have to try to "scarper" our way through this legislation at 11.30 at night. The Minister will admit that we have legitimate cause to criticise the Government particularly in regard to what I see as a worrying slippage of parliamentary procedure. The criticism has focused mainly on the complexity and pure volume of legislation being herded through the House with very little time for any sort of debate and analysis which, as Opposition Deputies, we are entitled to.
This legislation was published at 5 p.m. this evening and is set to pass all Stages by midnight. I accept that this was agreed by the Whips, but the Whips found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. The Whips had to bargain for time on very substantial legislation such as the Defence (Amendment) Bill and the amnesty Bill. However, that does not mean that this is satisfactory. I just want to place on record my own and my party's dissatisfaction at the way all the business is being jackbooted through. This has already been well articulated, but this particular late night special really leaves the other Bills in the shade because it is procedurally suspect.
Although I understand it is not technically in breach of the Standing Orders, it seems at the very least, irregular that a Bill like this could go on the Order Paper this morning, before it was actually published. As a new Deputy, I find this a baffling series of events. The reasons for the stealth and secrecy surrounding this, given to the spokespersons in a private briefing, were that this legislation concerned closing a loophole which could topple prosecutions for drink driving offences and that it was, therefore, undesirable that the press or anyone else in the House should be aware of it. However, as far as I can ascertain from talking to practitioners, this loophole has been well known and used by lawyers over the last couple of years so I really cannot see the point of all this cloak and dagger stuff. I am certainly uncomfortable with this process.
In an open parliamentary democracy all matters which comes before this House by way of legislation should be open, transparent and a matter of public record and notified to all Members. It really does fly in the face of the Government's so-called commitment to open Government that we are dealing with this in this way. We were given a proof of the Bill last week but, until 5 o'clock today, we did not have an explanatory memorandum. I do not think it is regular or in order that legislation should be revealed to only a handful of spokespersons.
Every Deputy is entitled to be notified on all legislation. The Clerk of the Dáil was in a state of baffled innocence when I spoke to him about this legislation. That is fundamentally undemocratic and I hope it does not set a precedent as to how the business of the House is dealt with. The Government should not be in a business of Marcos-style unpublished decrees, even if the motivation is good. The reason for this legislation is well motivated and we support it, but the way in which it has been managed diminishes the role of this House.
The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, is the expert on Marcos.
Only an arrogant Government with a huge majority would dare to pull this off. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Medical Practitioners Act and the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. It updates the position in regard to the keeping of the Register of Medical Practitioners on computer and also provides under section 5 for a fault which arose in the Jock Haughey case and others when the defendant successfully defended a prosecution by the use of a loophole in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978.
The 1978 Act includes a presumption, until the contrary is shown in a prosecution, under section 49 or 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 that certain persons are registered medical practitioners, but it failed to extend the presumption to a circumstance where a person refused to co-operate in the taking of blood or in the provision of a specimen of urine. That is what happened in the Haughey case and the prosecution case fell. To alter the law to close that loophole is welcome. However, since the loophole is well known since that case, I am baffled at the seeming need for secrecy on changing it.
The general evidential matter of proving in court the Register of General Medical Practitioners is also specifically facilitated in this Act. In the past there were difficulties in regard to proving the register because the register was no longer being kept in the manner envisaged under the legislation. A practical way around this matter was that a doctor would come along to court personally but as prosecutions under the Act increased and became routine, it was not always practical for a doctor to do so. I understand that one particular doctor was used in the majority of cases but due to a falling out between the Department and the doctor, that was no longer a reliable way to manage this business.
This Bill just deals with the evidential problem as it relates to the Register of General Medical Practitioners. However, I wonder if by raising this problem it casts a doubt over the proving in court of other registers. I note the Minister referred to other such registers. Does it not raise questions, for example, about the proving of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons or the Register of Solicitors should the need arise? Is it wise to deal with this evidential problem in a piecemeal way in relation to medical practitioners. Perhaps it might have been better to encompass such evidential problems relevant to all such registers in separate legislation of general application.
An amendment I tried to table aimed to help the Bill to survive any constitutional challenge because the retrospective aspects of sections 2 and 3 could possibly render the Bill unconstitutional. This is the type of matter that could be teased out if we had sufficient time to debate it. Regarding the question of unconstitutionality, I relate that to a case of a person who was convicted before the passing of this Bill and who may now read section 2 and 3 and seek to challenge the prosecution on the grounds that the old legislation was defective as is not evident in this Bill. That person's constitutional right to do this would take precedence. The amendment I tabled was ruled out of order because it was late, though I would challenge that point even though it was deemed to be late. It was late because we did not have enough time to prepare for this legislation. That amendment sought to protect the Minister's Bill from constitutional challenge on the grounds that it retrospectively prohibited such a challenge. My amendment would not seek to assist such a challenge to a prosecution or a conviction, that it would protect this Act from possibly being held to be unconstitutional. I objected to the refusal of the Ceann Comhairle's office to accept my amendment on the grounds that it was late. Technically, I understand an amendment can be tabled after Second Stage and that Stage has not been completed yet. I would have thought tabling the amendment would have been in order even though there was not sufficient time to circulate the amendments.
The Deputy has made references to a few points. There is a ruling that officials of the House should not be adverted to in debate.
To whom did I refer?
The Deputy referred to the Clerk of the Dáil.
I apologise. One learns something new everyday. A further problem of retrospection may be contained in section 5. I wonder what the position would be if somebody was charged with refusing to provide a sample of urine or blood for an offence which took place before this Bill was passed. Those are legitimate questions. They may be faulty but I consider I am entitled to raise them. Having regard to the scheduling of proceedings tonight, I am being denied the opportunity to tease out any doubts I might have. This matter is being handled in an untidy manner and I note the Minister has said that various sections of the Bill will be repeated tomorrow in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill and there will be more time at that stage for debate, but that does not take from the irregular nature of the procedures relating to this legislation. I am baffled by all the secrecy and I hope this is not a precedent that will be repeated at any stage in the future.
I am probably one of the few Deputies — though Deputy McDaid has had similar experience — who from time to time has been awakened by gardaí telephoning for a medical practitioner. This is a subject dear to my heart. I am appalled that it is now 11.48 p.m. and I am making my contribution at the end of a short and rushed debate. This is not the way that any Bill should be brought to this House. It is an experience that should never be repeated.
I am very concerned about the method adopted by the Minister in relation to this Bill. A few days ago the other Opposition spokespersons and I were presented with a photocopy of the draft of the Bill and a request was made to the Whips that we not comment on it publicly.
Unusually, the Bill was not published until this evening. The reason given was that a court case decision had created a loophole that could be exploited. We were given the impression that the case was a recent one and that the floodgates would open for quashing drunk-driving cases if news of the Bill leaked out.
Subsequently I was surprised to discover that the first time a case of this nature was heard was as long ago as 1990. The defendant was a brother of the then Taoiseach, and the loophole in the law — regarding the admissibility as evidence in a court of computerised records to show that a doctor was a qualified medical practitioner — was known to the dogs in the street.
The previous Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government undertook to introduce legislation which would have closed the loophole and promised that it would be published in 1991 and would cover the general point about computerised evidence not just relating to medical practitioners. There was no secrecy about that commitment. The flaw in the law was raised repeatedly in the Dáil and was the subject of an Adjournment Debate raised by the former Deputy, Mr. McCartan, when he said:
We as legislators have failed to act to make prosecutions more simple and relevant. The absence of a modern criminal evidence Act led to the disgraceful decision in the recent case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Haughey where a prosecution failed because a doctor was too ill to attend and to attest to his signature on an unchallenged document and to confirm his status as a registered medical practitioner. This weakness in the law was evident long before that case exposed it. The soft attitude of this House reaches further. It has the office of the DPP in its grip. The decisions of our courts again often lack any understanding or comprehension of the extent of the damage and injury caused by these drunk drivers.
I am not aware that large numbers of defendants have taken advantage of the long gestation period of this very short Bill in order to get off the hook. It has taken until now, the middle of 1993, for anything to be done about the matter. The Attorney General clearly felt there was no great urgency about it. Now that action is finally being taken, it takes the form of a short, simple Bill which to my untutored eye does not seem to have required any extraordinary effort by any parliamentary draftsman.
In retrospect any risk — and I doubt if there was any risk — attached to publication would have been worth taking and the Bill should have been published in the normal way. The failure to do so goes against the essential principles of this House of openness, public accountability, media assessment and public response. I do not intend to put myself in conflict with those principles again, nor do I wish to find myself in the position I was in yesterday when a highly respected journalist contacted me to find out what was in this Bill. I was unable to give him the information that I believe he was entitled to because of my undertaking in relation to the Whips. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry earlier referred to the muzzling of greyhounds. We now have an example of TD's being muzzled. I certainly know how the greyhounds feel.
I support this Bill, but I find the Minister's approach immensely puzzling and I would wish to hear the reasons why so much secrecy surrounded the publication of a Bill that was well known in advance and which contained nothing new, apart from the fact that it was tackling a problem that has existed for a long time.
I and my party support the Bill. It brings up the interesting question of the role of the Minister for Health in regard to road safety. Unfortunately, I will not have much time to go into that in detail, but it is the responsibility of the Minister for Health to consider that one of the major reasons for death and serious injury in children is road traffic accidents. Even within the figures that relate to the deaths and serious injury of children there is an essential inequality in that poor children have a risk of pedestrian injury three times greater than the less poor. Census area unemployment has been shown to be strongly correlated with census area child pedestrian injury rates. This has been highlighed by research carried out in England and other countries. That is a point the Minister could take up. He has responsibility for this Bill before the House today. I would suggest to him that when he is formulating the national health strategy he mentioned — he says he is in favour of equality within the health service and I will take him at his word — part of that strategy could be to include the whole question of road accidents and the inequality inherent in relation to those accidents, namely, that poorer children are more likely to receive serious injuries. This is the case for a number of obvious reasons, such as parents not having cars to drive their children around or that these children are more inclined to play on the street because they have no playground facilities.
The Bill deals with one aspect in relation to serious accidents, but it is important to consider other equally lethal factors that kill and maim people, in particular our children. It would be a good initiative if the Minister for Health set goals to reduce the level of injustice and deaths as part of the health strategy. While it is true that our road deaths are about the middle level within the EC, in regard to pedestrian deaths we have the second highest rate in the EC. That surely is a cause for concern for any Minister whose brief is to protect the health and wellbeing of our population.
I support the Bill, but I do not agree with the way it was presented to this House. I wish to record my dismay and dissatisfaction at the unnecessary secretiveness that served no useful purpose but simply set an undesirable precedent which I do not intend to follow in the future.
On a point of order, what are the arrangements for the Ministerial reply and for the remaining Stages of the Bill?
Deputy Jim McDaid has two minutes in which to make his contribution.
I wish to express my support for this Bill and I thank the Minister for sharing some of his time with me. Having taken part in many of these debates in this House late at night, I too only became aware of the content of this Bill quite late. There is much work to be done in regard to this Bill when we consider it in conjunction with the Road Traffic Act, particularly when we consider that 35 per cent of all fatalities on the road occur between 9 o'clock at night and 3 o'clock in the morning. It used to gall me at times when I had to get up at night to attend court only to find that because of a brain storm by some district justice, people involved in these accidents were getting off on technicalities because of this loophole in the law. It leaves much to be desired when the local gardaí are not able to designate a doctor known to them and it is used by some justices to adopt this approach. I felt annoyed that that loophole existed and I am glad to see that the Minister will address this point. There are other points which I would have liked to have made if the time was available to me.
I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the comments made in regard to this Bill. I am not happy with the time allocated to this Bill. I have been given three different time slots for this legislation during the course of the last couple of days. I have as much control over the time allocation as other spokespersons here. The Whips have been discussing and re-arranging the business up to today and it was re-arranged this morning. I am as unhappy with the time allocation as anybody else here.
This is a very simple Bill which sets out to achieve very simple objectives. No Deputy has expressed any opposition to the contents of this Bill. What most Deputies have raised issue with are first, the lateness of the hour and the confined debate. I share that view and I wish we had more time. Second, the implication that a cloak and dagger effort was involved in the introduction of this legislation. There is no cloak and dagger effort involved here. Some Deputies who spoke do not have a long experience in this House but no precedent has been established in the way this Bill has been handled. There are many precedents and I will cite them, if Deputies wish, in relation to dealing with issues such as this.
I am advised by the Attorney General that this Bill was necessary and that it was necessary for me to introduce it in advance of the Road Traffic Act, for good reasons. I accepted the word of the Attorney General. My staff briefed all the Opposition spokespersons and provided proof copies of the Bill last week so that they would be aware of its content and would be in a position to prepare their contributions.
Quite frankly it is foolish and unwarranted for comments such as "Marcos style decrees" to be introduced into this debate. This Bill seeks to do something very straightforward with which nobody in this House will have any difficulty, that is, to ensure that we have the tightest possible legislation to prevent drunk driving and that nobody can use a technicality to circumvent the intentions of this House.
I have no responsibility in relation to road traffic legislation. Comprehensive road traffic legislation will be brought before the House and debated in a leisurely fashion. However, in the interim, neither I nor this Government were prepared to have any doutbs in relation to existing law. Comments were made in relation to the Haughey case. That case fell on the issue of certification, not on the form of the register. The register certificate was not accepted as prima facie evidence of registration because there was no explicit power in the existing Acts to prove registration by way of certification. We are trying to redress that in this Bill by giving explicit power for certification. There has never been any judicial ruling that the computerised register was illegal, but I am determined that there would be no doubt about the issue.
This is a simple straightforward Bill with no cloak and dagger aspects to it, but on advice I was not anxious to have a broad debate before this legislation is enacted, when there were cases before the courts. Most people in this House accepted the good faith of the explanations given last week.
That is debatable.
I am grateful for the co-operation of Deputies in this matter. I assure Members of the House that I am anxious for the fullest possible debate of all legislation and I will convey that fact to the Whips.
Question, "That the Bill is hereby read a Second Time, that sections 1 to 6, inclusive, and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed, put and agreed to."
Has legislation ever been passed, in the history of this Parliament, without reference to amendments lawfully tabled?