Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister. It is a drafting amendment.
Road Traffic Bill, 2001: Report and Final Stages.
Acting Chairman
On a point of order, the Chairman will recall that at the end of Committee Stage, the Minister for State, Deputy Molloy, drew to the attention of the committee that it is necessary to circulate amendments in connection with Bills three days in advance to allow for consideration of those amendments. I have here the normal list of amendments which were circulated today. I also have an amendment which was circulated yesterday evening and which appears to be in connection with the proposed changes in the use of mobile phones in cars. This has already attracted an amount of public attention. The Minister of State announced regulations on Tuesday and stated that he intended to ban the use of mobile phones in cars. Since then there has been a degree of public confusion as to what the Minister of State is doing. The gardaí have stated that the measure is not enforceable. The announcement was made in advance of the amendment relating to the same matter being considered in the House. The regulations which were made on Monday are prejudicial to the debate we are about to have on the primary legislation.
Furthermore, the Minister of State who announced these regulations is not present. Regulations were announced on Tuesday, an amendment relating to the regulations was circulated only yesterday evening, there is public concern and confusion about the entire issue and the Minister who is responsible for all of this is not present. How are we to deal with this?
Amendments may be accepted until 11 a.m. on the day preceding the debate and they are circulated as soon as possible after that. Whether a Minister is present in the House is not a matter for the Chair.
Given the huge public confusion and upset about this matter, can the Minister of State clarify whether the regulation is pursuant to the legislation we are discussing today or to the Road Traffic Act as it currently exists? Does it relate to today's Bill simply for the purpose of making it a penalty point offence?
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order in relation to this Bill. We are dealing with Report Stage amendments and we must proceed with them.
I use this opportunity to give warning to the Minister of State that when we reach that amendment this will be my first question.
On a point of order, a number of weeks ago the Ceann Comhairle advised Members that in order to deal effectively with amendments in the House they must be submitted to the Bills Office three days prior to their being taken in the House. The Minister of State tabled this amendment at short notice. It relates to a half baked announcement he made last Monday and the Minister himself has gone to ground. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, debated this issue yesterday at a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting where it was not welcomed with open arms.
Acting Chairman
The amendment will be dealt with in order. The deadline for submission of amendments is 11 a.m. on the preceding day and they are circulated as soon as possible thereafter. We must now proceed with Report Stage.
May I raise a point of order? This debate is to conclude at 4 o'clock this afternoon so there is no guarantee that we will reach this amendment. In an effort to be helpful I propose that amendment No. 36, the amendment in question, be recommitted and that Committee Stage be taken now.
Acting Chairman
We cannot take this amendment until it is reached in the correct sequence.
With respect, once it is proposed that an amendment be recommitted in advance of the consideration of the amendment, I believe it can be taken.
The banning of mobile phones in cars is a matter of current public concern. We are about to spend more than two hours debating the Road Traffic Bill. We are unlikely to reach amendment No. 36 and the Minister of State who proposed this measure is not in the House. This is daft. I propose that we recommit amendment No. 36 and deal with the amendment now.
Acting Chairman
We have the option of recommitting the entire Bill and going through the section speedily to ensure we reach amendment No. 36.
If that is what is required then I propose that we do that. I am willing to co-operate with any guidance given by the Chair. This is the issue that is of public concern and it should be dealt with immediately. If that requires recommitting the entire Bill I will agree to that. If we do so I would agree that we deal only with this amendment.
We have the Bill and the amendments before us. The Minister of State dealt with the issue concerned by regulation earlier this week. The Bill deals with the penalty points which will relate to the use of mobile phones in cars.
Question, "That the Bill be recommitted", put and declared lost.
I do not wish to use the time of the House in calling for a division and I accept that we must deal with the amendments in order. However, I ask that we deal with amendment No. 36 now. That is the preferable way to deal with this.
Acting Chairman
My advice is that the amendments must be taken in sequence. I suggest that we deal with the amendments as speedily as possible to ensure that we reach this amendment.
Deputy Gilmore's main concern is with the legality of what we are doing. Can the Minister of State clarify whether the regulations made by the Minster of State on Monday are now law, under the existing Road Traffic Act and that we are now providing for the offence to attract penalty points.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Minister of State to move amendment No. 1. Deputy Mitchell's question can be dealt with when that matter is reached.
I can clarify for Deputy Mitchell that the regulations are law.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 17, after "column (2)”, to insert “of Part 1”.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 46, to delete "When" and substitute "Subject to subsection (3), when”.
The purpose of this section is to provide for the introduction of a driving disqualification linked directly to the penalty point system. The section establishes the general provision that a person who accumulates a certain number of penalty points will be disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of six months. This disqualification will take effect automatically and administratively and without the need for a court order.
Deputy Gilmore's proposal to amend this section provides that the imposition of a six months disqualification resulting from the accumulation of 12 or more penalty points would be subject to a decision of the District Court to postpone or waive the disqualification. To facilitate this the Deputy proposes the insertion of two new paragraphs to the section.
The intended effect of the penalty points system is to instil greater caution and responsibility in motorists in relation to their driving. It is also intended to see the transfer of most of the enforcement of a large number of traffic offences from the courts to the administrative system. At its core is that penalty points will in most cases be incurred through the acceptance and payment by motorists of fixed charges imposed by the Garda. If the motorist takes the option and pays the charge he or she is accepting the consequences of that action. If the matter proceeds to court, upon conviction the person will face the endorsement of a greater number of penalty points.
The administrative system will in all cases where penalty points are endorsed inform the motorist of the overall position in relation to the total number of points on his or her record. Thus the motorist will have a clear opportunity to avoid the consequences of reaching the threshold of 12 points that will automatically trigger a disqualification. In that context, a court does not impose the disqualification. It is the result of a person's continued poor driving behaviour.
The Road Traffic Acts provide that a person may apply to the court to have the commencement of a disqualification imposed as a result of a conviction in a court postponed. In addition, a person can apply to the court to have a period of disqualification reduced. However, in considering such applications, the courts are being asked to consider the effects of a disqualification imposed following one particular incident which gives rise to a conviction for an offence by a court. In addition, there are strict parameters applying to the grant of a reduction in the length of a disqualification. For example, the period of a consequential qualification cannot be reduced to less than six months. Through this section the period of disqualification that must be served by the person as a result of recurring poor driving behaviour over a period of time is set at six months in terms of the level of deterrent and the factors that lead to the imposition of the disqualification imposed under this section. I consider it is reasonable that a person should be required to face a loss of the use of his or her licence for the period specified in this section. I therefore ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 33 and 34 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
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, when using windscreen wipers, drive a vehicle in a public place with the dip head lamp illuminated.'.".
This was debated with the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. The Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, may be aware that the motor manufacturers organisation, which represents those who manufacture and import cars into the European Union, took a decision last November that from next year vehicle lights will automatically be turned on. For the past five years the Minister has promised much but delivered little. He promised a review of dip lights on cars, but we are still awaiting that review. The motor manufacturers organisation has superseded the Minister and will import cars with dip lights on. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment on that basis.
As indicated on Committee Stage, the international research literature on daytime running lights indicates substantial differences of opinion of the effectiveness of daytime running lights for improving road safety. The European Commission has given detailed consideration to this complex question, but to date it has not adopted a definitive position. It has, however, included daytime running lights among road safety priorities to be progressed at EU level. This is likely to involve additional research and considerable further debate before a consensus evolves.
On Committee Stage Deputy Naughten referred to daytime running light practice in Florida. That provides that lighted lamps are required from sunset to sunrise, including the twilight hours and during rain, smoke or fog. There is no obligation to maintain lights operational in daytime other than in rain, smoke or fog, nor is there any explicit link between the use of wipers and the use of lights. No definitive information on the road safety effects of these requirements can be ascertained. Dublin City Council is finalising arrangements for its pilot programme on daytime running lights and will carry out an assessment of its effects on safety. The results will be used to inform decisions about whether a statutory basis would be appropriate.
The Motorcyclists Action Group, MAG, is firmly opposed to the introduction of daytime running lights on a mandatory basis for all vehicles. It believes such an arrangement would reduce the benefit to its members of using daytime running lights on a voluntary basis by reducing the overall impact of using their lights in daylight. At the heart of the discussion is that while daytime running lights can have some safety benefits for the motor vehicle that will 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 daytime running lights.
For these reasons it might be prudent not to proceed as proposed in the amendments. If as a result of the research, work and discussions being progressed at EU level, specific positive proposals emerge, adequate legislative powers are available under the Road Traffic Act to address the issue. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"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.'.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, line 11, after "person", to insert "who is normally resident in the State".
On Committee Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, indicated this would be introduced on Report Stage. The amendment clarifies that the person referred to in section 9(1)(a) is a person normally resident in the State.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, line 14, before "the State", to insert "a competent authority of".
This is a technical amendment which clarifies that it is the competent authority of the State that notifies the Minister of an offence. This is in keeping with the provisions of article 7 of the European Convention on Driving Disqualification, which is set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(3)(a) In proceedings under subsection (2) a certificate signed by an officer of the Minister authorised in that behalf by the Minister and stating that a document identified by and attached to the certificate–
(i) is the notification referred to in Article 3 of the Convention of the driving disqualification concerned or a document referred to, or a document containing the details, evidence or supplementary information referred to, in Article 8 of the Convention, and
(ii) was received by the Minister from a competent authority of the State of the offence concerned in accordance with the said Article 8,
shall be admissible as evidence of, as the case may be, the notification aforesaid or the document so referred to or the details, evidence or supplementary information so referred to.
(b) A document purporting to be a certificate under paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be such a 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 of the Minister until the contrary is shown.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(8) Where, by reason of the commission, after the entry into force of the Convention, of a specified offence in the State by a person who is normally resident in another Member State (‘the State of residence'), a driving disqualification is imposed in the State on the person–
(a) 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 of the Minister to that Service for further details or information relating to the person, the offence, the disqualification or otherwise required for the purposes of the Convention,
(b) upon receipt by the Minister of the 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–
(i) ensure that Article 8 of the Convention is complied with in relation to the notification and may do, or cause to be done, all things necessary for that purpose, including the translation (if required pursuant to Article 9.2 of the Convention), certification and attestation of any document,
(ii) if necessary, request the Courts Service to provide such further details or information as he or she considers necessary for the purposes of his or her functions under this subsection and the Convention, and
(iii) without delay notify the central authority aforesaid of any such details or information,
and
(d) the Minister shall not be obliged to comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) if–
(i) the case is one to which an agreement under Article 3.2 of the Convention between the State and the State of residence applies and the agreement is in force, or
(ii) the circumstances of the case fall within subparagraph (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention and the State of residence has made a declaration under paragraph 3 of that Article that it will always apply that subparagraph and the declaration is in force.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Amendment No. 12 is out of order as it involves a potential charge.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 16, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(16) In a prosecution of a person for–
(a) the alleged offence to which a notice under this section, served on the registered owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle, relates, or
(b) an offence under subsection (17) of this section,
a document, purporting to be a document under subsection (4) of this section stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection and to be signed by that registered owner, given or sent under paragraph (i) of that subsection by that owner to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden shall, until the contrary is shown, be deemed to be such a document and to be so signed and, in case the prosecution is for the offence referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, shall be admissible as evidence, until the contrary is shown, of the facts stated in it.
(17) A person who, pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, gives or sends to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden information (whether or not contained in a document) that is, to his or her knowledge, false or misleading shall be guilty of an offence.".
I wish to make a correction with the agreement of the House. I would also ask leave of the House to allow for the introduction of a correction to the text of subsection (16) of section 11. The specific reference is at page 16, line 43. The reference to section 19(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, should be corrected to read, section 10(4) of that Act. This is in line with the equivalent text for section 12(15) on page 22.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 22, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(15) In a prosecution of a person for–
(a) the alleged offence to which a notice under this section, served on the registered owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle, relates, or
(b) an offence under subsection (16) of this section,
a document, purporting to be a document under subsection (3) of this section stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection and to be signed by that registered owner, given or sent under paragraph (i) of that subsection by that owner to a traffic warden shall, until the contrary is shown, be deemed to be such a document and to be so signed and, in case the prosecution is for the offence referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, shall be admissible, until the contrary is shown, as evidence of the facts stated in it.
(16) A person who, pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, gives or sends to a traffic warden information (whether or not contained in a document) that is, to his or her knowledge, false or misleading shall be guilty of an offence.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 24, to delete lines 12 to 48 and in page 25, to delete lines 1 to 4.
We had a lengthy debate on this issue on Committee Stage and I do not propose to repeat myself. I am seeking the deletion of section 14. That section would allow the Minister by regulation to effectively privatise every service which is performed either by his Department or by any local authority in connection with road traffic matters. The only function which is not open to privatisation is that of the Minister in relation to policy making matters and in relation to the making of regulations. Any other functions, such as the licensing of motor vehicles and the driver testing service about which there is considerable concern in view of the Minister's intention to privatise it are so open.
It would also include any function of a local authority, any road traffic matter performed by a local authority, road safety or functions performed by a road safety officer of a local authority. It would include any function performed by the Garda Commissioner. For example, this section could provide for the establishment of a private traffic corps and the functions taken away from the Garda. It is a remarkably wide-ranging section enabling the Minister to privatise any of or all the functions relating to road traffic which are currently done by the Minister, the Garda Commissioner or the local authority.
I received correspondence from IMPACT, which represents staff in the driver testing service, in which it drew my attention to a recently published independent consultant's report on the driver testing service. That union expressed concern at the prospect of this service being privatised arising from the enactment of section 14. I propose that the entire section 14 should be deleted from the Bill. There should be no question of the privatisation of these services and I specifically ask the Minister of State to give an assurance that the driver testing service, in particular, about which there is considerable concern at present, will not be privatised.
On amendment No. 20, like Deputy Gilmore, we independently spotted this as one of the most worrying aspects of the entire Bill. How it may be implemented and enforced worries all of us. Since Committee Stage I have taken legal advice on the issue which is that this section is a departure from the established principle of administrative law, that is, that the delegate of a function may not, in turn, delegate it. For that reason it needs to be approached with extreme caution. The Bill purports to allow even functions closely related to the administration of justice to be delegated. In other words, the Bill is a licence to privatise by stealth. The Bill would allow even the most important functions of the Garda Commissioner, including approval, for instance, of the road traffic apparatus under section 20, to be delegated to a private contractor.
The problem is that the section is far too broad. One should nominate the particular powers being given to the Minister to delegate or the section should be omitted, or each and every contract should be laid before the Dáil. I recognise that would be a time-consuming exercise and many of them would need to include companies with contracts for clamping and so on. As this is a very important power which is being given to the Minister, he must take on board the concerns expressed on Committee and Report Stages by Deputy Gilmore and me.
I note that Deputy Gilmore's amendment would result in the removal of this section from the Bill. The purpose of section 14 is to strengthen and clarify the existing statutory basis for alternative ways to deliver certain public services. A Department of State is not always the ideal vehicle to deliver a particular service. Approaches such as a separate agency, commercial company or a partnership approach involving the public and private sectors working together may be more appropriate in some circumstances. The national car test and the driver theory test are two cases in point. The section allows the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to enter into an agreement with a person or company for that person to provide specific services under the Acts. Agreements may provide for any fees or payments to be made and for the disposal of those moneys.
The section underpins the accountability of the Minister to Dáil Éireann by providing that an agreement under the section does not remove or derogate from the Minister's responsibility to Dáil Éireann for the function. It also provides for the general superintendence and control of a conferred function to remain with the Minister or other person on whom the function was conferred in the first instance. Consequently, accountability would not be weakened by the operation of the section and the ultimate responsibility of the persons and bodies mentioned in the last subsection remains unchanged. The proposed amendment with regard to laying a draft of an agreement under the section before each House would run counter to the purpose of the section.
Most such agreements will contain confidential data such as intellectual property and sensitive financial information. The publication of such data could leave a party to an agreement at a considerable commercial disadvantage. That would militate against the effective application of the section in most cases. I, therefore, oppose both amendments.
We are very restricted in regard to our speaking arrangements on Report Stage. The Minister of State's reply confirms absolutely that it is the Government's intention to privatise these services. He omitted to say anything specifically about the driver testing service. I invite him to state on the record of the House whether it is the Government's intention to privatise the driver testing service about which there is immediate concern.
The reasons he gives for rejecting Deputy Mitchell's amendment confirm that it is the intention to privatise the service. If the intention was to establish separate State agencies and issues of commercial confidentiality and so on, it would not arise in the case of laying a draft before the House. However, I do not accept that should arise unless we are going to do with the road traffic functions of this State what has been done with the establishment of the pool in Abbotstown where deals are done and the details of those deals will be withheld from the public and the House. It would be much better if the nature of some of these arrangements were put before the House and examined before commitments were entered into which ends up with the State and taxpayers being caught for large dollops of money in very dubious circumstances.
I will be pressing the amendment because I do not wish to see the services of the State in regard to road traffic, including the driver testing service or any of the other services, privatised. The House should decide the issue.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 20 cannot be moved as amendment No. 19 has been decided.
Do we not vote on amendment No. 20?
It was discussed with amendment No. 19 but cannot moved because a decision was made on amendment No. 19.
It is not the same amendment. It is different.
The question put on amendment No. 19 was "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." The House agreed that the words should stand. Therefore another amendment to change the words cannot be moved.
It does not change the words. It adds to them.
The Deputy is not trying to change the substance but the House made a decision on amendment No. 19.
We on this side of the House took a generous view of a ruling of the Chair on an earlier amendment because we understood what was intended. If we are going to be caught by little technicalities such as this, we may take a different attitude. Deputy Mitchell's amendment is valid, is not in conflict with the decision made on amendment No. 19 and should be put separately.
If the House is agreeable, we will move on and we will come back to Deputy Mitchell's amendment. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 26, lines 3 and 4, to delete "not being more than one month" and substitute "being of 4 weeks duration".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 26, line 12, to delete "paragraph)." and substitute the following:
"paragraph),
and
(c) make the draft bye-laws available for inspection and purchase at the times, during the period of 4 weeks, and at the place specified in each case in the notice aforesaid.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 27, line 9, after "buses" to insert "including school buses".
We debated this on Committee Stage. It is self-explanatory. Will the Minister of State accept it? It is reasonable.
The essential purpose of the section is to provide that a power that has been vested in the Garda Commissioner under section 85 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, be transferred to local authorities. The power relates to the determination of the location of bus stops on designated routes for buses. It has no added value from the perspective of the enhancement of road safety at the identified locations. It would be inappropriate to extend this provision to address services other than those on the scheduled bus routes. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 28, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"17.–The following subsection is substituted for subsection (2) of section 56 of the Principal Act:
‘(2) The insurance required by this section may be subject to the following limitation and the following exception or either of them–
(a) it may, in so far as it relates to injury to property, be limited to the sum of €200,000 in respect of injury caused by any one act of negligence or any one series of acts of negligence collectively constituting one event,
(b) there may be excepted from the liability covered thereby any liability (in excess of the common law or the statutory liability applicable to the case) undertaken by the insured or the principal debtor by special contract.'.”.
On Committee Stage this section was inadvertently deleted from the Bill. This drafting amendment provides for the reinsertion of section 17 in the Bill.
Well spotted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 is consequential on amendment No. 26 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 28, lines 43 and 44, to delete "amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:" and substitute the following:
"amended–
(a) by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:”.
Amendment No. 27 is the more substantial one. The amendments increase the fines involved for a person who is not registered as a driving instructor. A £100 fine will only make a laugh of it. It would be more reasonable to have a €1,000 fine. Will the Minister of State accept the amendment?
The purpose of these amendments is to set a penalty for an offence under this section at €1,000. I draw the Deputy's attention to the amendment of section 18 of the 1968 Act by section 4 of the 1994 Act which increased the penalties to €350 and to section 22 of the Bill which increases the penalty to €1,500. In light of this, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 31, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"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.".
This is an important amendment which was spontaneously lodged by everyone.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 31.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 35, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
"24.–(1) Sections 97(1)(b), 102, 107, 110, 111, 115, 125 and 126 of the Principal Act are amended by the deletion, in each place where it occurs, of ‘Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1994,' and the substitution of ‘this Act'.
(2) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 36 and sections 86, 104 and".
I propose this technical amendment to address a relatively minor anomaly which has been noted relating to collective citation contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1994.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 35, line 37, to delete "25” and substitute “24”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 36, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"
|
Reference Number(1) |
Offence(2) |
General Description of Offence(3) |
Penalty Points on Payment of Fixed Charge(4) |
Penalty Points on Conviction(5) |
|
Using a vehicle without dip head lamp illuminated |
2 |
4 |
"
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 36, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"
|
Reference Number(1) |
Offence(2) |
General Description of Offence(3) |
Penalty Points on Payment of Fixed Charge(4) |
Penalty Points on Conviction(5) |
|
Using a vehicle without dip head lamp illuminated when windscreen wipers are in use |
2 |
4 |
"
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 36, lines 52 and 53, to delete "suffering from disability" and substitute "unfit".
This arose from the discussion on Committee Stage relating to the wording of one of the offences in the First Schedule. I propose to change the wording on foot of that discussion. I ask leave of the House to make a minor correction to the text of reference No. 8 of Part 4 of the First Schedule. The article referred to at that reference should be "Article 14(5)", not "Article 14(6)" as appears in the text.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore.
I move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of this amendment.
It does not arise out of Committee Stage and must be recommitted.
By agreement, we have progressed on the 35 previous amendments in order to allow us some time to discuss this issue. This amendment relates to the proposals by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to ban the use of hand held mobile phones by drivers and, as a consequence, introduce penalty points in connection with that. As the House is aware, this matter has received much public attention in the past few days since the Minister of State announced his intention to introduce the ban.
This amendment was not proposed on Committee Stage nor was there any specific information given to the committee in respect of the Minister of State's intentions. I acknowledge that, at the end of Committee Stage, he gave a general indication that it was his intention to introduce on Report Stage an amendment in relation to mobile phones. However, there was no discussion on Committee Stage about the introduction of penalty points in connection with the ban on hand held mobile phones. Therefore, it is necessary that the amendment be recommitted to allow for that discussion to take place.
It is not in order that a significant change is being made to road traffic legislation by regulation and through the introduction of an amendment on Report Stage of a Bill which will have only limited and restricted discussion. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, to agree to this amendment being recommitted. It is the last amendment on our list and we have an hour and a half in which to discuss this although we may deal with it in a shorter period of time. We are not under pressure of time in relation to recommittal having regard to the guillotine that is on the debate and I ask the Minister of State to agree to recommittal. It is necessary to recommit because there was no discussion of the substance of this issue on Committee Stage. This is a parliament in which we make laws and it is not acceptable that laws are made without being fully teased out and debated. I ask that the Dáil give full consideration to this issue; the only way it can do so is if the Minister of State agrees to recommittal.
The introduction of this amendment was signalled by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, during Committee Stage. It will facilitate the application of penalty points to the newly introduced offence of using mobile phones when driving a mechanically propelled vehicle.
We are discussing recommittal. Is that correct?
We are asking the Minister of State to agree to it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, indicated a fine but he did not indicate anything regarding penalty points. He did not indicate that an amendment such as this would be tabled on Report Stage and as such, my understanding of Standing Orders is that this amendment must be recommitted. I ask the Minister of State, rather than our having to go through Standing Orders, to accept the proposal to recommit this amendment to Committee. Since it was not debated on Committee Stage it must be recommitted.
I will put the question.
Before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does so, I ask the Minister of State to carefully reconsider his disposition towards the recommittal of this amendment. As Deputy Naughten said, there was no substantive discussion of this issue on Committee Stage. I do not know where it would leave the legislation by way of challenge if the House were not to follow its own procedures in relation to dealing with a Bill. There is a requirement that an amendment that has not been discussed on Committee Stage is recommitted. We are in an unusual position in that the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, who is not present for this debate, made regulations earlier this week relating to this matter in advance of the primary legislation being considered in this House. I do not know where that leaves the regulations he has made, about which he did not give the committee notice. He made the regulations three days in advance of the primary legislation being discussed and has avoided the debate and scrutiny of this issue in the House.
As we know, Report Stage debate is restricted. This is "Scarlet O'Hara" legislation. The Minister of State introduced a regulation on Monday about which there is public outcry. The gardaí have said it cannot be implemented and there is confusion as to what is intended and how the regulation is to be implemented. The Minister of State responsible is not here and the substitute Minister of State who is here to take the Bill has indicated he will not agree to recommit it which means we will have a restricted, stunted Report Stage debate on an issue of current public debate. That is not acceptable to me as a Member of the House, it is not acceptable to the public and it is not the way to make legislation. The Minister of State cannot be allowed to make regulations, only to disappear into the night without allowing an opportunity for debate. I again ask the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, in an effort to be non-confrontational about this and to avoid subsequent embarrassment to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and the Government, to agree to a Committee Stage debate on this issue for which we have ample time.
I will allow one speaker from Fine Gael and then we must put the question.
Deputy Gilmore seems to be as confused as the rest of us and is under the impression that this is the primary legislation for the regulations which were passed on Monday. My understanding is that this is not the primary legislation and that all we are merely providing here is for penalty points. Will the Minister of State clarify that simple matter for us so we know what direction we should proceed in?
The Minister of State signalled on Committee Stage that an amendment to Part 2 of the First Schedule to add a reference to an offence in relation to the use of hand held mobile phones was being considered. The offence will be considered in the context of the amending road traffic (construction, equipment and use of vehicles) regulations under section 11 of the 1961 Act introduced by the Minister.
That does not answer the question.
We will deal with the issue of recommittal and then we can have a discussion. The Minister of State has indicated he will not agree to recommittal.
Question, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 36", put and declared lost.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Before moving to amendment No. 36, I wish to draw the attention of Deputy Olivia Mitchell to amendment No. 20 which seeks to change what was agreed in amendment No. 19, namely, that the words proposed to be deleted stand. It would insert an addition to the middle of that section.
It is defeated.
There is a long-standing ruling that there would not be an addition in those circumstances.
It is then defeated rather than withdrawn, is that correct?
It cannot be moved because amendment No. 19 has been accepted.
Worse again.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 39, after line 52, to insert the following:
"
|
20 |
Offence consisting of contravention of Article 4 of the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 93 of 2002) |
Use by driver of vehicle of mobile phone while in the vehicle in a public place except when the vehicle is parked |
1 |
3 |
".
The introduction of this amendment was signalled by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, during the debate on Committee Stage. It will facilitate the application of penalty points to the newly introduced offence of using a mobile telephone when driving a mechanically propelled vehicle.
This regulation, from which the amendment arises, has caused much confusion among the general public and the Garda Síochána, as well as within the Government and in the Department. The Department of the Environment and Local Government probably became the most popular Department this week given the amount of telephone calls it received on this matter.
The proposal contained in the amendment was originally considered by the Minister three years ago when he established a review group to consider amending legislation on the use of mobile telephones. At that stage the review group recommended that no change should be made. The Minister subsequently established another review which recommended that there should be a change in the legislation and as a consequence the Minister has brought forward the regulation and this amendment.
The Minister has been examining this issue for the past three years and on Monday he made the announcement concerning the regulation and the proposed amendment. That night, the Taoiseach stated that the use of mobile telephones in cars was a significant contributing factor to accidents. He referred to a fatal accident before Christmas that was caused by the use of a mobile telephone. How the Taoiseach or anyone else could calculate that this is a significant factor is road accidents is beyond my comprehension because we do not carry out accident investigations in this country. Given the amendment that is before us, the Minister of State should substantiate that claim.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, had an opportunity, in respect of this Bill, to allow for accident investigations by Garda PSV licensing inspectors but he failed to take it. He is, for some unknown reason, absent today and has sent Deputy Dan Wallace to the House in his stead. Perhaps he is not prepared to defend the regulation he introduced and, to date, he has been shy about making statements in the media. On Tuesday morning, however, he indicated on "Morning Ireland" that the Garda could prosecute a person who had a mobile phone in his or her pocket while driving. Later that day, however, he issued a clarification to the effect that the Garda would not be able to do so because its members do not have the power to search individuals. The Minister of State appears to be confused in relation to the amendment before us and the regulation that came into force earlier in the week.
Will the Minister of State clarify the position in respect of the offence we are discussing which consists of "the contravention of Article 4 of the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of vehicles) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2002"? What is the actual offence? Is it having a mobile phone in one's pocket? Using a mobile phone? Having a mobile phone beside oneself on the passenger seat? Having a mobile phone turned on or turned off? What is the exact nature of the offence? No one, including the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, who is not prepared to come into the House to defend the statements he made or the statutory instrument he introduced earlier in the week, appears to know. Will someone indicate what is the actual offence?
The Garda Síochána appears to be as confused as everyone else with regard to the relevant regulation. The Garda authorities stated publicly today that drivers will not be prosecuted and that they are seeking legal advice in respect of this matter because they do not know how the regulation should be interpreted or what constitutes an offence. The Garda press office is quoted in today's newspapers as saying that it is unlikely there will be any prosecutions in respect of the regulation or the penalty points amendment before us. What is the point in bringing forward more road traffic legislation which is unenforceable? There is already enough such legislation which is not enforced at present without bringing forward a Bill such as that before us which the Garda authorities have stated is unenforceable.
Will members of the Garda Síochána, the ambulance service or the fire brigade service lose penalty points for using two-way radios if the amendment is accepted? There seems to be major confusion in relation to this matter. The Minister of State neglected to inform any of the three services about the regulation and the amendment or explain to them what will be the implications thereof for their members. Regardless of the fact that he did not exempt them, he should have had the courtesy to inform the authorities as to how they should proceed in respect of this matter. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, could shed some light on the matter? As of yesterday, the ambulance service was not aware that two-way radios will be illegal under the terms of the amendment and the regulation.
The Garda authorities are also quoted in today's newspapers as saying that they are seeking clarification regarding the implications the amendment and the regulation will have for members of the force. We are, therefore, faced with a situation where the individuals who will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the amendment and the regulations are seeking clarification from the Department of the Environment and Local Government regarding the implications those provisions will have for them. If they do not know how the provisions will impact on them, how will gardaí be able to enforce them in respect of the general public? They have already admitted that they do not intend to enforce them. As a result, another item of legislation and the pertinent regulation will be left to sit on the shelf and gather dust rather than being enforced. That has been the major criticism in respect of road traffic legislation to date.
The principle behind the Bill before us is to ensure that the provisions, as they stand, will be implemented. However, the Minister of State, in his first major initiative on road safety, is intent on banning the use of mobile phones when it is clear that no one, including himself, knows what he is doing. Will Deputy Wallace clarify the position?
Does the provision relating to penalty points relate to first, second or third offences or to all three together? The system relating to the fines associated with the penalty points provision is graded and goes from €190 to €435 and-or three months in jail. Will the Minister of State elaborate on this matter? Will he clarify the position vis-à-vis the definition of a mobile phone and personal communication system, in which is included a reference to “other similar apparatus”?
Will the Minister of State also clarify a definition in the regulation which will have a direct impact on the amendment? What does the term "on or about the person" mean? Would it not make more sense to refer to "someone who is using a mobile phone"? There appears to be a contradiction between the regulation and amendment No. 36, which refers to the "use by driver of vehicle of mobile phone while in the vehicle in a public place except when the vehicle is parked". Either the amendment is wrong or the regulation is wrong. Both of them cannot be right. Any sensible person would agree with the wording contained in the amendment. However, that wording is not used in the regulation which refers not to the use of a mobile phone but to such a phone "on or about the person" of an individual.
Hands-free mobile phone units with earpieces, which are the most common in use in this country, are banned under the regulation. No mention is made of that fact in the amendment the Minister of State has introduced.
There is major confusion about this matter. The regulation and the amendment before us are riddled with confusion and ambiguity. The Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, was subjected to the ire of members of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party at yesterday's meeting in respect of the level of confusion surrounding this matter. Will someone please indicate what will constitute an offence under the regulation and the amendment? The clarification issued by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, confused matters even further.
Is it intended to amend the regulation as it applies to the emergency services? At this stage, those services do not have access to hands-free two-way radios. If a person in Dún Laoghaire has a heart attack and is being rushed to hospital by ambulance and if the driver wants to radio ahead to the hospital to report the condition of the patient, he or she will be obliged to pull in to the side of the road in order to do so. What is the logic behind that? The few public comments the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, has made have led to an increased state of confusion. He said one thing on Tuesday morning, while his clarification later that day appeared to say the exact opposite. As a result, we are still no wiser with regard to how the regulation will be interpreted. The gardaí are also confused and nobody seems to know what is going on. The Minister has been reviewing this for the past three years, yet the gardaí do not know about it.
Deputy Naughten is repeating himself.
Neither the Garda nor the emergency services know anything about it. The reason I repeat myself is that these questions have been asked repeatedly for the past three days and they still remain unanswered because nobody seems to know the answers. We want answers this evening.
This has to be one of the most bizarre legislative attempts made by Government in recent times. In the dying days of the Dáil, a proposal to ban mobile phones and introduce penalty points is being rushed through the House on a Friday afternoon. Why? The Government has been considering new road traffic legislation since 1998, when the high level group reported to Government. The legislation arising out of that report was published almost 12 months ago to the day – the Bill which we are discussing was published on 26 March 2001. An entire year has gone by in which, in the normal way, the Government could have proposed a ban on the use of mobile phones, have it debated here in the Dáil and considered in committee so that all the impli cations could be teased out, but that did not happen.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, did not even introduce the proposal when this Bill was at Committee Stage, when there was an opportunity to give it detailed consideration. He did not produce the proposal until the week in which the Bill is at Final Stage in the Dáil. Having announced it on Monday, he disappeared and has not come into the House to defend it. I have no problem with a Minister not coming into the House – Ministers have many commitments and there may be a very good reason for the absence of the Minister of State with responsibility in this matter, Deputy Molloy. If that is the case, his colleague and fellow Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, has not given an explanation to the House as to why Deputy Molloy, the author of this proposal, has not appeared in the House to deal with it. I am reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that the Minister of State has made an unwise regulation, it has blown up in his face and he has run away from it.
He has gone to ground.
He has gone to ground and has failed to come here to defend his proposal. It is reasonable to ask why the banning of mobile phones is suddenly elevated to the most important measure that needs to be taken to ensure safety on our roads? Let me mention a few of the things the Government has rejected in the course of this debate. It has rejected my proposal that the speed limit in urban areas, housing estates and places where children play should be reduced to 20 miles per hour. It rejected my proposal on joyriding. It rejected a proposal arising from a Private Members' Bill which my colleague, Deputy Broughan, put forward some time ago in relation to the release of vehicles by unscrupulous people in the motor trade to youngsters who drive them in urban areas, residential areas, sports fields and public parks, endangering themselves and anybody with whom they come into contact. Obviously, those proposals were not important enough to be considered by the Government in relation to road traffic legislation. On Committee Stage, we were told these matters could be considered when the next report on road safety is before the Government. Matters such as joyriding or reducing the speed limit are not of urgency for the Government.
What is urgent for the Government? Banning the use of mobile phones is, apparently, an urgent matter. Will the Minister of State explain to the House why a ban on the use of the hand held mobile phone has suddenly, in the course of the past week, assumed an importance greater than reducing the speed limit, ending joyriding or dealing with the scandal of motor vehicles being released by the motor trade to youngsters, sometimes at knock-down prices. The reason is clear, as one newspaper pointed out this week. It is a high profile public relations stunt by Government to pretend it is doing something about road safety when, in reality, it has sat on its hands for the past four years without advancing the Bill before us. It has also failed to put in place the administrative and computer systems necessary to implement the penalty points system for which we are legislating today.
Having delayed until the eleventh hour, the Government still could not get it right. There is a case for addressing the use of mobile phones in cars. I have no problem with legislation or regulations to deal with the use of hand held mobile phones in cars. However, if we are to deal with it, we need to do so in a sensible way. Deputy Naughten has drawn attention to the anomalies in these regulations as between the mobile phone and two-way radio systems used by the Garda, the ambulance service, taxis and so on. I could also draw attention to the difference – there is a difference – between a person briefly answering a mobile phone while stopped at traffic lights or a person attempting to dial on a mobile phone while speeding at 60 miles per hour on a dual carriageway. Those are two entirely different sets of circumstances but the regulations make no distinction.
The regulations are daft, confusing, unimplementable and, indeed, laughable in some respects. Let us consider the definition of a mobile phone, "any device which is being used directly by a person for the purpose of communication by way of mobile and personal communications systems". It is clear from that definition that the two-way radios used in ambulances, Garda vehicles, various emergency vehicles and taxis are comprehended by that definition. The Minister of State may say that the ban does not extend to fixed hands-free units in cars and that if the two-way radio is attached to the vehicle, it is not covered by it. However, it is covered if the ambulance driver, garda or taxi driver picks up a hand-held unit to answer a call. We need clarification as to how, from this week onwards, ambulance drivers, Garda drivers and taxi drivers will be affected. For example, if a taxi driver gets a radio call about a fare and picks up the hand-held unit to answer it, will that constitute a breach of the law? The Minister of State should answer those questions in the House.
As to the implementation of those regulations, it is stated that "the person shall not hold, or have on or about their person, a mobile phone or other similar apparatus while in the said vehicle, except when it is parked". What does that mean? Does it mean they cannot have it in their clothing? If it is left on the passenger seat or on the dashboard, is that "on or about their person"? The Minister of State has said the regulations do not apply if the phone is switched off. Therefore, if a person has a mobile phone in his pocket and it is switched off, it is not prosecutable. In those circumstances, an unfortunate garda would have to take a very close look at the driver's pocket to see if the mobile phone was vibrating. That is in the realms of "Is that a mobile phone or are you just glad to see me?" legislation. This is crazy.
The regulations also state that it is not open to a garda to search a driver for possession of a mobile phone. A driver might say the device in his pocket is not a mobile phone but something else – perhaps a pencil case – and the garda cannot do anything to establish what it is. Even if a person is seen with a mobile phone held to his ear, it is easy to turn it off at the touch of a button.
If one spots a garda out of the corner of one's eye, one need only press the "off" button. If the garda says he saw you with the phone to your ear you can say you were just scratching your ear with the aerial. Implementation of this regulation will be impossible. It is laughable stuff because it was rushed through and has not been properly considered by the Legislature. The Minister of State has run away.
There is a case for addressing the use of mobile phones from a road safety point of view. It is certainly a problem if a person is travelling at high speed and attempting to use a mobile phone, or if they are in heavy traffic and attempting to hold a mobile phone, steer, change gear, manage the hand brake and so on. We need regulation and legislation that is sensible in dealing with the problems that exist and is capable of being implemented. This looks like a regulation that was written on the back of a cigarette packet and that has been rushed out in order to meet a public relations deadline or a political requirement on the part of the Minister of State, rather than to address a serious problem.
The Minister of State should withdraw the regulation and bring it back to the House as primary legislation in order that it can be examined calmly. We need to take advice on this matter from the Garda and to consult with the emergency services. The advice of the National Safety Council is also required in order to have a considered debate in the House which would result in the introduction of sensible, enforceable regulations which will be understood by the public. Otherwise this will make a laughing stock of the Government, the Minister of State who introduced them and, ultimately, the country. If we end up with a measure that makes no sense, is riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies and is incapable of being implemented, the country will become a laughing stock. Will the Minister of State please withdraw the regulations and the proposal before the House today and let us deal with it in a calm and sensible way?
In response to Deputy Gilmore, a friend once said to me never to put anything smaller than one's elbow into one's ear.
What about one's pocket?
I do not know about that. It is interesting that a similar debate is taking place in the UK at the moment. On a Sky news programme this morning, a poll showed that 80% of respondents were in favour of banning the use of mobile phones while driving, a result which has changed very little during the day. On the same programme a woman was interviewed whose child had been run over by somebody who had been on the phone and did not see the child on the street. The person in question admitted their guilt, was fined £200 and had six penalty points awarded. If this woman were to give evidence to the committee, she would have other thoughts about the matter.
I am most concerned at the use of mobile phones by drivers. I have witnessed people crossing dangerous junctions while on the phone and, even worse, I have seen huge container trucks hurtling along at 50 or 60 miles an hour while their drivers hold mobile phones to their ears. Not only are they using the phones inappropriately, they are also exceeding the speed limit in many cases.
This is a very timely Bill. Deputy Naughten tried to throw sand in our eyes by attempting to confuse the issues.
They are confused.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, has ensured that.
There are people who want to be confused because it might suit them. Members of the media, more than any other group, use phones in their cars when they are going from one place to another and they have a particular interest in maintaining the status quo. They are among those who are most interested in trying to prevent regulations such as this being passed by the Dáil. I urge the Deputies to ask their constituents what they think as most people admit to a concern about it. Several remarks were made which were a little bit low in regard to the officials of the Department of the Environment and Local Government who obviously prepared these regulations. It was implied that no consideration was given and things are being read into these regulations that are not there. No judge is going to find a person guilty who had a phone in his or her pocket or on the car seat.
I have a hands-free unit in my car which has an automatic answering device. It answers automatically after two rings – one does not even have to press a button to answer it. We all have such phones here in the House. If Deputies were unaware of that they should check with the officials in their section who will tell them how to make this operational.
Does it make the tea as well?
There are people who argue that even the hands-free system is dangerous but believe its use is reasonable. In spite of what has been said, I do not accept that there is any intention that emergency services will be impeded from using their communications systems.
They are not exempted.
Irrespective of these regulations, there may be a way of updating the communications systems in ambulances, Garda cars and so on. Most gardaí are accompanied by another member of the force in a car anyway.
Not in rural areas.
I think too much is being read into what is stated in the regulations. I await with interest the Minister of State's response.
We all do.
This legislation should have been introduced a long time ago. A great deal of pressure has been applied to have this legislation brought forward. I would be interested to know how many reports have been made to the Garda about people driving dangerously with mobile phones and how many accidents have been caused as a result – not where people are injured, but just damage to cars because people were not looking where they were going. I have seen people on junction boxes holding up the traffic while speaking on their phones. It is absolutely outrageous how some people behave on the road.
It is unfair to accuse Deputy Molloy of running away. We both entered the Dáil in 1965 and I know him well enough to know he is a man who has made many courageous decisions in his time.
He was a courageous man not to come in here today.
He is not afraid to face anything and I am sure there is a perfectly legitimate reason for his absence today. Deputy Gilmore or Deputy Naughten spoke about children going around estates in cars. I would have thought it illegal for anyone to sell a car that has not passed the NCT. I am often worried about the number of cars with 1989 to 1994 registration plates which do not appear to have undergone an NCT.
One cannot get an NCT at the moment.
What does the Deputy mean?
The system has collapsed.
My car underwent an NCT only a week ago.
They are targeting the Deputy.
It is a 1997 car.
Did it pass?
The smoke emissions were just a little bit out. I had to bring it back within a week and I am glad to tell the Deputy it passed. I will proudly show him the vehicle in the car park.
I welcome this legislation as will the public. We have all been horrified at the number of accidents on our roads and I only wish there was more enforcement by the Garda. If I am critical of the Garda for anything, it is for the lack of enforcement of the laws on speeding. I travel here via the Chapelizod bypass and only one morning every three or four months will one see a garda with a radar gun pulling somebody over to the side of the road. Container trucks and cars fly along at 70 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone. If one can catch the people who exceed the 30 miles per hour speed limit in towns the number of accidents will reduce. Whatever about a 20 miles per hour limit, most of those who are speeding are travelling at speeds well in excess of 30 miles per hour.
I have longed for the speeding fine to be increased to €500 as it is paltry at the moment. If one really wants to get the message across, a substantial fine of €500 will make people pay attention. Any firm that intends to pay a fine for its employee, particularly if they are higher management, will balk at that sum. That is the only way to do it. Speed kills, as does inattention while driving. I know from experience that even pressing a button on the dashboard when driving requires that one to take one's eyes off the road. It is very dangerous and we should welcome the provisions of the Bill.
Deputies should seek their constituents' opinions on this matter and should not expect members of the press to support this measure. It will not because of its vested interest. Journalists often have to take calls on their phones; they have to be on the spot wherever they think a story is going to break.
This debate has taken on the appearance of high farce. It has convulsed the media, everybody seems to be thrown into confusion and there is great hilarity about the whole thing. There is inconsistency between ministerial announcements from one day to the next and the announcements of the Garda. No one in this House seems to know what is being proposed and the Garda has said that it will not be able to prosecute anyone under the legislation.
While people have talked about this with great hilarity, it is a serious issue and it will reflect badly on all of us if we cannot ensure that legislation enacted by this House is enforceable. People are entitled to clarity about the law. They are entitled to know when they are breaking it and when they are obeying it. Deputy Briscoe seems to think we are opposed to a ban on the use of mobile phones in cars, but we are not. We do not want people to use their phones when driving, but this provision will not achieve that. The Garda has said that it will not be able to enforce it.
The point that has been missed is that this offence will incur penalty points, to be imposed automatically. It is not up to the Garda to decide if there is to be a prosecution or not. One cannot tell the camera on which the offence is recorded that one was only scratching one's head with the phone. One will not get the chance to make one's defence until one gets to court, at which point one will already have attracted penalty points. In the case of anything that is going to attract automatic penalty points it is important to be clear about whether an offence has been committed.
For reasons best known to himself, the Minister has made a total dog's dinner of this. God knows, he has thought about this long and hard enough. Deputy Naughten said that this was first spoken about three years ago and the Minister himself spoke about it last autumn, yet he is introducing this amendment at the last minute. Why is it a rush job? What on earth possessed the Minister to bring in this last minute amendment, particularly as he is not even here to defend it? One can only come to the conclusion that he wants to mask the fact that we are passing legislation to introduce penalty points when there is no system in place to impose them, nor will there be for several years. The Minister introduces the headline grabbing issue of mobile phones but makes a dog's dinner of it. In blaming the media for this, Deputy Briscoe went a little bit far.
I did not blame the media for this.
I blame the media for a lot of things, but to say that it is trying to subvert the introduction of road safety measures by making fun of this legislation is ludicrous.
I did not say that. I said the media had a vested interest, which is a totally different thing. The Deputy is embellishing.
It is a short step from what I am saying to what the Deputy said.
The Deputy should be accurate.
I do not know where the Minister is today, but perhaps he has legitimate business elsewhere. Even if he were here, he could not defend this regulation. As Deputy Naughten pointed out, the regulation is inconsistent with the Bill before the House. It is a complete mess and the only way to go forward is to withdraw it. At the very least the activity should not incur penalty points even if it has to remain an offence which, as the regulation has been signed, is a matter for the Minister to decide. However, let us not pass further legislation to compound the problem the Minister has created.
It cannot be made a criminal offence to carry or transport a mobile phone, yet it appears that is what is being attempted. Use of mobile phones is a very important safety issue for women, a number of whom have contacted me in the past few days extremely upset to find they are not allowed to have their mobile phones in their cars. I sought to reassure them that, surely, that is not what the Minister intends. We have discussed whether the phone should be kept in our pockets or in our handbags and have decided that if we kept it in the boot we could not be arrested. These things must be made clear to the public. For women it is important, as a safety issue, that they are allowed to transport mobile phones and to have access to them near, or about, their persons should they run into difficulties.
We owe it to the public to introduce clear and enforceable legislation. People should know when they are breaking the law. I know we have made jokes about it, but it is a very serious issue. I ask the Minister of State to withdraw this amendment to allow us to go back to the drawing board to consider this matter.
I have sourced information for Deputy Naughten which I did not address at yesterday's meeting. On 19 March, regulations were made which are intended to prevent the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving about which there has been considerable speculation. The regulations clearly establish the offence of use of mobile phones by persons driving mechanically propelled vehicles. Driving while using a mobile phone is a safety risk because of the inherent distraction. The distraction is compounded in the case of a hand-held set and, for that clear reason, the regulations focus on the use of such sets. It is not an offence for drivers to have switched-off phones in their pockets. The House will be interested to note that, as reported on RTE this morning, research carried out by the transport research laboratory in the UK indicates that the use of hand-held mobile phones creates a definite risk.
The Garda Síochána has issued a formal statement welcoming the regulations and confirming that they will be enforced. It states: "The Garda Síochána welcomes any legislation which is designed to reduce road carnage." The statement goes on to say that the new legislation concerning the use of mobile phones in cars came into effect at midnight on Thursday, 20 March, and is being examined by the Garda. The content of the regulation will be disseminated through the organisation for the purpose of enforcement.
The amendment refers to the penalty points. The regulations are in place. They are law and they are being enforced. Deputy Gilmore said that joyriding and speed limits were not a priority for the Government. These issues are covered by existing legislation—
They are not.
—so they do not have to be included here. It is incorrect to suggest that the Government is not interested in road safety. Joyriding and speed limits can be covered by existing regulations.
No.
They can. There are speed regulations.
I have been asking for the past five years for the speed limit to be lowered.
The Minister said that the regulation and the offence relates to the use of mobile phones. Paragraph 4 of the regulation states that the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle that is in a public place shall not hold or have on or about his or her person a mobile phone or any other similar apparatus while in the vehicle except when it is parked. There is no mention of the word "use". It simply refers to the phone being on or about the person.
The amendment before the House makes sense in its general description but it contradicts what is in the regulations produced by the Minister. The word "use" does not occur in the regulation. This is something that has been pulled out of the hat by the Minister, Deputy Molloy, at the last minute to cover up the fact that he has failed to introduce the road safety strategy over the past four and a half years. He is not even here to defend the regulation. Solicitors will have a field day with this regulation. It is a smokescreen. I urge the Minister to amend the regulation so that it specifies use of the phone rather than the phone being on or about a person.
I favour the introduction of regulations which would control the use of mobile phones in cars. There is a road safety issue which must be addressed. The problem is that the way the Government is doing it is ineffective, confused and will lead to problems. It is also belated. The Minister's response to the debate does not shed light on the subject. He referred to the Garda statement. That statement does not appear to be enthusiastically endorsing these regulations. The statement welcomed any measure which will lead to road safety. It went on to say that the organisation is examining the regulations and will pass them on to the gardaí. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of what is being proposed.
I support Deputy Mitchell's comments on the use of mobile phones or having possession of a mobile phone with regard to the issue of safety, particularly for women. It is an important consideration. The way these regulations are drafted means we are not talking about the use of the mobile phone. What is being penalised is not answering or making a call while driving but having a mobile phone which is turned on in the car. Somebody who has a mobile phone in a handbag on the passenger seat or on the dashboard or inside the door pocket of the car is therefore liable to prosecution. What we have is legislation that has not been fully thought through.
Deputy Briscoe accused Members on this side of the House of criticising the officers of the Department. I did not do so and I did not hear any other Member commenting on the staff of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, for whom we have enormous respect. The Minister has political responsibility for these regulations. He signed them, announced them and introduced them. It is his problem. It is a bad regulation and bad legislation. I predict that the House will have to come back to this issue within the next 12 months.
I welcome the statement from the Garda. The regulations are drafted by the officials and the Minister always takes responsibility for what is put before him. I do not consider these regulations half cocked. They are sound and examination will show that. However, I hope the Minister clarifies the point about possession of a phone in a car. All members of my family have mobile phones, particularly my daughters. In the event of a woman being under attack or fearful, she can call the gardaí in an emergency on her mobile phone. This should be covered by the regulation.
Will the Minister clarify that point? I am not sure that he will satisfy the Deputies opposite, particularly in Fine Gael. Deputy Gilmore, as a former Minister of State in that Department, understands how the Department works. It would be helpful if the Minister of State would clarify the point about possession of a phone in a car or on one's person and, second, the issue of whether somebody is exempt from the regulations in the event of an attack and if they are dialling an emergency services number. I do not believe the police will prosecute if one is dialling the emergency services.
Will the Minister respond to our questions about the legality of the emergency services using mobile phones?
There are no exceptions to the regulations. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Briscoe, mobile phone means any device which is being used directly by a person for the purpose of communication by way of mobile and personal communications systems.
I know what a mobile phone is.
That is the definition in the regulations.
One can bleed to death.
The Deputy is as confused as we have been for the past week.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. Perhaps they were not amicable but the issue before the House is penalty points, not the regulations. The last amendment is about penalty points. The regulations are law and are not subject to debate today. It would not be appropriate for me to answer questions on them. Many red herrings were raised and bizarre words were used. The regulations are in place, they are law and they are being implemented. The legislation we are dealing with today relates to penalty points. I thank the Members for their co-operation.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I thought the amendment before the House provided for penalty points for an offence. We have been asking for the past hour what is the offence which will warrant a penalty point. That was the question and the reason behind the debate for the past hour.
A Cheann Comhairle—
Although there is no facility for it, I will allow a brief question. This is not Committee Stage.
The Minister said that the regulations are law. Are they law? My understanding is the regulations are laid before the House for a period of 21 days within which they can be annulled. The House could still annul these regulations.
My advice is that they are law, they have been laid before the House.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister and the officials for their work on this Bill. I assure the Minister that anything we may have said today was not in any way directed at him personally. I thank everybody concerned for carrying us through the various Stages of this Bill, which I hope will be implemented fairly soon.
I concur with Deputy Mitchell's remarks in expressing my appreciation to the Minister and the officials for their work on the legislation.
Now that this legislation is on its way to being enacted, the big question of course is: when will we see the introduction of penalty points? This Bill has been in the pipeline for four years, it has been before the House for an entire year and all of the information available to us suggests that it will be quite some time, even if the legislation is enacted, before the penalty points system is implemented. Therefore, I would like the Minister in his response to tell us the date on which the penalty points system will be implemented.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace and the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and their officials. I want to endorse the sentiments expressed by my two colleagues. This was complex legislation and it will be challenged in the courts. Therefore, it is important that it was discussed in some detail. The issues we raised today are those on which clarification was required.
I want to repeat Deputy Gilmore's question. When will we see the penalty points system in force and implemented by the Garda? That is the big question. It will have a significant impact on the carnage on our roads and will ensure, once and for all, that the road traffic legislation is fully enforced and that people abide by those laws.
It is hoped that the penalty points system will be in place by the end of the year. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Deputies who participated in today's debate. Perhaps the debate was not always amicable, but I can assure them that the purpose of this legislation is to improve road safety and to give the necessary power to the Garda and others to ensure that we all can play our part. I thank all the Deputies for their contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.