I note that amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 20, subsection (4), lines 34 and 35, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) section 53 of this Act tried on indictment, or".
These are technical drafting amendments. They are required to clarify the mandatory disqualification periods applying to the separate offences of dangerous driving causing death and serious bodily harm and dangerous driving. The amendments put beyond doubt that a conviction on indictment before a jury for dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm attracts a minimum disqualification of two years for a first offence and four years for a second, and a summary conviction in the District Court for dangerous driving attracts a minimum disqualification of one year for a first offence and two years for a second. All mandatory disqualifications are minimum. It will be a matter for the courts to impose much longer periods in individual cases if they deem fit. It does not change the content; it basically makes absolutely certain which penalty applies to which offence.
These amendments touch on one of the most serious criticisms of this Bill, and I make this point as constructively as I possibly can. The major criticism relates to the removal of the discretion from the Judiciary in several sections of this Bill in relation to determination of the best possible penalty to be imposed on a convicted person. We must tread very warily when we remove discretion from a judge in one way or another. We must be very careful about mandatory sentencing. When it comes to joyriding, a plague in our major cities and towns, I have little sympathy for the joyrider and I welcome whatever strengthening the Minister feels is necessary to get them off our streets and, if necessary, behind bars or to have them dealt with as severely as possible given the appalling carnage they have caused.
However, an ordinary citizen, perhaps with an unblemished driving record, may, through a momentary lapse, cause serious bodily harm or death and be convicted of dangerous driving. Having made a genuine mistake, no matter how well the case is put for that individual in court, any discretion the judge now has will be removed in dealing with that person. I am not sure how the Minister will get the balance right in this area but it appears the whole thrust of this Bill is directed at the joyrider. Will the Minister look again at mandatory sentencing?
I do not want the Bill weakened in terms of nailing a perpetual offender of the road traffic law generally, but I have serious misgivings about a citizen who might transgress the Road Traffic Act on a once-off basis, for example crossing a continuous white line and thereby knocking someone off his bicycle and killing him. The person may have had an impeccable record up to this but no discretion is left to the judge to adjudicate on a genuine accident as distinct from joyriding. I have no sympathy nor would I make any case for the latter but I am seriously concerned about the ordinary citizen. It could happen to anyone. It has happened to members of our families, and we all know people who after a once-off incident, are convicted of dangerous driving. I am not talking about the perpetual offender — I hold no brief for them, but to remove discretion on sentencing and to insist on mandatory sentences for this category weakens the role of the Judiciary. Indeed it puts many citizens who have upheld the law throughout their lives, but who had a mometary lapse, at a serious disadvantage in our courts. Let us not treat everybody as a joyrider, although we must support the Minister's efforts to nail the joyrider. It is a difficult position. Let us not tie the hands of the Legislature to the point where they cannot be favourably disposed to dealing with certain cases by way of alternative penalty. This area is a major legal minefield. What can be done to tease out an alternative solution where discretion is left to the Judiciary yet the position regarding the joyrider and the perpetual criminal is tightened up?
This Bill will have a very far reaching effect. I spoke to a number of people in the legal profession and the Judiciary over the holidays who were all of the opinion that this part of the Bill will be far reaching in that even for a minor offence there will be a mandatory sentence. I understand what we are trying to deal with in this part of the Bill but it goes too far. I would be anxious that before Report Stage we would see what other way we can deal with this because it should be left to the courts to decide on sentencing. I recall the insurance companies saying that if the Government tightened up the road traffic acts the cost of insurance would be reduced. I do not believe them, Chairman, because as you may recall it was claimed that reducing the number of legal representation to two would bring about a reduction in insurance premiums. I had a doubt about that and I was proved correct, as there was no reduction. I hope I will be proved wrong but unfortunately I was not wrong in the past. Even with the introduction of this Bill, I do not see car insurance being reduced. I know the Minister's aim is to tidy up the law to meet the demands of the 1990s which I fully accept, but if anybody is so naive as to think that bringing in this Bill will mean a reduction in insurance premiums he or she is in for a rude awakening. The premium income of the insurance companies is about £500 million a year and claims would be——
About £500 million a year.
——in or around the same amount but the insurance companies are showing a profit because most of them deal in life assurance, which is very profitable. The underwriting shows that.
I am not in favour of mandatory sentencing. It will be far reaching, and very hard; for example, the ordinary law abiding individual might commit a minor offence but under this Bill a mandatory fine or sentence will be imposed. It gives the courts no opportunity to hear the evidence that the case involves. Those who commit serious offences, and we know who they are, must face the full rigour of the law. That is where the Judiciary can make the decision on the fines, disqualification and anything else that applies to the case. It may be difficult to implement but up to now the courts have operated the law even handedly and therefore I would like this part of the Bill to be re-examined before Report Stage to see what amendments could be made in that regard.
Let us try to keep to the facts. We have always had mandatory disqualification for convictions in cases of drunken driving or dangerous driving involving death or bodily injury. It is important for the House to realise there will not be a dramatic change in terms of the general legal position. We have had mandatory disqualification but the difference this time is that dangerous driving is added to the two former categories. Let us look at some of the cases that have come before the courts. In County Meath a driver overtook on a bend at a speed of 111 m.p.h. in the rain. Thankfully, nobody was hurt or killed but there was no possibility of mandatory disqualification. In the first instance we are talking about mandatory disqualification as an accepted deterrent in circumstances like that. It is wrong to suggest that in every case, regardless of its seriousness, we are talking about mandatory disqualification. Mandatory disqualification arises when there is a conviction. The court has to hear the case and if it is of the order outlined by Deputy Doyle, the court will take account of those special circumstances.
They may be less likely to convict because of the mandatory sentences.
There is no going soft on dangerous driving. I have been asked what I am doing about enforcement. We have heard horrific stories of dangerous driving, excessive speeds but there is a blatant reluctance on the part of some people to follow through with mandatory disqualification where circumstances permit and where the court decides on conviction that the crime falls into the category of mandatory disqualification. We are not talking about minor cases, as outlined here, or about individuals who have not committed a serious crime. We are talking about those who have and we are trying to put in place the penalties or provisions which will help the Garda and the courts and act as a deterrent to those who are committing offences on our roads which are putting at risk the lives of so many people.
I have had strong representations from people who suffered the trauma of an accident seeking additional provisions in the legislation, but at the same time representations have been made in this House and in other places seeking that we step back from putting in provisions giving teeth to the Bill. I have sought to find a balance. It is the court who will decide the seriousness of the crime in one way or another. It is not I.
I appreciate the job the Minister has to do and the difficulty it presents but this section and indeed other sections of the Bill appear to treat similarly all those who transgress the law in relation to dangerous driving, even those who transgress in a minor way. Minor transgressors are being treated as joyriders. The Bill would appear to be treating every transgressor as a joyrider. I am concerned about taking all discretion from the Judiciary. In cases of conviction for dangerous driving which causes serious bodily harm or fatality no discretion will be left to the judge. When there is a fatality a family is shattered.
Technically if you go over a white line, it is dangerous driving. Minor breaches may have serious consequences if someone is seriously injured. The Minister has got to nail the joyriders and those fools who drive around corners at 120 and 130 m.p.h. on wet road conditions. The Minister will have our support, but will he check the wording of these sections to ensure that those who commit a minor breach of the driving laws that has serious consequences, will be treated with some discretion? Mandatory sentences could, in fact, mean that the courts would be reluctant to convict for minor elements of dangerous driving because of the consequence of so doing. In fact it might defeat the whole purpose of bringing people's attention to the seriousness of what has been done.
I think the Minister would support the maxim that the punishment must match the crime. The punishment for malicious dangerous drivers deserves to be as severe as we can make it and they must be brought to book. They are a menace to society. I am concerned neither for the malicious dangerous driver nor the joyrider — the Minister can take and do with them what he feels needs to be done to rid society of them — but for the ordinary citizen who may once in his life find himself on the wrong side of the law through a minor transgression, no discretion is left to the Judiciary to deal with these people. Many people have had to come to court once in their lives because they were involved in a road traffic accident. There may be no drink or speed involved, it may be a technical transgression, for example, going over a continuous white line, failing to stop in time or inadvertently going through a red traffic light colliding and causing a serious accident. Will the Minister look at this again? I do not want to weaken what he is trying to do.
I respect the job he has in hand but concern about mandatory sentencing has been expressed by people far wiser than I, legal minds, judges who have been sitting on the bench for decades. They cannot all be wrong. They want to support the effort to rid the country of joyriders and the malicious dangerous driver. Will the Minister please leave an area whereby a conviction for dangerous driving, even a minor element of dangerous driving, does not automatically mean a draconian mandatory sentence? I will never defend the joyrider, you may do with them what you will. I am speaking for the ordinary citizen who perhaps has a once-off lapse in a lifetime of driving. Enough tragedy is caused to the family of the person seriously injured or killed without tying the hands of our judges and devastating a second family.
Deputy Doyle is trivialising dangerous driving.
I strongly object to that remark.
Like everybody else in this House I am not anxious to see mandatory disqualification or penalties imposed which do not fit the crime for any category of people, regardless of legislation. To continually refer to joyriders as the only group that can be classified in the dangerous driving category, regardless of their horrific actions, puts dangerous driving into one particular area which I cannot accept. Deputy Doyle has experience in this House and she is well aware that if one is prosecuted for dangerous driving and if the circumstances which the Deputy outlined are involved, the court is in a position to decide to convict on careless driving. As it has done in the past where there were mandatory disqualification provisions and as it probably will continue to do in the future, the court will decide the seriousness of that particular case. The Deputy makes the point that because we are providing for mandatory disqualification, the court ;might be inclined to impose a lighter sentence. She cannot have it both ways, she cannot say that providing for mandatory disqualification might entice the court to impose a lighter sentence and, at the same time, accuse the Minister who is putting in the provisions of putting a case of the order that the Deputy mentioned into the category of mandatory disqualification where that would not be deemed necessary or desirable.
This Bill was published a considerable time ago and we have had time to examine it. I have no amendment before me asking me to change those provisions and that is a clear indication of the absence of any better way to deal with a problem which is reaching significant proportions on our roads. We have provisions for drunken driving and dangerous driving involving death and bodily injury. Dangerous driving which, fortunately, has not resulted in an accident is almost equally lethal in terms of what people are doing on our roads. They are not all joyriders but they are not taking account of the roads, the conditions of the roads and the people using them, the risk to life is enormous. Because of that risk and what happened in other cases where that risk has persisted, it is important that the courts would have the power for mandatory disqualification as a deterrent so that we can improve the terrible position that exists at present.
However, I have no proposals or amendments before me. I take it that the Deputy and others tried to come up with a solution to improve the position but there is no easy solution. I take the Deputy's point that it is difficult to get the balance right. I have been pressurised from both sides to go further in one direction or to row back in another and I have tried to find the best balance in all the circumstances.
What role has the appeal court in this matter? Can one appeal a fine imposed by an ordinary court and, if so, can the mandatory fine or the sentence be changed? I know this is of concern to those who drive a truck or van to earn a living and, depending on how a court decides a case, a serious position could arise in regard to employment. I did not table an amendment because I wanted to hear a debate on the matter to determine the issues and to hear the views of other Members of the committee. Some people persistently break the law, particularly in the greater urban areas, and we will not tolerate that. I realise that the courts have discretion but I have a reservation in regard to the mandatory fine. On Report Stage the types of road offences which will be included in this category should be spelled out. If I commit a minor offence, like crossing a white line, will I be put off the road for 12 months?
Concern has been expressed in regard to this section and many people have brought it to my attention. Before the summer recess we debated another part of the Bill about which there was great anxiety.
We will be back to that part too.
While we want to tighten this section, I would not like to see the ordinary, decent hardworking person, who depends on his vehicle to earn a livelihood, with a wife and family to support, banned from driving for perhaps one or two years. That should be left to the discretion of the courts. We could consider this on Report Stage and, in regard to the categories I mentioned, perhaps we could use it in such a way that these people would be taken into account. I am talking about minor offences in particular. I realise it will depend on how the Judiciary views minor offences but on reading that section it is clear they could consider a minor offences to be a serious offence. I understand it is difficult to word the Bill to everyone's satisfaction but I have a reservation in regard to this section.
When Members express reservations, particularly in instances like this, it does not mean that we are not extremely supportive of what the Minister is doing in this Bill. Everybody is supportive of that but we are trying to ensure that there is fairness throughout the Bill. I do not think that fairness militates against what the Minister is trying to achieve.
The various points about the discretion of the courts are valid. In circumstances involving dangerous driving it can be argued that there should be mandatory sentencing and it is at the discretion of the court to find that the offence was one of careless driving. I am not a legal expert and I understand the Minister is following the advice given through the Attorney General's Office, but if somebody is being prosecuted for what might be technically a dangerous driving offence, the court may find for the lesser offence of careless driving. Such difficulties tend to bring the law into disrepute and that is something we would wish to avoid. We are not trying to avoid the issue of dangerous driving and the measures the Minister wishes to introduce to deal with the offenders. However, the cases that have been described here might be minor offences, even though technically regarded as dangerous driving resulting in an unfortunate, tragic accident. We must make some allowance for that. A strong case was been made for examining the Bill again on Report Stage.
I would like to comment on this mandatory disqualification provision. Deputy Connolly gave an example of a person prosecuted for dangerous driving even though it may not necessarily have been his fault. For instance, the brakes could have failed, he may have gone across the white line and the garda in question could have decided to prosecute for dangerous driving. That person would then be put off the road for one year at least. That is taking discretion away from the judge in every case. This is not right because a person's life and that of his family could be destroyed by the effect of this provision. I would ask the Minister to consider this again because it may have a bearing on the lives of many people who may not be at fault.
The Minister made a comment that I was trying to trivialise the debate. I would like to put on record my objection to the patronising tone of the Minister and I regret that he has introduced that type of sentiment into a debate which heretofore had been very constructive.
I did not say that.
I feel strongly about it.
Deputy Doyle, with all due respects you are being argumentative. The Minister did not say that and it is unfair to make that comment.
I will refer you to the record when it becomes available. He did use the word "trivialise" in terms of my contribution.
I said "trivialising dangerous driving". It is a totally different matter to say that the Deputy was trivialising the debate.
The Minister did suggest that I was trivialising dangerous driving and I certainly was not doing so. The record will point to the fact that at no stage this afternoon did I give any impression of trivialising dangerous driving.
I would like to respond to some points the Minister made. Apparently the Minister is indicating that if the judge involved in a case does not want to be put in a position of having to impose a mandatory sentence on the defendant he can simply direct the jury to find against the defendant on a careless driving offence. Even though technically the offence could be one of dangerous driving he will use the "out" of deciding on a careless driving charge to avoid imposing the mandatory sentence.
I also understood from what the Minister said that he does not trust the Judiciary to deal adequately in terms of their sentencing power with offences as they come before them. I would question the extent to which this and other items of legislation are crossing the boundary between the law makers and the Judiciary. Our job as legislators is to make the law and we then must leave it to our independent Judiciary to impose the law. There have been cases for mandatory sentencing over the years in certain areas but the extent to which we are now using the weapon of mandatory sentencing within our legislation and removing more and more discretion from our Judiciary must bring into doubt this Government's trust in the independence of the Judiciary. We must look seriously at this area because we are stepping so far into the role of removing discretion from our judges that we may have gone too far.
One provision in this section insists on mandatory sentencing for somebody convicted of driving without insurance, i.e. disqualification for one year. Most people convicted of driving without insurance deserve to be put off the road for one year and in many cases they have been driving for years without insurance and perhaps their driving record makes them uninsurable. That is a different matter. However, genuine cases have come before our courts in the past where a wife believed that she was insured to drive her husband's car, or where a young person genuinely believed they were a named driver on their parents' insurance, or where a broker gave assurances that insurance was in place but failed to ensure that it was. There are genuine cases where people can be found at a certain point in time to be technically driving without insurance but the matter can be easily resolved. I am not talking about the perpetual offenders, the habitual criminal in this area. There are so many areas where any of us could technically get caught offside and now a mandatory sentence is being introduced with no discretion left with our judges. A person could be put out of work in a rural area where there is no public transport.
Untoward hardship could be caused to families and individuals by removing the discretion of the judge, for example, in a once off technical non insurance case. We cannot say, we will not charge them with that offence, we will charge them with careless driving. As the Minister is suggesting judges can decide on careless driving rather than dangerous driving in order to avoid imposing the mandatory sentence but if one has no insurance, one has no insurance, regardless of how good the defence or how exceptional the case may be. We are removing all discretion from the judges. The sentence is mandatory, a person must be put off the road for one year regardless of how good a case is presented in court.
We are in agreement with the Minister in regard to addressing the enormous problem of non-insured drivers but there must be a role for the Judiciary in looking after the individuals who technically find themselves in breach of the law in this regard but who are not habitual criminals, who are no danger to themselves or to others and who will immediately rectify any omission in terms of how they stand in this area. That is not acceptable and I do not believe that the extent to which the Minister is moving into the realm of the independence of the Judiciary and removing all discretion from them is constitutional. That is but one example.
The Minister said there were no amendments before him. I cannot speak for the Progressive Democrats and the other parties but the Fine Gael Party does not have the resources available to it that the Minister would have, in terms of research and technical back-up in the Attorney General's Office, to draft technical legal amendments in complicated areas such as the Bill we are dealing with but that will not stop me from expressing my reservations. I will continue to do so even if I am accused by the Minister of trivialising dangerous driving. I rest my case.
I want a healthy debate on all these matters and to resolve these problems. As Deputy Keogh is aware, her party leader chaired the inter-ministerial committee which made this recommendation. On the question of dangerous driving, regrettably, there are transgressions of the law which are not minor or trivial; they are outrageously dangerous. Dangerous driving is an offence and poses a serious threat to the public. I am not talking about minor transgressions of the law — for example, crossing a white line — but about those who overtake on a bend or drive at high speeds. These people pose a lethal threat to the public. There is no middle ground: we either have mandatory disqualification of drivers or we do not. We have had mandatory disqualification provisions for years applied on conviction in cases involving drunk driving and death or serious bodily injury. They will now be applied in cases involving dangerous driving.
Earlier this afternoon a number of Deputies raised the question of enforcement. Up to 80 per cent of accidents are due to driver behaviour. Drink and speed are the main contributory factors. A combination of these two lethal weapons account for approximately 80 per cent of those killed and the 10,000 injured on our roads. As members know, there have been thousands of cases where people did something dangerous on the road. We are not talking about prosecuting everybody but about deterrents. How do we get the point across that we want a change?
Deputy Connolly referred to a particular case but that is a matter for the courts. Deputy Doyle was wrong in suggesting that I was offering a way out for the courts or that I had no confidence in them. I said that the courts would have discretion to decide whether driving was dangerous or careless. It is wrong to suggest that we are casting a reflection on the courts in making provision for mandatory disqualification in cases involving dangerous driving when we have had mandatory disqualification provisions for years applied on conviction in cases involving drink driving or serious injury and no one ever suggested that this was outrageous. As an ordinary person I would like to see more uniformity in sentencing by the courts for serious crimes but that is a matter for them; they will always have discretion. I also accept that there will always be a difference of opinion.
I agree with the Minister; perhaps the Judiciary need a "think in" to ensure uniformity in sentencing.
It is necessary to make this change because of the serious situation in which we find ourselves. It should act as a deterrent. Ultimately it will be a matter for the courts to decide.
Is the amendment agreed?
No.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 20, subsection (5), lines 44 to 46, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) section 53 of this Act tried summarily, or".
Is the amendment agreed?
No.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 21, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(6) In the case of a first offence under the section concerned the person convicted may for a period of 18 months be restricted to driving during specified hours to be determined.".
I propose in this amendment that in the case of a first offence the courts should have discretion in inflicting punishment. The main point I would like to make is that there should be flexibility so that the courts could take the circumstances of the people involved into account. This is done to great effect in many countries, particularly the United States where the person concerned has to report in, may have the use of a car for work purposes during the day but may not use it for their leisure activities. This would get away from the concept of disqualification for not less than one year and would allow the courts discretion in cases where it considered that the offence was not serious.
The thinking behind the amendment is not far removed from the thinking behind the concept of an effective regime of community service. The argument will be made that it would be difficult to enforce but in inflicting punishment we should take the circumstances of the offender into account. This is not an attempt to be lenient on someone. In fact, it would be inconvenient for them to operate in this way, but the amendment would allow a person who has to drive a car, van or lorry and for whom disqualification for a year would be out of proportion to the offence committed to remain in employment.
A person can be put off the road, depending on the seriousness of the offence, for two years. Deputy Keogh is now proposing in her amendment that they should be confined for a further 18 months——
No.
The amendment states that "the person may for a period of 18 months be restricted to driving during specified hours to be determined". What about the business person who is an employer? It would be difficult to determine which hours should be specified. Second, it would be almost impossible to implement this provision.
Under the Bill the person concerned can be put off the road for two years and will have to undergo the driving test again. In addition, other restrictions may be imposed by the court. If they were to be confined for a further 18 months we would be taking about a period of three and a half years. Is this what the Deputy has in mind? This would have serious consequences. We would then have to determine which hours should be specified and if the licence should be endorsed. Would it have an effect on the cost of insurance? I have no doubt it could not be implemented under EC law and I have grave reservations about it. I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve but it would be difficult to implement and it would not stand up under EC law.
I may not be in order but I would like to ask the Minister one question about this amendment. Has he ever considered the possibility of making special provision for those who earn their livelihood by driving a vehicle? I am thinking here in particular of bus drivers. Perhaps other penalties could be imposed. Given that people in this category suffer more than those who do not earn their livelihood by driving. This option may be worth considering. I have had personal experience of this in my own family.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear or the wording of the amendment is not lucid. The point I was trying to make was — Deputy Martin also made this point — that the person who earns his livelihood by driving some form of transport, be it a car, van or lorry, suffers more when they are disqualified than somebody like myself who could take the bus or DART to work. In those circumstances a case could be made that it would be inconvenient for them if they had to report to a Garda station each day, morning and evening, or if the car or lorry was impounded. We do not want to prevent people earning a livelihood. That is the reason I tabled this amendment.
Is Deputy Keogh proposing to amend the earlier amendment?
Perhaps the wording is not the best.
The Deputy should not take what I said out of context.
Deputy Connolly has a point. First and foremost, it would be unenforceable and would make life more difficult for the Garda. Earlier, reference was made to the need for enforcement. There are other technical problems which the Deputy may not have considered. The Deputy uses the words "in the case of a first offence under the section concerned a person convicted.. . ." but here we are talking about cases of dangerous driving involving bodily injury and death. The Deputy mentions a first offence but I take it that it is not her intention that people would have an opportunity to commit a second offence.
Perhaps the wrong wording is used but the point should be made.
As the Deputy is aware, we have had mandatory disqualification provisions for 30 years and they have been seen to act as a strong deterrent for everyone in society regardless of profession. While it is true to suggest that the person who earns his living by driving is hit harder it is equally true that that person has to be more careful. We are talking here about serious offences — cases involving death and serious bodily injury such as brain damage and back injuries. We have all been to orthopaedic hospitals, such as Our Lady's Hospital in Dún Laoghaire, so we all know what we are talking about. We cannot have half measures. While I can sympathise with the views that have been expressed it would be impossible to differentiate between different categories in imposing penalties for offences as serious as these. All in all, given our experience during the past 30 years, the mandatory disqualification provisions must be maintained as a deterrent to be applied by the courts where this is considered to be the right course of action. Therefore, I ask Deputy Keogh to withdraw the amendment.
It is not my intention that somebody should be given a more lenient sentence. I also accept that the wording of this amendment may not be "spot on" but if two people commit the same offence and face disqualification for just one year I do not see why there should be any great difficulty about punishing the person who earns his livelihood by driving a vehicle in the way delineated in the amendment. I accept that technically, the amendment may not be appropriate and I am happy to withdraw it in those circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Is section 26, as amended, agreed to?
No.
The question is "That section 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 16, Nil, 8.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Ó Cúiv, Eamon. |
|
Ahern, Noel. |
O'Keeffe, Batt. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
O'Leary, John. |
|
Connolly, Ger. |
Penrose, Willie. |
|
Ellis, John. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Kenneally, Brendan. |
Smith Brendan. |
|
Killeen, Tony. |
Smith Michael. |
|
Martin, Michael. |
Walsh, Eamonn. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Connor, John. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Currie, Austin. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
Doyle, Avril. |
Yates, Ivan. |
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 22, before section 27, to insert the following new section:
"27. —Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act and the Principal Act, the Minister shall by regulation introduce a system whereby persons who commit minor offences shall have certain points recorded against them and where such points exceeds a specified number such person shall have their driving licence endorsed accordingly and where such number of endorsements exceeds a specified number, a court may make an order declaring such person to be disqualified from holding a driving licence.".
This amendment proposes the introduction of a penalty point system for drivers who commit minor infringements of the law. Such a system would ensure that our courts are not clogged up dealing with such cases. My amendment proposes that certain points, to be determined by the Minister, shall be recorded against drivers who commit minor offences and when a number of these points have been recorded it will be a matter for the courts to make an order disqualifying the person from holding a driving licence. Similar systems are operated in other jurisdictions. Has the Minister investigated the possibility of introducing such a system here? What advise has he received on this issue? Would such a system remove minor traffic offences from our courts generally? I ask the Minister to give us the benefit of his wisdom on this issue.
I am aware that a penalty point system applies in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions where penalty points are applied on convictions for certain road traffic offences leading to endorsement or disqualification when a certain numbers of points have been accumulated. I appreciate the points made by the Deputy and her reasons for putting forward this amendment. However, I am not in a position to accept the amendment for the following reasons. First, we would need a central computerised licensing system. The statutory basis for that system was put in place in this year's Finance Act — the investment is approximately £5 million — and it will take four or five years before we can proceed down that road should we decide to do so. The introduction of a penalty point system is quite complex and we would need to give some consideration to it. I have a very open mind on this issue and we will return to it later when we are in a position to operate such a system in an effective way. That would require the introduction of a central computerised licensing system and we are on the road to achieving that.
My amendment proposes that the Minister "shall by regulation" introduce such a system. I take his point that we first need a central computerised licensing system and hopefully next year's Finance Bill will provide the finance for that.
The statutory basis for such a system was provided in this year's Finance Act and the work is proceeding.
Would it not have been possible to include this concept in this Bill, given the amount of time it takes to draft legislation and have it passed by both Houses. This is a very important point. Obviously the Minister did not have time to give in-depth consideration to this concept and include it in the Bill. I take the Minister's point he is sympathetic towards the concept. Indeed, if I interpret him correctly, the Minister will proceed to introduce a system of penalty points on licences during the next year or two. Would that be a fair interpretation?
I said I have an open mind on this issue. It is a complex issue and we will have a further opportunity to look more closely at the systems in operation in other countries. I am very much in favour of going in that direction. I am glad the Deputy is asking me to do something by way of regulation because up to now she was very much against me doing anything by way of regulation.
By way of affirmative regulation. The Minister knows my views on regulations generally. Such a system would involve a lot of teasing out, for example, the way in which the system would work and the number of points a driver would have to have to be disqualified by the courts. Indeed, the level of points might need to be amended from time to time. I appreciate the proper use of regulations — I never had any difficulty with that — but there has been some abuse in recent years where regulations have been used as weapons to preclude debate and gather too much power for some Ministers. I never had any difficulty with affirmative regulations which provided the Members of both Houses are not precluded from contributing to the debate on the relevant issue, can short-circuit a lot of tedium.
I will not press my amendment. I accept that we need a central computerised licensing system in order for this proposal to be effective. That is a fair point. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that the necessary research is carried out before the computerised system is put in place. There should be no further delays. Consideration of the type of system to be used should go hand in hand with computerisation so that we can get the system up and running as soon as finances allow.
I will be happy to pursue that matter. I am glad the Deputy is confident that I will be around that long also.
I said for a year or two.
I have certain reservations about the introduction of such a system and I should like this matter to be teased out more. For example, there should be more information on how similar systems operate in other countries, the type of offences we are talking about and the alternative methods available for dealing with offences — for example, on-the-spot fines — so that our courts are not clogged up.
In a later amendment I propose the extension of the concept of on-the-spot fines for other minor offences. It would be a matter for the Minister of the day and for his advisers to decide whether on-the-spot fines should be extended to other offences and when to introduce a penalty system on licences. For example, five or six on-the-spot fines for minor road traffic offences might warrant a penalty point on a licence. These systems are not totally disconnected and proper use of them could take much unnecessary work out of the courts and away from the legal system. I might add that I am not surprised there are some reservations about such a system among those in legal circles who see their bread and butter being taken away from them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.