I remind Members that they may speak only once on Report Stage except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. I also remind Members that each amendment must be seconded.
Road Traffic Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 26, to delete "genuine".
On subsection (7)(b), I question how one can give the defence of having a genuine reason. I question the use of the word “genuine” in that respect. I am sure a person who would make a telephone call from a mobile phone in such circumstances would believe there was a genuine need to make the telephone call, although subsequently it may be proved there was not a genuine need to make it. I propose there is no need for the inclusion of the word “genuine” in the paragraph. The Minister of State might consider deleting it.
Is there a seconder?
I second the amendment.
I fully understand from where Senator Paddy Burke is coming in tabling this amendment but I would like to clarify the position and to refer to the word "emergency". The word "emergency" has deliberately not been defined in the section, as it would be impossible to draw up an exhaustive list of circumstances that would merit emergency status. The genuine emergency defence provision was included in the Bill to cater for instances where the seriousness of the situation would warrant the making or taking of a call on a hand-held mobile phone where by not making or taking that call, the consequences would probably be loss of life, serious injury or putting the health or safety of a person at risk.
Using the word "genuine" alongside the word "emergency" is intended to stress that there must be an objective seriousness to the emergency. The use of the word "genuine" is intended to make it clear that convenience, regardless of the urgency of the matter, would not constitute an emergency. The amendment, if accepted, would lessen the test of objectiveness in terms of an emergency and therefore undermine the restrictive nature of the defence.
As I indicated to the House yesterday, ultimately it would be a matter for the courts to determine the merits of a genuine emergency defence in each particular case. Subsection (7), as drafted, strikes a balance between the need to have a hand-held mobile phone in a real emergency situation as against its urgent use for convenience purposes. I hope this explanation satisfies Senator Burke and that in practical circumstances good sense will prevail.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 24, to delete "hours at any time" and substitute "times".
I retabled these amendments on Report Stage because the Minister of State said he would consider them overnight. We had a good debate yesterday on the times and places covered by an authorisation given to gardaí to carry out random breath testing. I propose that the word "times" is preferable to the words "hours at any time". The Minister of State said he would consider this matter and I await his up to date position on it.
I second the amendment.
I gave this matter serious consideration. I need not emphasise that drinking and driving in Ireland is recognised as one of the most serious contributory factors in road collisions. Evidence shows that the incidence of drink driving is increasing among the younger age groups. There is widespread acceptance among responsible motorists and society as a whole that driving under the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous.
I will deal with the amendment by outlining what might happen if the amendment were accepted. I refer to an example where the time indicated on the authorisation establishing a checkpoint is between 12 midnight and 2 a.m. and the gardaí on duty form the opinion that a number of drivers may be over the alcohol limit and decide at 12.30 a.m. to abandon the roadside test and take some drivers to the Garda station to carry out the evidential test. It is the job of legal representatives to find loopholes in the law and they will try to ensure that those who are brought before the courts are not convicted. The amendments tabled previously were examined carefully prior to now and particularly overnight, and this section has been drafted very carefully. To return to the example, if the gardaí abandon that checkpoint at 1 a.m., I am advised that a case could be made for the individuals brought to the Garda station that the gardaí were not in compliance with the authorisation because they abandoned the checkpoint prior to the time stated on it. For that reason, it is suggested that we must retain the words "the hours at any time" rather than the word "times".
That may be difficult for us as lay people to understand, but the position has been explained to me by my officials, and I fully understand their position and that of the Parliamentary Counsel. We are here to ensure the law will be foolproof and Senator Paddy Burke would also be anxious to ensure that. We do not want to create that position whereby there would be a loophole in the law. I hope the Senator will accept that explanation and consider withdrawing his amendment.
I withdraw the amendment in view of what the Minister of State said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, to delete lines 17 and 18, and substitute the following:
"(4) The fixed charge is €300 and such fixed charge shall be index-linked to the inflation rate as set by the European Central Bank and automatically updated on the 1st of January each year after the coming into force of this section.".
The Minister of State indicated yesterday he would reconsider this amendment overnight. It proposes that fines should be index-linked to the inflation rate. We had a good debate on this matter on Committee Stage.
I second the amendment.
I indicated yesterday that I would consider this and I wish to clarify a point on which I may have given the wrong impression to the House regarding the fines Bill that will come before the House. This fixed charge does not relate to that Bill which will refer to fines in court, whereas this is an administrative sanction or fixed charge.
Rather than have the Minister increase the fines on 1 January each year, or at another particular time as the Senator recommends, and link it to some index, we will monitor the situation. If the Minister of the day finds it necessary he or she will introduce a regulation to increase the fine. It would not be appropriate to provide in primary legislation for the fixed charge under section 5 to be index-linked to the inflation rate set by the European Central Bank and automatically updated in January each year after coming into force. The Minister can keep the level of fixed charge under review and vary it in the future when he or she deems it appropriate to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, line 40, after "notice," to insert the following:
"but the person shall continue to be liable to prosecution in the same manner as if such fixed charge notice had not been served,".
I second the amendment.
We had a good debate on this topic too and found that the conditions implied in the Bill were too harsh. The Minister of State agreed to consider that point.
I hope that my amendment No. 6 will cater for Senator Paddy Burke's amendment. I have further considered bringing forward amendments to section 5 in light of Senators' comments on Committee Stage. The intention of the Bill in respect of the fixed charge and disqualification process is that where a person is found to have exceeded 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, or the equivalent levels in urine or breath specimens, he or she will be prosecuted either for that offence or, if he or she has not been convicted of a drink-driving offence within the previous five years, he or she will be served with a fixed disqualification notice.
The Senator proposes an amendment to section 5(7)(c) to provide that if a person who is not eligible to be served with a fixed charge notice happened to be served with a notice, that person would continue to be liable for prosecution in the same manner as if a notice had not been served. It is intended that this would be the case and an express provision could bring greater clarity to the section.
The Parliamentary Counsel advises me that an appropriate amendment could be inserted to section 5 at subsection (7)(f) which would address the concerns of the Senators. I propose to introduce amendment No. 6 which would ensure that a person who is not eligible to pay a fixed charge will at all times face the immediate prospect of summons for the substantive drink-driving offence. Amendment No. 6 caters for the intention of amendment No. 5.
I welcome the Minister of State's clarification which covers reasonably well my amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
"(f) unless the person is not eligible under this section to pay the fixed charge, a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence will not be initiated during the period specified in paragraph (d) or, if payment of the fixed charge accompanied by the notice, duly completed, is made during that period, at all.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, lines 6 and 7, to delete "should in the circumstances have known" and substitute ", in the circumstances, could reasonably have been expected to have known".
This amendment was well aired yesterday and the Minister of State promised to think about it overnight. We felt that it was unreasonable that if the system broke down the person charged must pay the price.
I second the amendment.
I have further considered bringing forward amendments to section 5 in light of Senator Paddy Burke's comments on Committee Stage. My amendment No. 8 should address the Senator's concern.
The issue here is that where a person is alleged to have committed an offence of driving, or being in charge of a vehicle, when the concentration of alcohol present in his or her body exceeded 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, or the equivalent in other specimens, that person is eligible to avail of the fixed charge and disqualification notice process introduced in the Bill, unless he or she has been convicted of a drink-driving related offence within the five years prior to the date of the alleged offence.
If a person is ineligible to avail of this process, namely, having had a conviction for a drink-driving related offence within the previous five years, and knows, or should in the circumstances have known, that he or she is ineligible but yet pays or attempts to pay a fixed charge, he or she is guilty of an offence.
I propose a form of wording that should meet Senator Paddy Burke's concern, to the effect that the section will read "a person who is ineligible under subsection (2) or (3) to pay a fixed charge and who knows or should in the circumstances have reasonably known that he or she is so ineligible”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 8, line 6, to delete "have" and substitute "have reasonably".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 38, to delete "€1,000" and substitute "€2,000".
There was some debate yesterday about the level of fines which I considered overnight, in light of Senator Quinn's Committee Stage amendment and the ensuing debate. I propose therefore to increase the fine on summary conviction from €1,000 to €2,000, which is a compromise as Senator Quinn had proposed raising it to €3,000. This has due regard for the seriousness of the offence and the range of fines for other road traffic offences set out in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 13, to delete lines 26 and 27.
This concerns the area where the Minister sets down the fees that can be charged by licensed instructors. The way it is drafted is anti-competitive. There will be different types of instructors and different levels of instruction. Some instructors will work nationally and some will be confined to certain areas. It is only right to allow competition so that people can set their own fees for providing instruction. Individuals may feel they can provide a cheaper service than other instructors. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to delete lines 26 and 27.
I second the amendment.
As I indicated on Committee Stage, I took the view this was not an unreasonable provision to include in the Bill as it seeks to control a charge which would be levied on an individual in order to meet a regulatory requirement. However, I recognise that there may be concerns that the imposition of such a control may dissuade service providers from offering the necessary training. Having reconsidered the amendment, I am now prepared to accept it.
I thank the Minister of State for accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 16, to delete lines 12 to 24 and substitute the following:
"(a) a person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction where at the time of the commission of the offence—
(i) he or she had been the holder of a driving licence (other than a learner permit) which had expired beyond its period of validity for a period of not more than 12 months before the commission of the offence, and
(ii) he or she has received adequate warning from the licensing authority that the driving licence (other than a learner permit) has expired beyond its period of validity,
to a fine not exceeding €1,000."."
Before people can be prosecuted, local authorities should be obliged to notify them their licences have lapsed. They already notify people that their motor tax is due for renewal and the same should apply with regard to licences. I understand the point made by the Minister of State with regard to the value of a licence and the need for people to ensure it is up to date. However, some people go away for long periods and spend six or eight months away in the sun and may forget about renewing their licence. I propose there should be an onus on the local authority to notify them.
I second the amendment.
We discussed this on Committee Stage. I appreciate Senator Burke's concern that licence holders may not be aware that their licence has expired. He referred to the fact that motor tax reminders are issued by licensing authorities and suggested that driving licence reminders should also issue. Motor tax reminders are issued from the vehicle registration unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on behalf of licensing authorities. Arrangements are being made for driving licence renewal notices to be issued in the same way.
However, with regard to the proposed amendment, my main concern is that it would allow any person who had let his or her licence lapse to plead that he or she had not received a renewal notice. This would weaken the provision considerably and make the offence virtually impossible to prosecute. Another effect of the amendment — which I am sure is unintentional on the part of Senator Paddy Burke — is that it removes the offence in paragraph (a)(ii) which applies where a licence has expired for more than 12 months. A fine of €2,000 and penalty points apply.
I am satisfied the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is putting in place a system whereby renewal notices will be issued in the same way as motor tax reminders. I take the opportunity of this forum to remind the only group I believe may have difficulty in this regard, those changing address, that they have the obligation to advise the local authority of so doing. If they do that, there is no major disadvantage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
There is a correction necessary in amendment No. 12, where (d) should read (e).
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 18, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(e) in subsection (9), by substituting for paragraphs (a) (inserted by section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2004) and (b) the following:
"(a) a person or the person to whom the notice applies may, during the period specified in the notice and in accordance with the notice, make a payment specified in the notice,
(b) the payment—
(i) may be received in accordance with the notice and the person receiving the payment shall issue a receipt for it, and
(ii) shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer as the Minister for Finance directs,
and shall not be recoverable by the person who made it,"."
In effect, this is a technical amendment to subsection (9) of section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Its purpose is to clarify that the amount to be paid is as specified in the notice and that any moneys paid in respect of a fixed penalty charge can be received by the transport officers as well as by gardaí or traffic wardens and that these moneys will be disposed of into the Exchequer as directed by the Minister for Finance.
The existing text of section 103(9)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 is unclear as to the amount of a payment to be paid under a fixed charge notice. This amendment to paragraph (a) clarifies that the amount to be paid is the payment specified in the notice. The existing text of section 103(9)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 provides the payment of moneys for fixed charge offences can only be made to gardaí or traffic wardens and that those moneys are disposed of in accordance with specific legislation.
As a result of earlier amendments to the Bill, it will be necessary for moneys to be payable to transport officers. The amendment to paragraph (b) will mean that moneys can be paid to persons specified in the fixed charge notice, including transport officers. The amendment also means that moneys will be disposed of into the Exchequer as the Minister for Finance directs. This will allow transport officers to pay the moneys to the Exchequer as directed.
Does this mean cash payments can be made to gardaí or traffic wardens?
That would not be customary or wise. My view is that the moneys should be paid by way of draft or postal order. However, I have no doubt that payments over the counter where a receipt could be issued could be facilitated.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 18, line 28, to delete "€1,000." and substitute "€1,000".
This is a technical amendment to remove a surplus full stop.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 25, line 16, column (2), to delete "(2)" and substitute "(3)".
This is a technical amendment to correct a printing error.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On behalf of the Fianna Fáil group I thank the Minister of State for his time in the House on this important legislation. The legislation has been in the offing for some time and no doubt the level of work he, the Minister and their officials have put into it will bear fruit in terms of the adoption of the various road safety strategies the Government has been working on for many months. It is obvious that we hope the level of effort and work that has been done in this regard will bear fruit in terms of dealing with the scourge of death on the roads. I have no doubt that despite this legislation, a greater effort will be required from everyone in society to work to change this country's road use culture. We will not have tackled this major issue until we start to consider the use of the road as a privilege to be used responsibly, rather than as a right. I hope that, over time, the shift in culture and mindset that is needed if we are to save lives on our roads will start to happen as a consequence of the communication with the public that has taken place through various elements of the media, the high-profile appointments which have been made in recent times and the legislation that has been passed in support of the enforcement of road safety.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their work on this important legislation. I also thank the Minister of State for accepting some Opposition amendments. I thank Senators Dooley and Wilson for their co-operation and the effort they have made on this important Bill. I do not doubt that it will save many lives on the roads in the long run.
While we will face challenges as the legislation is brought into force, it will be a worthwhile exercise if it saves one life or prevents a number of fatalities. I wish the Minister of State, who has extensive knowledge of this good legislation, well with the Bill as he brings it to the other House and implements it as law. I am sure a great deal of work will have to be done by means of ministerial regulations. Will we be notified in advance of such regulations, or will they be laid before the Houses in the usual way? I wish the Minister of State well with this important legislation.
I thank the Senators who took an interest in this important legislation. I am sure it will receive the same level of co-operation in the other House as it received from the Opposition parties in this House. We need to ensure that this important Bill is enacted before the summer recess. Several Bills relating to road traffic law have been enacted in recent years, including the Bill that established the Road Safety Authority. I understand that the authority's first meeting since it was established on a statutory basis — there were some meetings of the interim authority — is taking place today in Dublin. Both Houses are aware of the evolving nature of road traffic law and the need to ensure that appropriate legislative supports are in place to promote road safety.
Many issues were raised during the debate on this Bill. I tried to accommodate Opposition Senators as much as I could when they proposed amendments. That demonstrates the importance of debate in this House. The amendments I accepted will improve the Bill. I ask Members to appreciate that I was unable to accept some Opposition amendments, not for the sake of it but because they might have watered down the Bill. I know that was not the intention of the Senators who tabled the amendments in question. We hope to bring the Bill to the Dáil next week, to be enacted within the next two weeks. This legislation will allow us to fulfil the aspirations of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, in respect of speed cameras and mandatory alcohol testing. I hope there will be a substantial reduction in the number of road fatalities over the next 12 months, compared with the past 12 months. If such a reduction takes place, I hope we will be able to attribute it to the introduction and enactment of this Bill by these Houses.
As we approach what will hopefully be another beautiful weekend, I call on everyone who is responsible to work to improve safety on the roads and bring about a reduction in the number of fatalities. The Oireachtas can establish a road safety framework by means of legislation and regulation. Individuals who sit behind the steering wheels and walk along the roads need to take their responsibilities seriously. If we abide by and adhere to the simple rules and regulations which are in place, we can make the roads safer for all road users.
Before I conclude my summary, I would like to thank Senators for their contributions to this debate. I remind the wider public that the circumstances which might lead any of us to experience this problem could be around the next corner. Given that so many young people are in the Gallery at present, it is appropriate for me to remind their counterparts of all ages in all parts of the country that young people who do not drive can have an influence on others. For example, they can ensure that drivers do not move their cars until they and their passengers have put on their safety belts. I ask those who are visiting the Oireachtas to keep that simple message in mind. Along with their school colleagues, they can make a contribution by not allowing their families and friends to start driving until they have ensured that all safety belts are engaged.
Mar focal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhíochas a chuir in iúl don tSeanaid as ucht an chuidiú agus an chomh-oibriú a bhí idir na Seanadóirí ó gach thaobh den Teach nuair a bhíomar ag plé an An Dara Céim, Céim an Choiste agus An Tuarascáil den Bille um Thrácht ar Bhóithre 2006. Guím gach rath Dé oraibh. I thank the Cathaoirleach's officials and my officials in the Department of Transport, who worked through the night over the past few nights on the amendments to the Bill. While we take the credit, we also have to take the blame, if appropriate. I give full credit to the various officials, to whom I publicly express my gratitude.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.
The Seanad adjourned at 1 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 June 2006.