SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 2004

Road Traffic Bill 2004: Committee Stage.

Chairman

The primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for the introduction of a new system of speed limits based on metric values. The Bill also provides for the adoption of changes to the administration of the fixed charge system for traffic offences, including the outsourcing of certain functions of the gardaí relating to that system. It introduces a new offence relating to the supply of mechanically propelled vehicles to minors; extends and clarifies the application of exemptions from traffic and parking restrictions for emergency vehicles; provides for other miscellaneous changes to the Road Traffic Acts 1961-2003 and provides for certain technical amendments to the provisions of the Taxi Regulation Act 2002.

It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purpose of debate: amendments Nos. 3 and 4; 6 and 33; 9 to 11, inclusive; 13 to 16, inclusive; 18, 34 to 36, inclusive, and 47; 19 to 21, inclusive; 22 and 23; 37 to 41, inclusive, and 45 and 46. All other amendments which are not grouped will be discussed individually.

Ms Shortall

Why are we getting the book of amendments only this morning? This is our first sight of the Minister's amendments. The Chairman has read out a list of the proposed groupings but none of us knows the numbers on the amendments. It makes life very difficult for members of the committee.

Chairman

I agree with the Deputy that it makes life extremely difficult for everybody but we have all just received the amendments now. It is not the Minister's fault. His amendments were sent to the Houses but it appears that people were not able to produce them because the clerk had to go up and collect them five minutes ago, and that is wrong. Maybe this is an issue we can raise with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that it should be mandatory that the House provide amendments to spokespersons at noon the day before the meeting, at the latest.

Ms Shortall

The Minister's amendments were not even circulated on the white pages.

Chairman

When were the Minister's amendments sent across to the House?

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen)

Yesterday morning.

Chairman

The spokespersons may recall that I asked the clerk to write to ask that they should be in at 11 a.m. It is very unfair to everybody and it is wrong that this sort of problem is forced on everybody. If the Deputy wishes I will write to the Ceann Comhairle and to the Clerk requesting that something be done to ensure this situation does not arise.

Ms Shortall

Yes. The Chairman should do that.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his officials. We will now commence discussion.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (3), line 19, after "cited" to insert "together".

This is a drafting amendment to correct the description of the collective citation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"‘Act of 1975' means Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975;".

This is a drafting amendment for the purpose of defining the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975 which is now referred to several times in the text of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will be taken together by agreement.

Ms O. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 26 and 27.

This concerns the definitions of "administrative area". It is defined by reference to the 2002 Act but it is not actually defined in that Act. It is only a technicality but while we are changing a Bill we should be able to know by definition what an administrative area is.

Is the Chairman taking amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together?

Chairman

Yes. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to No. 3.

Ms O. Mitchell

I do not think it is. It defines what is in the 2001 Act. It is only for simplification and clarification. It will not change the substance of the Act.

Mr. Cullen

The first of these amendments calls for the removal of the definition of administrative area. I accept Deputy Olivia Mitchell's point. Owing to a typographical error in the Bill the reference to the Act of 2002 should be to the Local Government Act 2001. The reference is wrong and we will correct it.

The second amendment would introduce a fundamental amendment to the definition of a built-up area for the purpose of the application of the built-up area speed limit. That speed limit applies on a default basis to all roads in towns and cities with the exception of motorways. The Deputy's proposal would have the effect of extending the automatic application of that speed limit to areas outside designated towns and cities by means of the exercise of prescriptive power by local authorities. Local authorities already have that power and section 9 of the Bill continues the application of that power. The Bill proposes no diminution of the powers of county councils to apply the speed limit of 50 kph to roads outside the administrative areas of cities and town councils. On that basis, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Ms O. Mitchell

I beg the Minister's pardon. That is not the issue I was addressing. The Minister is absolutely right. My amendment refers to page 3, line 27, after "2002" to insert "and includes such additional areas so prescribed by a local authority". I was referring to a different subsection from that on which the Minister spoke. I do not follow this. As I understand it, the definition of a built-up area is a borough, town or city but it does not apply to the counties. On Second Stage I made the point that in the case of Waterford, the built-up area is as much in the county as the city. I thought that because a by-law would then have to be passed for much of the area, it might be better to leave this to the local authority. I do not know if there is another way around this.

Mr. Cullen

We discussed the point on Second Stage and I accept that this applies in my area, which I know well. The Deputy is correct in regard to the by-law. However, the goal we are both trying to achieve is that it would be a matter for the local authorities, which are the bodies which act in this regard in any case. I do not want to remove that power from them but to leave it with them. Therefore, I have not diminished their power. I contacted my local authority in this regard and know that the local authorities extend the speed limits by by-law. Therefore, there is no issue from their perspective because when they operate outside built-up areas, they do so by means of by-laws.

Ms O. Mitchell

They must also use additional signposts whereas if the definition of the 50 kph speed limit is within the built-up area, all that is needed is a sign at the boundary. I do not feel strongly about this but wish to make the point.

Mr. Cullen

I take the point. There is sometimes good co-ordination between the local and county authorities, which should always be the case.

Ms O. Mitchell

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Ms O. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 2, after "in" to insert "sections 2 and 11 of".

The amendment seeks to help to explain the section.

Mr. Cullen

I agree that the Deputy is trying to be of assistance. However, I am told that the determination in the Bill is sufficiently clear to allow for the immediate establishment of the meaning of the two terms describing both a county and city council. It follows on from the amendment we have just discussed and I am advised there is no issue in this regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cullen

For clarification, I will have to deal on Report Stage with the part of the Bill which is incorrect, to which Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred. I will correct it.

Ms O. Mitchell

I noticed it only today.

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy was ahead of everyone else.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 6 and 33 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Minister shall make regulations providing for the fine by way of fixed charge notice for unauthorised parking in a parking place for persons with disabilities to be in the amount of not less than €250.".

The amendment concerns the common abuse by able-bodied people of parking in disabled parking bays. It is a definite bone of contention among people with disabilities who have major difficulty in accessing services. Where parking bays are specifically provided for them, unfortunately, many others disregard this and block parking bays without consideration of the inconvenience caused. In many cases, such as that of a parking bay outside a shop or library, the disabled person cannot gain access to that service. The current system whereby there is an on-the-spot fine of €19 is completely inadequate.

The amendment is concerned with vindicating the human rights of people with disabilities and allowing them to access services. We need to be much tougher in this area. Therefore, I propose that we increase the fine substantially to €250. The Minister will probably respond that if cases are processed through the courts, there is provision for fines of up to €1,500. However, this is not happening and these infringements are dealt with in practically all cases by means of on-the-spot fines. We should increase the on-the-spot fine to make for a real deterrent for the public.

Ms O. Mitchell

I agree with Deputy Shortall. I was asked to put forward amendment No. 33 by my colleague, Deputy Deasy, who felt strongly about the issue, as do I. Parking spaces for the disabled are as often as not taken by able-bodied people when there is a shortage of parking. The situation is not as it is for the able-bodied because people with disabilities cannot go somewhere else to park. In addition, the issue for people with disabilities is not just proximity but the nature and design of the parking bay. My son uses a wheelchair so I know how frustrating it is when one cannot find a parking bay or when one finds a bay but it is not suitable for the use of a wheelchair because the extra space required is not available.

One will never find car parking areas policed in the area of cinemas, supermarkets and elsewhere. However, as an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the issue, a fine of more than €19 should be imposed. The rule is more often ignored than observed and if we wish to make a statement in this regard, we should by regulation create a special offence with a special fine applying to it.

Mr. Cullen

I thank the Deputies for raising this important point. We are all aware of the issue. The first of the proposed amendments provides that there should be a fixed charge or a fine of €250 for a person parking illegally in a disabled persons' parking bay. The second proposal is to introduce a specific offence of parking in such a parking bay.

The offence of parking in a disabled persons' parking bay was established through regulations made in 1997. Under section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, the regulation provides quite specifically for the offence described in the new section proposed by Deputy Olivia Mitchell. Section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which was substituted by section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2002, and section 3 of the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975, substituted by section 12 of the 2002 Act, provides the legislative base for the determination by the Minister for Transport of the offences in respect of which the fixed charge system will apply and the amount of the fixed charge to be associated with each such offence. Regulations to provide for the application of the fixed charge system to a range of offences, including the illegal use of a disabled persons' parking bay, will be made in the new year.

I am concerned that other drivers honour the reservation of disabled parking bays for those for whom they have been provided. In that context, my Department is currently engaged in a consultative process with the agencies that represent disabled persons in this regard and on other related issues. I have no doubt that a substantial fixed charge must be introduced as a deterrent to those who would park in these areas. However, we are in discussions on this at present. As Deputy Mitchell stated, these measures are introduced by regulation and I will act on this early in the new year. With regard to Deputy Shortall's amendment, the penalty will probably not be as high as €250 as this would probably not stand up, but it will be substantial. The current penalty of €19 is not sufficient.

I am aware of the issue. The relevant disabled groups are in discussions with the Department at present and have raised several issues, of which this is one. I accept the bona fides of the Deputies and agree with them in this regard. However, I will act on this by regulation in January next.

Ms Shortall

Is the Minister giving a commitment that this will be introduced in January next?

Mr. Cullen

The Dáil will come back at the end of January and I will deal with this issue at the first opportunity. I have no difficulty with this. I have told the disabled groups it will be done and they are aware of today's debate. I fully agree with the Deputies in this regard, although I do not think the penalty will be as high as €250 because a figure that high might cause the measure to be thrown out. However, the penalty needs to be significant to act as a deterrent.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome what the Minister has said. If it to become a special fine, different from other fines, then technically must it be made a special offence?

Mr. Cullen

No. It is not a fine. It is defined as a fixed charge and is ordered by regulation. Specific primary legislation is not needed but it must be covered under the regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, before section 4, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

4.—Section 12(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1994 as amended by section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2003 (which permits breath testing of certain persons who in the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána are intoxicated or committed an offence etc.) is hereby extended so as to apply to any person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.".

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with the serious cultural problem of drink driving in this country. The message has still not got across in spite of the advertising campaigns and so on and despite the carnage on our roads. Old habits die hard and 20 years ago none of us thought twice about having a few drinks and then driving a car. Unfortunately, many people still do not think twice about such behaviour and it is one of the primary causes of road deaths.

The Minister's predecessor promised to deal with this matter. His response to a number of serious incidents on the roads involving drink driving over the past year or so has been that he would deal with the matter in the context of this Road Traffic Bill and that he would introduce random breath testing. At the end of the day there is no political will to deal with the problem. That is very much associated with the large and powerful lobby of publicans in this House and elsewhere.

The Minister's primary responsibility is to deal with the problem of road safety, and drink driving is a major factor in that. We currently have the ridiculous situation whereby a person can be breathalysed if he or she has committed an offence other than drink driving. Under the current law, if a garda has cause to think that a person has been drinking and intends to drive a car, the garda can do something about it, but the reality is that he or she does not. Gardaí could stand at any car park outside any pub in the country any night of the week and clamp down on drink driving, but they do not do so because they are not instructed to do so. It is time for the introduction of random breath testing and there is a public appetite for it. We have been told for several years that this is not possible, the legal advice being that there are enormous difficulties involved and so on.

I am calling the Minister's bluff. It is time to take action in this area. If there are legal difficulties, the Minister should publish the legal advice he has been given. I am advised that there are no such difficulties and that we have the power to introduce random breath testing, as is done in most other European countries. That is the only way to tackle seriously the widespread plague of drink driving which is the cause of so many deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

That is why I propose this amendment in order to move towards introducing random breath testing. I hope the Minister can accept it.

Mr. Cullen

I agree with Deputy Shortall that this is a very important issue and one which I spoke about at length last week when we launched the Christmas anti-drink driving campaign. As I said at the time, addressing the problem of drink driving requires the pursuit of a balanced programme involving enforcement, public information campaigns and the application of a range of robust deterrents including driver disqualification. What Deputy Shortall said is right in one respect because she noted that enforcement of the law as it already stands, without regard for adding further legislation, would go a long way.

Ms Shortall

There is currently no enforcement.

Mr. Cullen

I was very clear on the record last week, though I was told later that I could have been more blunt than clear. At present, gardaí have broad powers which allow them to demand that a driver submit to a preliminary roadside breath test. Such tests can be applied where a driver involved in a collision has been detected committing a traffic offence, or where a member of the Garda forms the opinion that the person has consumed alcohol. These arrangements reflect the position in the United Kingdom.

Most people do not realise that at the end of December 2003, the ability to carry out breath tests was broadened substantially. If one has a broken wiper on one's car, that is a good enough reason for a garda to breathalyse one, if he or she is so minded. The situation is exactly the same as in the UK. The only reason I say that is that the UK has the second best road traffic accident record, being the second lowest on the scale in Europe today, as I understand it. The UK system works very well.

The introduction of the full random breath testing is a primary recommendation in the new road safety strategy and such a scheme would give rise to a situation whereby motorists could be stopped at any time of the day without any prior indication that they might have consumed alcohol and be required to submit to a breath test. This initiative, which is reflected in this amendment, would represent a fundamental change in the laws with regard to drink driving. For that reason I am currently engaged in a consultation process with the Attorney General to ensure that all the legal issues are fully teased out. In the light of that consultation we will identify the most appropriate way of achieving the objectives of the road safety strategy to combat drink driving.

I am also conscious that there is a clear urgency in finalising the legislative support necessary for both the metrication of speed limits and the outsourcing of administrative functions related to the fixed charge system. For that reason it would not be appropriate to add to the Bill a major policy initiative such as random breath testing. I considered the matter when this Bill was ready, but given the timeframe with regard to metrication on 20 January, I was not prepared to risk the Bill being delayed by inserting the other issues.

We are all agreed that there are major civil liberty issues involved. We must find a way forward but I do not know the legal answer. Until we do, and are on safe ground, there is no point in inserting some aspect of legislation that will not stand up. I hope that we might get clarity on the issue next year and if we do, there is a range of other issues, of which this is a centrally important one, on which we will be able to move. Currently there are many different views on the matter. The United States also face the same constitutional issues and they have largely the same system in place as in the UK, a system which we now have. The US standards are very high. There is a question about enforcement that raises other issues.

Ms Shortall

The Minister's reply would be fine if this were the first year of the Government administration, but it is heading into its eighth year. Two of the Minister's predecessors said just what he is saying now, that he is looking at the matter seriously and consulting widely, talking with the Attorney General and so on. No action has been taken on the matter. The promises are repeated every time a serious road traffic accident involving alcohol occurs. There is no evidence of any work being done or any progress being made in this area.

It is now time to act. For the Minister to suggest that he may be in a position to take some action at the end of next year is not good enough for those people whose lives will be lost between now and then, nor for the families who have lost people over the past seven years because of inaction in this area. The talk should stop and action must begin. We must move towards introducing a system which is common throughout most European countries. The rate of detection and testing is minimal in this country compared to other countries and there is direct correlation between the likelihood of someone being stopped for a breath test and the incidence of alcohol-related serious accidents.

We know the facts of the matter and what action must be taken to reduce road fatalities. It is up to the Minister and the rest of us to take action and do what is necessary. That is why I propose this amendment. To talk about the possibility of the end of next year is not good enough.

Mr. Cullen

I do not disagree with the Deputy. She is right about the facts, which I put on the record last week. Over 40% of those involved in road traffic accidents have alcohol in their systems, which is a phenomenal proportion. That is the sad fact of life in this country. There is no doubt there are some who would be alive to today were it not for people taking alcohol. I suppose we will come to a point where we will have to put something in place. If it goes to the Supreme Court, so be it. I do not really have an issue with that either. What I have an issue with is derailing the whole metrication process and finding myself in an impossible position in January. The process in which we are involved must go ahead. We will have to bite the bullet on this next year. It may well have been said to the Deputy before, and other Minister may have said it, but it does not necessarily mean they were not telling the truth.

Ms Shortall

No action is being taken.

Mr. Cullen

The issues involved are quite serious and argument about them is legitimate. There are many different views on this whether the Deputy or I like it. We must come to a conclusion at some stage on it. I will not risk this Bill. I cannot derail the whole metrication process for January. That is the primary reason. I did not have something ready to bring to the committee this week.

Ms O. Mitchell

I understand the frustration which leads to such emotion. However, apart from the civil liberties aspect, which will be problematic, I am not sure it is the most effective way to achieve what we all want to achieve, that is, to change attitudes to drink driving. The words "random testing" suggest an inefficient use of resources. What we need is more focused testing. The fact that at present we cannot effectively administer the number of offences detected or which could potentially be detected by cameras or whatever makes me ask why pass more legislation which we could not administer. We should put more resources into preventing drink driving rather than pass more legislation which we could not enforce. The recent spate of dreadful accidents and the fact 40% of people involved in accidents have consumed alcohol makes one despair. However, I am not convinced random testing is the solution. Intuitively, one might feel this is the way to go, but I am not convinced it is.

Mr. Cullen

A factor, which has become an issue, is the number of people who have taken drugs and how we cope with that. It would appear at a glance — this is a speculative view — that drugs are becoming an increasing factor. That is part and parcel of how we tackle, randomly or otherwise, this issue.

Ms Shortall

This kind of hand-wringing is not good enough. It has been going on for years. The Minister is in charge and has responsibility for tackling this issue. That kind of talk, saying it is a serious problem, is of no help to anybody. Ministers have been saying that for years. There is a growing problem in regard to drug driving, about which we must do something. It is not good enough and the Minister needs to take action. Let it be challenged in court if necessary, but at least take a stand and provide for random breath-testing.

It is all very well to talk about targeted initiatives. This is a cultural problem. The only way to change the culture is by enforcing the law and having a clear system whereby there is a chance one will be caught if one takes the risk. We all know of people who make sure their tax is up to date and their tyres are all right so that they will not be stopped, and they will be able to go out, take the risk, have four or five pints and drive. They do that because they play the law. If they do not commit any other offence, they know they will not be caught drink driving. That type of risk taking is widespread. It is a cultural problem which needs to be changed.

If we have learned anything from the early experience following the introduction of penalty points, it is that the chance of being caught has a huge bearing on people's behaviour. The only way to clamp down on the problem of risk taking in respect of drink driving is by introducing a system whereby people can be stopped at any stage and be caught. We must change behaviour. Random breath-testing is standard throughout Europe. I will press the amendment as there is a serious obligation on us to stop the hand-wringing and to take serious action to change the culture which allows this kind of behaviour.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 6.

Tá

• Shortall, Róisín.

Níl

• Brady, Martin.
• Carty, John.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Ellis, John.
• Glennon, Jim.
• Power, Peter.

Amendment declared lost.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, before section 4, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

4.—A person who is driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than one used in the course of the activities of the Garda Síochána or emergency services) and who uses a mobile telephone other than a hands-free telephone shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to like penalties as a person guilty of the offence of driving without due care and attention.".

This is another long-standing promise that was announced on numerous occasions by the Minister's predecessor, concerning the use of mobile phones while driving. The matter has been characterised by hand-wringing and long-fingering. We have been told that legal advice is being sought, yet the matter goes on and on.

The prevalence of using mobile phones while trying to control a vehicle is incredibly frequent. We see it all the time. As I said on Second Stage, one can see guys using one hand to drive super trucks on roundabouts, while the phone is in the other hand. It has got to the stage where it is a farce. People have no regard whatsoever for the law and action needs to be taken, although it has been promised several times. The former Minister. Deputy Brennan, said it would be included in this Bill, yet there has been no attempt to deal with it. Let us deal with it now, for once and for all. If people have to use phones in their cars they should install proper hands-free equipment to do so. It is not acceptable for large numbers of drivers to attempt regularly to control their vehicles with one hand while phoning with the other. There is no question but that it leads to a significant number of crashes on our roads.

In recent years there has been a total disregard by some drivers for the rule of law as it applies to road traffic regulations. People can do that with impunity because the Government is standing idly by and failing to take any action. It brings the whole system into disrepute, as well as being a major contributor to accidents. Let us bite the bullet and take action. That is the motivation behind this amendment.

Mr. Cullen

I am conscious that the use of mobile phones by drivers is a matter of immediate concern. Such behaviour must be addressed. The key question is whether or not the use of mobile phones by drivers can be regarded as contributing to offences such as driving without reasonable consideration, careless driving or dangerous driving. The Deputy knows that successful prosecutions have been brought for careless driving in respect of drivers using mobile phones. I am currently in consultation with the Attorney General on this issue.

If it is deemed appropriate, I will bring forward specific legislative provisions to deal with mobile phones. However, it may be more appropriate to continue to address the matter through the pursuit of convictions for existing offences, such as careless driving. A number of successful prosecutions have already been brought in respect of careless driving involving the use of mobile phones and, therefore, the matter is being dealt with under the law.

Ms Shortall

The Minister knows that the penalty points system was part of the 1998 road safety strategy, yet slow progress is being made with respect to the addition of offences to that scheme. Some 69 offences were supposed to be included in the scheme, which was announced six years ago, but so far only three or four offences have been included. For the past number of years, we have been told that the use of mobile phones while driving would be included in the list of offences incurring penalty points. The Minister knows that people's behaviour will not alter unless the law is changed. People are waiting to see if the Minister will do anything about this. His predecessor failed to do so. We need to take action. It is not sufficient for the Minister to consider whether action is appropriate and to offer assurances that he will look into the matter and take advice. This has been going on for years. We are already six years late in introducing an offence of using a mobile telephone while driving. The excuses and prevarication must stop. We all know this is a major problem on our roads.

Ms O. Mitchell

I support Deputy Shortall on this issue. She is correct that it must be incorporated in legislation. I accept the Minister's contention that action can be taken on this under the offence of dangerous driving. However, many people feel about their mobile telephones as they do about cigarettes or alcohol in that they should be free to use them at all times. Motorists are not aware they can be charged with dangerous driving as a consequence of using their mobile telephones in their vehicles. It is generally perceived that this is permitted under the law, despite that it is not possible to drive safely while taking a call on a handset.

Such behaviour is even more dangerous than we imagine. When I see a motorist using a mobile telephone, I watch their actions as closely as my own. For the sake of clarity, this must be made an offence and not simply included under the generic heading of dangerous driving. People must be made aware that such behaviour is not permitted under the law.

Mr. Connaughton

Why has it taken so long to make this behaviour an offence? Everybody seems to agree that using a mobile telephone while driving must be dangerous. The Minister has not been in office for long but his predecessor took no action on the issue. Is it his intention to act on this quickly or is there some reason that legislation cannot be enacted to deal with this issue? Are there conflicting opinions, perhaps as a consequence of some advice from the Attorney General? It appears to be a simple, straightforward matter to legislate for an offence of using a mobile telephone while driving.

All the advice I have received confirms it is a dangerous practice. I am sure the advice the Minister has received is in a similar vein. I understand such behaviour is in the same category as that of drivers who are fatigued. Its effect on a driver's competence is significant. Even if a motorist uses a hands-free device, his or her attention is still significantly distracted from the act of driving. I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify why legislation on this issue cannot be brought forward quickly. It has been possible in the past to enact legislation for a specific purpose very speedily.

Mr. Cullen

I am not unsympathetic to the Deputies' argument. However, I disagree on one point. The majority of motorists are aware that the use of a mobile telephone while driving is not permitted. That is my understanding of the law and it is shared by most people.

Ms Shortall

It is not an offence per se.

Mr. Cullen

There have been many successful prosecutions under the offence of dangerous driving.

The Attorney General has raised a number of issues in regard to this matter. The most significant of these is the question of defining a "mobile telephone". We may all feel we know exactly what is meant by this term. However, defining it in law raises a number of issues. For example, does a hands-free set come under the same definition as a hand-held device? If so, does listening to the radio come into the same category? A raft of issues emerges in terms of legal definitions.

Ms O. Mitchell

The offence should be defined in terms of a motorist holding a mobile telephone and engaging in conversation.

Mr. Cullen

As a non-legal person, I am inclined to take the simplistic view that the offence should be defined as the holding of a mobile telephone. However, the advice I have received indicates that it is not so simple. There is an entire range of issues here and the question of a definition is the subject of much discussion. I have no issue with the Deputies' argument and would like to introduce legislation to that effect. The Department is working with the Office of the Attorney General to formulate a definition which must be balanced and legally robust. Successful prosecutions have been taken under the heading of dangerous driving. I agree with Deputies that motorists can be seen merrily negotiating roundabouts while holding a conversation on a mobile telephone. There is no question that this is unacceptable driving behaviour.

Deputy Shortall raised the issue of penalty points. There is a good body of work on this issue but it needs to be implemented immediately in terms of enforcement. The public must understand that motorists who break the law will be caught more often than not. That was the indication when penalty points were introduced and we saw the significant drop in motoring offences in the months preceding that introduction. Motorists felt they simply could not break the law because they would be apprehended and penalised for doing so. This was followed by a type of standing off whereby motorists began to perceive they had a good chance of getting away with breaking the motoring laws. The supporting mechanisms for the penalty points system, especially the Garda Síochána computer system, are essential to ensure its enforcement. Motorists must believe they will be caught and penalised. That work is ongoing in conjunction with the Garda Síochána and I hope it will be completed as quickly as possible. A new traffic corps has been established. We are moving down a path, therefore, that will ensure many of these issues are resolved.

As soon as I can attain clearance on the question of using a mobile telephone while driving, I will bring a proposal to that effect to the Dáil and subsequently before the committee. Deputies should appreciate, however, that I cannot knowingly bring forward legislation that may be insufficiently defined and flawed. Nobody in my position could do so. I must be given a legal pathway that at best effort and understanding ensures the legislation will stand up to scrutiny in the courts. Deputy Shortall was correct when she spoke at length on that point on Second Stage. It is amazing how often the law in regard to motoring offences is challenged in the courts. It is everybody's right to initiate such challenges and people will always choose to exercise that right, no matter what laws are introduced in this area. I cannot argue against this, it is a consequence of democracy. This is how matters stand on this issue.

Mr. Connaughton

What timeframe does the Minister envisage before these legal issues can be resolved?

Mr. Cullen

I hope to resolve these issues within the coming year. I have just been informed that regulations which were brought forward in this area two years ago were rejected by the Office of the Attorney General.

Mr. Connaughton

Does the Minister intend to resolve the issue by the end of 2005?

Mr. Cullen

Yes. I do not have an issue with the Deputies' proposals but I cannot do something against advice and for which the pathway in terms of the legal framework is uncertain.

Mr. Connaughton

Is there similar legislation in other countries?

Mr. Cullen

Yes. However, the fundamental difference in this country is the existence of the Constitution. This is a fact of life and not a means for me to evade the issue. Regulations on this issue were drafted two years ago but were effectively thrown out by the Office of the Attorney General which claimed they would not stand up to legal scrutiny. I am caught in this issue, therefore. All of us are willing to move forward in this matter. However, I must have a legal pathway to do so and that is not yet in place. I repeat that this is part of the 1998 road safety strategy. The Office of the Attorney General has had six years to come up with a definition of a hand-held mobile 'phone and that is not beyond the capability of the office. The real problem is that there has been no political urgency in doing this. We hear bleeding heart statements from Ministers about road safety in the absence of any real action. If the staff of the Attorney General's office are instructed to come up with a definition they can do so within a reasonable space of time.

I am reminded of other promises made by the Government. It is not acceptable to play the card of consultation, consideration and promise. This is nonsense. Such issues can be dealt with in other countries. To suggest that the Constitution is an impediment to this measure in not believable. Such a measure is the only way to change people's behaviour and I am pressing the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 41, after "motorway" to insert the following:

"or part of a road or motorway".

These amendments clarify that speed limits applied by a city or county manager for the purpose of facilitating road works, which was referred to on Second Stage, may be applied to part of a road or motorway. The question of special speed limits which almost bring traffic to a standstill to accommodate road works was discussed during the debate on Second Stage. The amendment confirms that the provision remains.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 44, after "motorway" to insert "or part of it".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 48, after "motorway" to insert "or part of it".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, line 35, before "that" to insert the following:

"subject to section 4(2) and (3) and 9(8)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 2004,”.

This is a drafting amendment because the drafting of this section is defective. It states that one cannot drive a vehicle at a speed higher than that which applies to the vehicle or to the road, whichever is the lower. This makes a nonsense of the provision of section 4(2), section 4(3) and section 9(8)(b) by providing for a lower speed limit for certain vehicles. Accordingly, the amendment is designed to ensure there is no conflict between sections 4, 9 and 11.

Mr. Cullen

The short answer is that there is not a conflict. The structure being followed for the new section 47 of the principal Act is identical to that in the current text of that section. The key issue in considering the proposed amendment is the issue of whether or not the current text is adequate to address speed limits applied through regulations. It is my view that it does so.

In the first instance, an ordinary speed limit under section 4 can only be applied through regulations. Where special speed limits are varied under section 9(8) the resultant speed limits will have effect as special speed limits. For the above reasons, I suggest that the current text is adequate to establish a comprehensive basis for offences involving the breaching of speed limits. Therefore, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Ms Shortall

There is a lack of clarity in line 35 of page 8 and it should be qualified in the way I have proposed.

Mr. Cullen

I will maintain consistency. I am advised that it is solid.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, 18, 34 to 36, inclusive, and 47 are related and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "inserted" and substitute "as substituted".

These are drafting amendments. It is important to draw the distinction between inserting a section and substituting an existing section. The Bill does not maintain consistency in this terminology. These amendments are intended to bring the text into line and to clarify whether an existing section is being substituted or a new section inserted.

Mr. Cullen

We have often discussed the question of using modern language and making legislation more straightforward and simple. I have been advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that the use of the word "inserted" as set out in the Bill represents the most modern method of drafting. I propose to maintain that wording. I ask the Deputy, on that basis, to withdraw the amendments.

Ms Shortall

Is "inserting" a modern term?

Mr. Cullen

That is what they are telling me.

Ms Shortall

It is not a question of using a modern term but of being consistent in the terminology used. However, there is no point in holding things up over this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, before section 15, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

15.—Section 21 of the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

‘(1) The onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence (including the speed at which a person, whether the accused or another person, was driving) under section 47, 52, 53, 55, 91, 92, 93 or 94 of the Principal Act or section 35 of the Act of 1994 may be discharged by tendering evidence from which that constituent can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by—

(a) electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) capable of providing a permanent record (including a permanent visual record) and are contained in such a record produced by it, or

(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.',

(b) in subsection (2)(a), by substituting for subparagraph (i) the following:

‘(i) purporting to be, or to be a copy of a record (which is not a visual record) referred to in subsection (1)(a) and to be signed by a member of the Garda Síochána, and’,

(c) in subsection (3), by substituting for paragraph (a) the following:

‘(a) in the case of apparatus referred to in subsection (1)(a), be capable of producing a record of the measurements or other indications referred to in subsection (1), and’,

and

(d) by inserting after subsection (4) the following:

‘(5) In proceedings for an offence referred to in subsection (1) it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that—

(a) the electronic or other apparatus used for the tendering of evidence was provided and maintained by a member of the Garda Síochána, and

(b) that the development, production and viewing of records produced by such apparatus was carried out by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(6) In this section—

"radar gun" means an apparatus which—

(a) can be used to measure the speed of a moving object (such as a motor vehicle) by directing a signal from the apparatus at the object, and, if the signal is reflected off the object, the apparatus in turn receives the reflected signal, and

(b) is capable of measuring the speed of the object and displaying the speed on the apparatus;

"record" includes a visual record which can be stored permanently on the apparatus concerned.'.".

This amendment provides for a new section to the Bill relating to the use of hand-held speed detection devices. It was brought to the attention of my Department that certain District Courts had dismissed speeding offences detected by gardaí using hand-held speed detection units, radar guns for example. This was on the basis that no record was produced by the unit and furnished to the accused person before the commencement of the trial of the offence.

A radar speed detection gun produces a visual record of the speed of a vehicle that exceeds a speed limit. The garda who detects a speeding offence using a radar gun intercepts the motorist on the spot and issues a fixed charge notice on which he records particulars of the speed measurement detected and of the speed limit in force. Fixed speed cameras and other types of mobile speed detection equipment used by the gardaí are capable of producing a record in the form of a photographic image of the vehicle with details of the speed detected. This can be furnished to the accused person. Unlike the record produced by a radar gun, those produced by cameras are permanent.

My Department sought legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General in relation to the issues raised concerning the use of radar guns with a view to identifying if a change in the road traffic law was required. The Attorney General has advised that in order to establish greater certainty in the operation of this equipment it would be appropriate to amend the existing legislation. I am, therefore, introducing this amendment to the Bill in order to provide that clarity in relation to the use of different types of speed detection equipment.

I am sure the Deputies are aware of the recent court cases in this regard. This amendment will give certainty in that area.

Ms O. Mitchell

I know the problem the Minister is trying to address. Is he addressing it by removing the necessity to provide any kind of record?

Mr. Cullen

Yes.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is the Minister hoping that by putting it in the legislation——

Mr. Cullen

The hand-held speed detection devices do not produce the record of the sort on which people have been challenged. I am making certain they will not need to be challenged.

Ms O. Mitchell

While I know the Minister has experts in his Department and the Attorney General to advise him, does it not run contrary to all concepts of justice that no evidence is to be produced in court?

Mr. Cullen

The evidence produced is what is recorded at the time on the gun, written up and presented in court. The hand-held equipment does not produce a printout.

Ms O. Mitchell

At the moment one must have some.

Mr. Cullen

The vast majority of traffic offences involve the opinion of a garda.

Ms O. Mitchell

This is true, which brings me to another point. Last weekend one of the newspapers reported the possibility of private sector involvement in the operation of the cameras. I do not know if they would also operate the radar guns. While the word of a garda might be acceptable to the public, that is as much as is acceptable. It would not be acceptable to have private sector firms provide that kind of a service and have people convicted on a whim. The Minister should tread very carefully here.

Mr. Cullen

I absolutely agree with the Deputy. However, nothing in this Bill deals with that aspect.

Ms O. Mitchell

The intention may be——

Mr. Cullen

Serious issues exist.

Ms O. Mitchell

I agree.

Ms Shortall

I listened to the Minister's comments on the amendment. I absolutely accept the need to deal with the legal loopholes that have emerged over the years. This area has been extremely problematic. I have not had a chance to read the amendment as I have only just received the amendments. I reserve the right to table amendments on Report Stage.

Mr. Cullen

I have no issue with that.

Ms Shortall

This is not a satisfactory way to do business. It is appalling to expect people to deal with this matter on the hoof.

Mr. Cullen

I understand the Deputy's frustration. I myself have been there before. The difficulty with the Bill is that 20 January was a "done date" and I had to get this Bill passed.

Ms Shortall

The Minister has known of that target date for years.

Mr. Cullen

This is why I did not try to expand the Bill in general. However, I have introduced this measure. I accept the Deputy's bona fides and have no difficulty if she wants to return to the issue on Report Stage.

Ms Shortall

All we want is 24 hours' notice so that we can read the amendments before making decisions.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Minister seems to be specifying two matters. He is specifying that no record is needed. He is also specifying that it is not necessary to prove that the equipment was accurate or in good working order. Is this something new?

Mr. Cullen

That is already there.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is already there and so is not new.

Mr. Cullen

No.

Ms O. Mitchell

What is the Minister trying to achieve in sections 15(b) and 15(c)? Are we discussing what a radar gun means and——

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy stated that no record is kept. However, no permanent record is kept. A written record is kept, but not a record that emanates from the radar gun itself. I am splitting the two definitions.

Ms O. Mitchell

What is a "visual record"?

Mr. Cullen

A photograph or a digital readout.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Amendment No. 18 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 10, subsection (1), lines 18 to 21, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

‘(1) This section applies to—

(a) such summary offences under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 and the Roads Act 1993 as may be declared by the Minister by regulations, made after consultation with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to be fixed charge offence, and

(b) an offence under section 73 of the Finance Act 1976,

and an offence standing so declared under paragraph (a), and the offence referred to in paragraph (b), of this subsection are referred to in this section as a fixed charge offences.’,

(b) in subsection (4), by substituting for paragraph (b) the following:

‘(b) the registered owner of the vehicle—

(i) being an individual was not driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(ii) being a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons was not capable of driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

at the time of the commission of the alleged offence to which the notice relates,',

(c) by inserting after subsection (6) the following:

‘(6A) A notice under this section in the prescribed form—

(a) shall contain details of the manner of payment of a fixed charge, and

(b) may specify the person to whom and the place where the payment is to be made and whether the payment is to be accompanied by the notice, duly completed.’,

(d) in subsection (7) by substituting for paragraphs (b) and (c) the following:

‘(b) the person may, during the period of 28 days beginning on the date of the notice, make a payment of a fixed charge as specified in the notice,

(c) if the person does not make the payment specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, during the period so specified, the person may, during the period of 28 days beginning on the expiration of that period, make a payment of a fixed charge as specified in the notice of an amount 50 per cent greater than the prescribed amount referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection, and’,

(e) in subsection (8) by substituting for—

(i) paragraphs (b) and (c) the following:

‘(b) a person liable to be prosecuted for the offence may, during the period of 28 days beginning on the date of the notice, make a payment of a fixed charge of a prescribed amount,

(c) if the person does not make the payment specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection during the period so specified the person may, during the period of 28 days beginning on the expiration of the period specified in that paragraph, make a payment of a fixed charge of an amount 50 per cent greater than the prescribed amount referred to in paragraph (b) of this section,’,

and

(ii) paragraph (h) the following:

‘(h) subject to paragraph (f) of this subsection, failure to comply with the said subsection (4) is an offence upon summary conviction of which the registered owner is liable to a fine not exceeding €1,000.’,

(f) by inserting after subsection (8) the following:

‘(8A) The payment of a fixed charge shall not be accepted after the expiration of the period of 56 days beginning on the date of the notice concerned that was served or affixed under subsection (2) or served under subsection (5) of this section, as the case may be.',

(g) in subsection (9), by substituting for paragraph (a) the following:

‘(a) a person or the person to whom the notice applies may, during the period specified in the notice, as specified in the notice make a payment,’.”.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 set out a number of significant changes to the section of the Road Traffic Act 2002 which introduced the fixed-charge system. That section provided for the replacement of the original section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The primary reasons for these amendments are to address issues raised in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to provide additional clarity to the outsourcing of certain of the administrative functions associated with the operation of the fixed-charge system.

The first change sees the removal from the text proposed in the original Bill to the proposed section 1(a). The purpose of that paragraph was to support the operation of an outsource service for the operation of speed cameras. Proposals on such a service have not been advanced to the extent that they would warrant the introduction of legislative support at this stage. I therefore decided it would not be appropriate to proceed with that amendment at this stage.

The second change provides for the extension of the system to the offence of non-display of a motor tax disc. This will facilitate the application of a fixed charge to that offence at the appropriate time. I have amended a reference to a registered owner in so far as section 17(4) is concerned to address the issue of company cars. This makes it clear that where a vehicle is registered to an owner who is not an individual clearly the registered owner could not have been driving the vehicle. This is an important step in that added to the proposals set out in amendments Nos. 15 and 16 it will impose a greater degree of accountability on registered owners for the use of their vehicles.

The proposed new subsection 6A and the amendments to the existing subsections 7, 8 and 9 have been introduced to allow for a greater degree of flexibility in the method of payment of fixed charges. The amendment proposed for a new subsection 8A responds to a particular need recently highlighted to the effect that the section contains no definitive statement that a payment of a fixed charge will not be accepted after the expiry of the 56-day period established in the section.

The amendments contain a proposal that the return of the fixed charge notice duly completed, which is vital in the case of a penalty point offence, will not be necessary in respect of all fixed-charge offences. I commend these amendments to the committee.

Chairman

Does Deputy Mitchell want the Minister to speak to her amendment No. 20?

Ms O. Mitchell

I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Cullen

I have looked very carefully at the amendment proposed by the Deputy and the section as drafted is relatively silent on the method of service of notices, which is essentially the point of the Deputy's proposal. I would caution that setting out a dedicated number of options of serving notices might result in the omission of other methods such as ordinary post or affixing to the vehicle. I believe the method of service of notices should be left to the discretion of the Garda, which can best determine the appropriate method to suit the various circumstances that might arise. Different methods may be used in different parts of the country. However, control of this lies with the Garda and not elsewhere.

Ms O. Mitchell

As I have not had a chance to read the Minister's amendments, I must reserve my right to come back to them later. I am surprised at what the Minister has said about my amendment. While I was anxious to ensure that the operation of speed cameras etc. would not be outsourced, one of the purposes of the Bill is to allow the outsourcing of the administration, including the serving of notice. Am I wrong in this? If it is a question of sticking a notice on a car that is different. What is the problem in the first place? I understood that these cases were not standing up in court because notices had not been served and no proof existed of notice having been served.

Mr. Cullen

What was happening was that people claimed not to have received the notice. However, the Deputy is right in what she says. We are only outsourcing the administration, the processing. The Garda remains in control of how the notice is served, which is important because I——

Ms O. Mitchell

From the legislation it is not clear what we will outsource. While I have the Minister's word for it, I also rang the Department. When I spoke to the officials I was given to understand that this related to the delivery of a notice. I am talking about a notice to go to court having failed to pay penalty point charges.

Mr. Cullen

That is a summons, it is different.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is it being outsourced?

Mr. Cullen

No. I agree with the Deputy on this point. There are functions that can be outsourced and it is good to do that but there are also functions that must remain within the remit of the Garda. Public confidence demands that there be one body in charge of law enforcement and we must be careful about how and when we go outside that envelop and I am being careful here about it. If more can be done in terms of processing and administration, it will release gardaí to go on the beat, but the responsibilities for some key aspects must remain with the Garda. There are proposals to go beyond that but I would be concerned about going much further. I have not got my head fully around the balance of the issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

The legislation as drafted is unclear. Everyone I have asked to read it has concluded that the serving of the notice will be outsourced. In the amendment I sought to specify how it should be served. I went further than my other amendment, which outsources administration but then removes the onus to ensure the notice is served. It is difficult to separate the serving of a notice and the person who writes it. Is putting it in the post equivalent to serving a notice? Must that be done by a garda or by the company that gets the outsourced contract? We are arranging for better administration then saying that it does not matter if the administration is done properly. It is contradictory.

Ms Shortall

It is curious that the Minister has moved to deal with some of the issues raised under the C & AG's recent report. I welcome that there has been an attempt to respond to the problems but that does not tally with the point the Minister made earlier about issues that have been in the public domain for much longer in respect of drink driving and mobile phone use. The Minister's comments about ensuring the Bill is not challenged and metrification do not stand up. I have not had the chance to read these and I reserve my right to come back to them on Report Stage.

I agree, however, with the proposal in respect of the presumption being made. That happens in respect of notice in many other offences. It is an indication of the lengths to which people who are well positioned will go.

Ms O. Mitchell

Not if it is outsourced. It is different if a garda does it.

Ms Shortall

People to whom money is not a problem who are concerned about the possibility of losing their licence will employ the best legal advice and go through this with a fine tooth comb. It has been shown up to be a difficulty where proof was required and cases were thrown out on this basis. It is important that the presumption is stated in the legislation. We should not go to any other lengths or expense in terms of registering post.

Mr. Cullen

I thank both Deputies for the comments. I have no issue with this and will come back to it on Report Stage. There may be other issues as well. If I can get a legal green light to do any of these things, I will do them without hesitation.

Ms Shortall

The Office of the Attorney General was in a position to apply itself to this.

Mr. Cullen

I am not from a legal background but some areas are clearer than others. That is the way things are. I could leave it all there but I am willing to move on all these issues and I will do it as soon as I get a legal green light.

Ms Shortall

What is the Minister proposing on company cars? Who would the penalty points attach to?

Mr. Cullen

There are two proposals to deal with that later.

Ms Shortall

Are there proposals for drivers who are not registered in the State?

Mr. Cullen

That would require international agreement and separate legislation. There are different legal systems and ways of applying penalty points in other countries. There are even different methodologies within Britain and the North, which makes it even more difficult.

Ms Shortall

On the north side of Dublin and along the M1 speeding cars with yellow registrations are a huge problem.

Mr. Cullen

I would like to have an agreement, particularly with Northern Ireland.

Ms Shortall

Does amendment No. 19 not deal with the registered owner of company cars?

Mr. Cullen

I will deal with them but the detail is contained in a later amendment.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is there any objection to amendment No. 20? It is not like other cases. The penalty points are part of a process. Once a person gets a fixed notice, a process starts automatically. If a person does not get notice, he or she does not know the process has started so he or she ends up in court. That might be the first a person has heard of the case. There is no way to plead the case prior to going to court. A person who does not pay the fixed fine ends up in court and can end up paying double the amount with double points. That is fine if a person knows it is his choice and has decided to go to court. It is not onerous, however, to put into the legislation that if the State has done this, it is covered.

Mr. Cullen

The minute it is defined, other areas and methods are left out and that will be used in court challenges. Where it states "by leaving it at the address at which the person either resides or carries on a business", how do we know that person got it? I am told we are much better off avoiding that and leaving it to the gardaí to administer. That builds in the flexibility because the Garda Síochána is the responsible body and we do not want to make things overly complicated, creating more loopholes for people to challenge. I understand the Deputy's aims but the best advice is not to go down that road. We should leave it to the gardaí who can be flexible.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 10, subsection (1)(b), line 29, after “completed” to insert the following:

"(unless the notice provides for payment without the notice accompanying the payment)".

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 10, subsection (1)(c), lines 33 to 45, to delete all words from and including “may” in line 33 down to and including “section.” in line 45 and substitute the following:

"may, by an agreement in writing, entered into with a person, upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement, provide for the performance by that person of—

(i) the function of the Commissioner in respect of the serving of a document under subsection (5) of this section, or

(ii) any of the functions of a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden under this section other than the functions specified in subsection (2) of this section.".

The purpose of this provision, which is inserted through section 17, is to provide for the performance of certain administrative functions in regard to the fixed-charge system, to be carried out by persons or bodies other than members of the Garda Síochána. The tasks to be outsourced by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the provisions of this amendment relate to activities that occur after detection of offences by the Garda Síochána and, as such, do not impact on the volume of road traffic offence detections concerned. Amendment No. 22 expresses this in a more obvious manner than was the case with the original text.

It is appropriate to pay for such administrative services by way of a fee per transaction. This is the most efficient way of paying for such services and provides the best value for money to the Exchequer. Due to the nature of the business involved, it is not possible to determine in advance the volumes of payments that will arise. This is dependent on a number of factors, including the number of detections made and the payment rate of such notices. Any alternative payment arrangement, therefore, would be extremely difficult to administer.

In this context, I ask Deputy Olivia Mitchell to support this amendment and withdraw amendment No. 23. I understood the objective of Deputy Mitchell's amendment and have tried to formulate my amendment in a manner that will bring clarity to the situation.

Ms O. Mitchell

I am reading the amendment for the first time. I do not see how it provides a safeguard to prevent the service becoming a revenue-raising function. My intention was to prevent any outsourced service from becoming revenue-raising, or even the perception that such is the function. There have been accusations in this regard about the NCT and the clamping of vehicles in Dublin city. It is the perception, whether correct or incorrect, with regard to a variety of facilities that are partly related to the administration of justice. The purpose of my amendment No. 23 is to ensure such a perception is not created by stipulating that payment should not be according to volume. Perhaps it should be the other way around in that the definition of success is in securing a lesser number of convictions.

I accept that the Minister understands my point but I am not sure how his amendment No. 22 guarantees what I am trying to achieve.

Mr. Cullen

I understand where the Deputy is coming from and am in agreement with her objective. I share the Deputy's concerns regarding the perception of clampers and so on. It is the Garda Síochána that is responsible for detection. From the perspective of the Garda Síochána, the revenue generated arises only in terms of the administration of the system. Nobody within the administrative system generates an increased revenue because they have a role in the detection.

Deputy Mitchell is moving to consideration of another level, perhaps in terms of giving out the cameras and so on. This brings us to a different question that is fundamentally concerned with the application of law. I am not minded to introduce a system that is based on a major incentive for revenue earning. That is not the way to go. In this case, however, all revenue is generated by the Garda Síochána and there is no opportunity to enhance revenue on the administrative side.

Ms O. Mitchell

It was my worry regarding the previous section that this was not obvious.

Mr. Cullen

I am sorry if that was the case.

Ms Shortall

Is there also a need to ensure that the Garda Síochána is not working to targets of volume? The aim should be quality, not quantity.

Mr. Cullen

I made it clear, as did Deputies Mitchell and Shortall, that the entire context of the traffic corps will not be focused on the motorways, although there has unfortunately been a major motorway accident recently. The evidence is clear, however, that the safest roads are generally the motorways and dual carriageways. The notion of gardaí sitting beside motorways is one that annoys people to a degree and discredits the system. People want the Garda detection units to operate in those areas in which accidents are known to be most likely to happen, as evidenced by the track record. Another issue is the timing of the operation of the units. Accidents are most likely to happen between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. We are not blind to the obvious.

Ms Shortall

By the same token, the Minister might consider the case of those gardaí who are standing and chatting at every junction in Dublin as part of Operation Freeflow. One must wonder if there is a more effective way of deploying Garda resources.

Chairman

Deputy Shortall's question relates to a different issue from that under discussion.

Mr. Cullen

Yesterday I encountered gardaí operating very efficiently at two junctions. The Garda presence was not so effective at one other junction I drove through.

Ms O. Mitchell

Perhaps a measure of the effectiveness of the gardaí is that they could chat. That is the difficulty. They have done the job.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 11, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) of section 103 of the Principal Act which are in force immediately before the commencement of the amendment effected by subsection (1)(a) continue in force after such commencement as if made under that subsection inserted by subsection (1)(a).”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the fixed-charge regulations made immediately prior to the commencement of the amendment referred to in amendment No. 19, which provides for the extension of the application of the offences to which the system relates, will continue in force. It is a belt and braces amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 11, before section 18, to insert the following new section:

"18.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (11) of section 103 (inserted by section 11 of the Act of 2002) of the Principal Act and subsection (10) of section 3 (inserted by section 12 of the Act of 2002) of the Act of 1975 where the registered owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not furnish the information specified in either of those subsections and the owner is not an individual, then—

(a) where the vehicle has been registered in the State but has not been first licensed under the Regulations of 1992, the individual who applied for registration under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992,

(b) where the vehicle has been licensed in the State under the Regulations of 1992, the individual who most recently applied to have the vehicle licensed before the commission of the alleged offence,

(c) where the vehicle is used under a trade licence issued under section 21 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, the individual who most recently applied for the licence before the commission of the alleged offence, or

(d) where the vehicle was the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or a letting agreement at the time of the commission of the alleged offence—

(i) the individual who was in possession of the vehicle under the agreement, or

(ii) where the person who was in possession of the vehicle under the agreement is not an individual, the individual who made the agreement with the owner for possession of the vehicle under the agreement,

is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) in relation to section 103(11) of the Principal Act, a member of the Garda Síochána, or

(b) in relation to section 3(10) of the Act of 1975, a traffic warden,

shall, at all reasonable times, have access to and may inspect and examine—

(i) the register maintained under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 or article 22 of the Regulations of 1992,

(ii) records maintained under section 60 (as amended by section 86 of the Finance Act 1994) of the Finance Act 1993, or

(iii) any documents in the possession of the registered owner relating to a mechanically propelled vehicle registered under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992, licensed under the Regulations of 1992 or in respect of which a trade licence has been issued under section 21 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992,

and may require such information (including information of the identity of any driver of the vehicle concerned) of a registered owner or a person in his or her employment as the member or warden considers necessary.

(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden with such information as may be relevant for the purposes of this section or who provides information which is false or misleading is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000.

(5) In subsection 1)(a), (b) and (c) ‘individual’ means—

(a) the director, manager, partner, secretary or other officer (including a member of any committee of management or other controlling authority) of a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons in whose name or on behalf of whom the application was made, or

(b) that person himself or herself, being the director, manager, partner or other officer, if he or she made the application.

(6) In this section—

‘Regulations of 1992' means the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I. No. 385 of 1992) (as amended);

‘traffic warden' means a traffic warden within the meaning of the Act of 1975.".

Both this provision and that contained in amendment No. 26 are proposed in response to issues raised in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as discussed in the Committee of Public Accounts, regarding the operation of the fixed charges. Other proposals I present today have been formulated in response to other issues raised in that report.

The immediate purpose of this new section is to address issues that were raised in the parent sections with regard to the fixed-charge systems which were inserted through sections 11 and 12 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. In the case of both those sections, it is presumed, in the absence of information to the contrary, that the registered owner of the vehicle is driving, unless an alternative driver has been identified. There are other provisions in the relevant sections that can lead to cases being brought against a registered owner for failure to furnish information leading to the identification of a driver, an issue that is central to the proposal contained in amendment No. 26. However, there is a need to allow the Garda Síochána and, where appropriate, traffic wardens to be able to pursue the registered owner as a driver, notwithstanding that the registered owner is a corporate company or some other form of company or association.

The purpose of this section, therefore, is to provide a basis for identifying an individual who is a party to such a registered owner for the purpose of establishing that he or she can be presumed to be the driver of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Subsection (1) sets out the persons to whom this requirement may be applied. The individuals identified are the person who first registered the vehicle, the person who last paid the motor tax, the person who last obtained a trade licence for the vehicle or a person who entered into a hire purchase agreement or a letting arrangement for the vehicle.

Subsection (2) empowers the Garda Síochána or traffic wardens to inspect relevant databases to assist in identifying the relevant person and to seek additional information from the body that registered the vehicle. Subsection (4) provides that a person who does not give truthful information to the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden will be guilty of an offence, leading to a fine of no more than €1,000. Subsection (5) sets out a range of different office holders in corporate and unincorporated bodies in respect of which this section could be applied. Subsection (6) sets out definitions of terms used in the section.

I appreciate that this is a complex provision. It is also a provision that will not concern those legitimate corporate bodies who register a vehicle and take their responsibility to ensure those vehicles are driven in a safe manner and do not give inappropriate protection to those who do not comply with the traffic laws.

Every attempt must be made to heighten the deterrent effect of the fixed charge and the associated penalty points system. The purpose of the section, therefore, is to suggest to those who might consider that by the simple expediency of having a vehicle registered by a corporate body or an unincorporated body they would automatically escape the consequences of the commission of a penalty point offence. This section will ensure that they think again.

Ms Shortall

Is the Minister saying that, in the case of a company which has a number of drivers, if the identity of the relevant driver is in dispute, and it cannot be dealt with satisfactorily within the company, it is the registered owner to whom the penalty points would attach and who would be liable for the fine?

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy is correct. The registered owner of the vehicle can be taken to court.

Ms Shortall

Is that for the purpose of a fine or penalty points?

Mr. Cullen

That is to identify who was the actual person driving the vehicle. I expect they will identify who was driving the vehicle. This is a direct deterrent. In effect, there was no deterrent to a corporate body or to whoever was the registered owner. This was clear from the report and it is true but there was no way of getting at it and there was no deterrent to the registered owner not providing the proper information and the detail as to who was driving the car. We now have a methodology in place to demonstrate quite clearly to the registered owner that if he or she does not provide the information he or she will be taken to court to divulge the information. That was not in place heretofore.

Ms O. Mitchell

But a separate offence is not a penalty point offence.

Mr. Cullen

Obviously we hope we will not have to implement this provision. The point was that there was no way of punishing the corporate owner and there was no deterrent in place from the point of view of the registered owner of the car if he or she was not driving it.

Ms Shortall

That may happen in the case of an identifiable registered owner but what happens where a fleet of cars or vans are owned by a corporate entity?

Mr. Cullen

It is to determine who was the individual driving the vehicle.

Ms Shortall

I know.

Ms O. Mitchell

There is not a registered owner as such but rather a company. Who in the company is responsible?

Mr. Cullen

If I can read out what is in the next amendment it would clarify that point. It is on amendment No. 26.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cullen

The purpose of this new section, as is the case with the proposed amendment No. 25 which we have just discussed, is to further enhance the deterrent effects of the fixed charge and penalty points system. The two sections, introduced through the Road Traffic Act 2002, relating to the operation of the fixed charge system both include a requirement on a registered owner, who was not the driver at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, to furnish the information in relation to the identity of the driver. That is what I have been saying.

This new section establishes a new offence related to that requirement. It provides that individual persons acting on behalf of a registered owner of a vehicle, where the registered owner is not an individual and who connive or consent in the commission of the offence of not providing information in relation to the identity of a driver, will be held directly responsible for the commission of the offence in addition to the body who registered the vehicle. I know what the Deputy is at and maybe some people will try.

Ms Shortall

What is the level of fine proposed in those circumstances?

Mr. Cullen

It is €1,000.

Ms Shortall

That is nothing if somebody's life is in jeopardy. If it is to protect a person's licence there will be no difficulty in paying a fine of €1,000. That will not act as a deterrent in respect of companies that are in a lucrative business.

Mr. Cullen

I took the view that, in some respects, the fine is largely irrelevant. The public odium that would attach to any company that would put itself in this position would be huge. It would be scandalous.

Ms Shortall

When one looks at people who have committed brass-necked serious offences, including at a political level, I am not sure public odium stands for anything. There are vast numbers of people in Ireland who would be quite happy to pay €1,000 in a fine in order to avoid penalty points and this will not affect them.

Mr. Cullen

I take the Deputy's point. We will come back to it and amend it. If members want to substantially increase the fine I have no issue with it.

Ms O. Mitchell

From a practical point of view, trying to get at a big company for €1,000 is no deterrent. The reality is that a company where €1,000 does not matter is a biggish company and it can apportion the penalty points over a number of employees and ensure nobody ever reaches the limit. That could be done easily over three years. It is wide open to manipulation. The Minister has to accept that in some cases it will not be possible to tie it down completely. Obviously an effort will have to be made but the reality is that if the company has the power to decide who will incur the penalty points, it will use it judiciously and ensure nobody ever loses their licence. It is open to companies to do that if that is how we are going to proceed.

If, as was intended, the penalty points system was to be administered through the camera system, one was supposed to be able to identify the driver. That is how it was explained by the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who brought the legislation through. It was not simply the registration plate that would be photographed. That was how he defended this section.

Mr. Cullen

I am not suggesting that what we have in front of us is not complex — it is complex. All I can say to both Deputies in terms of the bona fides of trying to address a serious problem is that this is the best approach. I take Deputy Shortall's point. I have no issue with the fine and if we can have it increased substantially we will do so and sort out the issue on Report Stage.

The registered owner of the vehicle is the key. Perhaps I am being naive that companies would willingly do that. I am not sure if I can look at statutory regulations to force companies to identify the driver — obviously I am thinking as I speak — in a way that would narrow down those obligations. Clearly I am trying to do that and if I can strengthen it between now and Report Stage I will do so. I have the same objective as members and I have no issue with substantially increasing the deterrent.

Ms O. Mitchell

Will we come back to that issue?

Mr. Cullen

I understand there is a numbering mistake. Subsection (4) should be subsection (3), subsection (4) should be subsection (5) and subsection (5) should be subsection (6).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 11, before section 18, to insert the following new section:

18.—Where an offence under section 103(8)(h) (inserted by section 17 (d)(ii)) of the Principal Act) or section 3(7)(h) (inserted by section 21(c)) of the Act of 1975 is committed by a body corporate or by a person purporting to act on behalf of a body corporate or on behalf of an unincorporated body of persons and it is proved to have been so committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any wilful neglect on the part of any other person who, when the offence was committed, was, or purported to act as, a director, manager, secretary or other officer (including a member of any committee of management or other controlling authority) of such body, such other person as well as the body, or the person so purporting to act on behalf of the body, is guilty of an offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 11, line 20, after "the" to insert "accusation or".

This amendment provides clarification to the wording of section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 to reflect the fact that a person can be before a court to answer an accusation or a charge. The original text did not refer to accusation.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 11, lines 29 and 30, to delete all words from and including "in" in line 29 down to and including "(1) in line 30 and substitute the following:

"under subsection (1) recording whether or not a licence has been produced”.

This is another drafting amendment. There is confusion over the court order referred to. The court order concerned is not a court order referring to an offence referred to in subsection (1). These are offences to which the section does not apply. The appropriate wording would be a court order "under subsection (1) recording whether or not a licence has been produced”. As it is careless drafting, there is a need for clarity.

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy is correct. I will come back to her on the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 11, before section 19, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

19.—The First Schedule to the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) in Part 1, by inserting—

(i) in column (3) at reference number 9 after ‘Careless driving' the following:

‘where the offence involves the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle',

and

(ii) after the matter at reference number 16 the following:

‘

17

Offence under section 51A of Road Traffic Act 1961

Driving without reasonable consideration

2

4

'

and

(b) in Part 4, by substituting for the matter contained in column (3) at reference number 16 the following:

‘Failure to comply with certain mandatory signs'.".

The amendment seeks to introduce a new section that provides for a number of amendments to the First Schedule, Part 1 of the Act of 2002, which relates to penalty point offences. The first amendment provides for the inclusion in the schedule of the offence of driving without reasonable consideration, which will result in four penalty points upon conviction of the offence in court, or two points on payment of a fixed charge.

The second amendment provides clarification that a careless driving offence can only attract penalty points where the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle is involved. This section also provides for the substitution of the description of the offence at reference number 16, column (3) of the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act. This should read "failure to comply with certain mandatory signs".

Ms Shortall

I have no idea what is happening.

Ms O. Mitchell

We will let it go for now but we may need to come back to it.

Mr. Cullen

It comes back to the point made on the careless driving issue, to which Deputy Shortall referred. If one is convicted for using a mobile phone, penalty points can be attached. This goes some way towards dealing with the fundamental point to which the Deputy referred. We can return to the issue on Report Stage.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is that adding an offence?

Mr. Cullen

It is.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 11, before section 19, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

19.—Section 3 (inserted by section 12 of the Act of 2002) of the Act of 1975 is amended—

(a) in subsection (3), by substituting for paragraph (b) the following:

‘(b) the registered owner of the vehicle—

(i) being an individual was not driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(ii) being a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons was not capable of driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

at the time of the commission of the alleged offence to which the notice relates,',

(b) by inserting after subsection (5) the following:

‘(5A) (a) A notice under this section in the prescribed form may contain details of the manner of payment of a fixed charge.

(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (6), (7) and (8) of this section requiring that the payment of a fixed charge be accompanied by the notice served or affixed, as the case may be, the notice in the prescribed forms may contain details of the manner of payment of the fixed charge or without the payment being accompanied by the notice.’,

(c) in subsection (7), by substituting for paragraph (h) the following:

‘(h) subject to paragraph (f) of this subsection, failure to comply with the said subsection (4) is an offence upon summary conviction of which the registered owner is liable to a fine not exceeding €1,000.’,

(d) by inserting after subsection (7) the following:

‘(7A) The payment of a fixed charge shall not be accepted after the expiration of the period of 56 days beginning on the date of the notice concerned that was served or affixed under subsection (2) or served under subsection (4) of this section, as the case may be.',

and

(e) by substituting for subsection (9) the following:

‘(9) In a prosecution for a fixed charge offence it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that—

(a) the relevant notice under this section has been served or caused to be served, and

(b) that a payment pursuant to the relevant notice under this section, accompanied by the notice, duly completed (unless the notice provides for payment without the notice accompanying the payment) has not been made.’.”.

The amendment seeks to bring the provisions relating to the operation of the fixed charge system by the traffic warden service of the local authorities into line with the new provisions proposed in respect of the same operations by the Garda as set out in amendment No. 19. They provide for clarification of the position of the registered owner of a vehicle, where it is not an individual, for greater flexibility as to the content of the notice in terms of how payments are to be made. Payment will not be accepted after the completion of the 56 day period, and in any prosecution of an offence following an offence, it will be presumed until proved otherwise that the notice was served and that no fixed charge payment was made by the accused.

Ms Shortall

It is all right but I will read the detail later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 11, before section 19, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:

19.—Section 36 of the Principal Act is amended by substituting for subsection (8) (inserted by section 8(b) of the Act of 2002) the following:

‘(8) The Courts Service shall inform the Minister of an order made—

(a) under subsection (3) or (4) of this section,

(b) suspending or postponing an order under either of those subsections, or

(c) under section 29 of this Act removing a consequential or ancillary disqualification.’.”.

The amendment seeks to bring greater clarity to the specific occasions when the Courts Service notifies the Minister for Transport regarding the making of court orders in regard to driving disqualifications. The text provides a better reflection of the operation of the Courts Service than was the case in the original text set out in the Road Traffic Act 2002.

Ms O. Mitchell

Why does the Minister for Transport need to be informed?

Mr. Cullen

The Minister for Transport has ownership of the record. It is a technical issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

It appears that the computerisation of the process has been so tortuous and difficult that to add another person as part of the loop seems unnecessary.

Mr. Cullen

That has been the case. I am not adding to it.

Ms O. Mitchell

I understood it related to the licence file people and that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Courts Service were the only three offices which were part of the electronic loop.

Mr. Cullen

The driver file has a direct relationship to my Department, but there are issues in regard to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Ms Shortall

Why does the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government continue to hold the driver licence file?

Mr. Cullen

This is a broad brush answer; it will not answer all the questions. As the Deputy will be aware, motor taxation has been ring-fenced for local authorities. It is not part of the central Exchequer fund and the Department of Finance does not get its hands on it. The money goes directly into the local government system, which is a difficulty. I recall when I was in the Department that my colleague who was then sitting here said we needed to sort the issue. We can probably clarify it but there are concerns about the issue. We all support local government and one would not want to do anything that would place doubt on revenue from the motor tax area, which is significant in terms of the local government system.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Minister said he is the owner of the information. Of what information in particular is he the owner?

Mr. Cullen

The record.

Ms O. Mitchell

What record?

Mr. Cullen

The record of the driver licences, etc. The Deputy is correct in the sense that there is a split between two Ministers. In a perfect scenario, it probably should be exclusively the responsibility of the Minister for Transport.

Ms O. Mitchell

How will that happen?

Mr. Cullen

I am not adding to it. I do not deal with the matter personally. It is dealt with by the officials. The record of what happens in the Courts Service is attached to the driving licence.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is attached to the driving licence even though the driver file is held by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Does that Department inform the Minister?

Mr. Cullen

No, the Courts Service informs me. The licensing system is in the other part of the country but the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a role to play.

Ms O. Mitchell

What about the transmission of the electronic information?

Mr. Cullen

It goes straight to Shannon. Technicalities apply to my role and the other role.

Ms Shortall

The administration aspect of the proceeds from road tax could be calculated easily. One is talking about adding up the figures and deciding on the appropriate allocation to each local authority, which is straightforward. Would it not make more sense for the Minister to hold the file in his Department?

Mr. Cullen

I agree. I held a particular view when I was responsible for another area. I can understand why the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be determined to maintain control over that information and not depend on another Department to provide the information. I am not saying the other Department would not provide the correct information but there is a point of principle involved.

Ms Shortall

As Minister for Transport, the Minister has a much greater role in matters relating to licensing.

Mr. Cullen

I am not disputing that there is an anomaly. I did not come to that view just because I am in my current Department. When in the previous Department, I felt there was an anomaly. However, I can understand both perspectives. I appreciate the Deputy's point that in reality responsibility should lie exclusively with my Department.

Ms Shortall

That should not pose a problem in this day and age. If the system is computerised properly, it should be possible to maintain the information simultaneously in the two Departments if the systems are linked. What is the current situation in that regard?

Mr. Cullen

The ironic aspect of the Dáil debates is that the local government computerisation system is very good. Local government operates an incredible amount of very complex systems, which are much better than most Government Departments. It is as good, if not better than many international standards. I agree with the Deputy that in the age of technology we should be able to do this. However, there is a point of principle for a Minister for the Environment and Local Government in that he or she will not want to cede the authority and access which comes from dealing with motor tax. It is a central and significant part of local government funding.

Ms Shortall

That is fair enough. However, it does not justify the delay in transferring the information. In this day and age, that should be instantaneous.

Mr. Cullen

It concerns the courts and the Garda. I cannot answer on every matter.

Ms Shortall

Information from the driver file should come to the Department of Transport instantaneously.

Mr. Cullen

We have access to that.

Ms O. Mitchell

Whom is the amendment aimed towards?

Mr. Cullen

It is aimed at maintaining the status quo. That is the way it is at the moment and I am not adding anything.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is the information guaranteed in the legislation about a successful court summons or the driver file?

Mr. Cullen

The information relates to disqualifications.

Ms O. Mitchell

Does it have anything to do with notification of other countries and reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. Cullen

No.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is that sort of information under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Mr. Cullen

It is only about disqualifications.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is difficult to know why the Department of Transport needs such information. However, I am not objecting to it.

Ms Shortall

Is there no time lag?

Mr. Cullen

I did not say that.

Ms Shortall

Surely there is no reason why the information is not transferred instantaneously from the Department of the Environment and Local Government to the Department of Transport.

Ms O. Mitchell

This information would come from the Courts Service.

Ms Shortall

I am speaking about information in respect of the driver file.

Mr. Cullen

All information goes to Shannon, so it is not as if it is going to different Departments. Both Departments have equal access and an absolute right to the information. Neither has a superior right to access.

Ms Shortall

There seems to be a time lag when looking for staff.

Mr. Cullen

In terms of which Department is directly responsible, the driver file section and all of its staff are under the aegis of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. They are under that Department's administrative system, not the Department of Transport's. We must request the information from that Department. I will check this for the Deputy.

Ms Shortall

If I want up to date information on penalty points and submit a question to the Minister for Transport, the reply will refer me to the Garda or the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It seems neither he nor his Department have access to the information. Perhaps he is trying to make things difficult for us.

Mr. Cullen

I am not. I am told it depends on the question. I will come back and answer the Deputy's question on Report Stage. I will try to clarify the issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 12, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The following subsection is inserted after subsection (6) of section 35 of the Act of 1994:

‘(7) A permit issued under regulations made under subsection (2) (t) may be inspected, at all reasonable times, by a member of the Garda Síochána or (other than in respect of a permit issued under regulations made under subsection (2)(t)(iii)) a traffic warden.

(8) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to permit the inspection of a permit referred to in subsection (7) is guilty of an offence.'.".

Section 20 of the Bill provides for a general power under section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 for the issue of permits for various reasons. The proposal presented in this amendment introduces an express power of inspection for the Garda Síochána in respect of such permits. In addition, this power of inspection would be exercisable by traffic wardens in the case of parking permits. This power may be exercised in the case of disabled persons' parking permits if a garda or traffic warden needs to establish the permit by or for the benefit of the applicable person. This measure should safeguard the operation of the parking permit system and assist in the detection of illegal parking.

Some disability groups have raised the issue of people putting up untrue and illegal discs. We decided to grant the Garda and traffic wardens the power to deal with the issue. We are engaging in talks with disability groups at present and this measure is part of that process. If it is possible to deal with the issues they raise, I will do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Ms O. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 12, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

21.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to park in or obstruct a parking space which is designated as a disabled parking space.

(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall by regulations, provide a special increased administrative fine in respect of this offence.".

This amendment refers to fines for parking in a designated disabled parking space. It was discussed with amendment No. 6, which was not accepted on the basis that the Minister will——

Mr. Cullen

I will deal with the fixed charge, because it is not a fine. We will come back to the matter.

Chairman

The Minister has given a commitment to come back to the Deputy with regard to a change in the fine.

Mr. Cullen

The measure will be contained in the regulations. I take Deputy Shortall's point about substantial fines. They are wholly inadequate at present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Amendment No. 36 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 13, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"24.—(1) A person shall not supply a mechanically-propelled vehicle—

(a) to a person who is under the age of 16 years, or

(b) other then a mechanically propelled vehicle in respect of which a person who has attained the age of 16 years is entitled to hold a driving licence to drive, to a person who is under the age of 17 years.”.

I hope we are all on the same ground. This amendment addresses the issues which several Deputies raised on Second Stage. We are all trying to achieve the same thing, and I hope I have adequately achieved that. Section 24 of the Bill prohibits the supply of mechanically propelled vehicles to persons aged under 16 years. Several Deputies, on Second Stage, sought to increase the age threshold to under 17 years. They raised questions with regard to the level of the proposed penalty. The amendments put forward by Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Shortall reflect concerns raised in the House. I would hope the restructured approach I now propose will meet those concerns in a positive and reasoned manner.

The threshold of under 16 years was originally proposed because a person of 16 years is entitled to hold a licence to drive small powered motorbikes, agricultural tractors and some types of work vehicles. The prohibition on the supply to minors would conflict with licensing law provisions if the age threshold is set at 17 years on a general basis. My amendment retains the under 16 years prohibition threshold but provides that the prohibition on the supply of vehicles to a person aged under 17 years applies to all vehicles except those in respect of people aged 16 years and under 17 years entitled to hold a licence. The new section also proposes penalties of €3,000 in addition to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. I hope this proposal is acceptable to Deputies and that we are ad idem.

Chairman

Some of us noted that anomaly on Second Stage.

Ms O. Mitchell

Which is the Minister's amendment in respect of the six month prison sentence?

Mr. Cullen

It is contained in amendments Nos. 37 and 39.

Ms Shortall

I welcome the Minister's amendment, but Deputy Mitchell's wording is far more succinct. Whichever person from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel wrote the amendment made it convoluted.

Mr. Cullen

I have often thought the English we use is clearer than that which must be used in Bills. However, the spirit of the proposal is embodied by the wording.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 38 not moved.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 13, subsection (2) , line 5, after "€3,000" to insert the following:

"or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, before section 25, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:

25.—(1) A road authority may, with the consent of the Commissioner or at his or her request, provide and maintain on public roads in their charge any equipment or structure which the authority consider desirable for the detection of offences under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004.

(2) Section 42 of the Act of 1994 is repealed.".

Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 gives power to local authorities to provide and maintain certain equipment and structures on public roads for the purposes of detecting speeding offences. This new section replaces section 42 and extends the power to cover the provision of equipment and structures in respect of the detection of all road traffic offences rather than only speeding offences. This point was raised during the debate on Second Stage by Opposition Deputies and I am happy to reflect their recommendations in this amendment.

Ms O. Mitchell

Does the new section give powers of detection to local authorities?

Mr. Cullen

No, it does not. Local authorities can supply the infrastructure to support the detection.

Ms O. Mitchell

Can the Minister give me an example?

Mr. Cullen

If a camera was to be placed on a pole at a stop sign, the local authority, which owns the pole, can give permission for the camera to be placed there.

Ms O. Mitchell

I can see that but it is not what the amendment says. The amendment refers to equipment or structures "which the authority consider desirable for the detection of offences".

Mr. Cullen

The local authority, working with the Garda, may identify areas where detection is required. I am sure local authorities do so. They must have the consent of the Commissioner.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is the Minister sure of that?

Mr. Cullen

Yes. The section provides that a road authority may, with the consent of the Commissioner, provide and maintain equipment for the detection of offences. The section simply ensures that equipment owned by a local authority will be used with the agreement of the local authority. That will not be challenged in court.

Ms O. Mitchell

One never knows.

Mr. Cullen

I agree with Deputy Mitchell that one never knows what will be challenged.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 13, before section 25, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:

25.—Section 3(1) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting for the definition of ‘registered owner' the following:

‘"registered owner" has the meaning assigned to it by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I. No. 385 of 1992) (as amended by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 213 of 2004)), but, if those regulations should be revoked, it shall have the meaning assigned to it by such regulations corresponding to those regulations as may for the time being be in force;'.".

The original definition of "registered owner" is set out in the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the opportunity is being taken to restate and update the definition by including reference to the statutory instruments that have applied amendments to the definition over the intervening years.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 13, before section 25, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:

25.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) a mechanically propelled vehicle has been used in a public place on a particular occasion,

(b) the use may have involved the commission of an offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 (including a case in which the member has himself or herself observed the use), and

(c) the actual user of the vehicle was a particular person,

the member may at any time or times subsequent to the occasion in question require of the person the production of a driving licence, having effect and licensing the person to drive the vehicle used on the occasion in question, at a Garda Station or another place specified by the member, within the period of 10 days of the date of making the requirement.

(2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.”.

This amendment will provide the Garda Síochána with the power to demand the production of a driving or provisional licence subsequent to the commission of a road traffic offence. This factor is also commented on in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the operation of the fixed charge system.

The provision is necessary as instances have arisen where gardaí have been unable to check licence details where information has been found to require clarification so as to ensure that penalty points are applied to the correct driver record. At present, a garda can only demand production of a licence from a person who is driving a vehicle in a public place. If the licence is not produced on the sport the garda has the option to allow the person ten days to produce it in a Garda station. The licence cannot be demanded retrospectively. This amendment is necessary to ensure the efficient operation of the penalty points system and to ensure that points are correctly allocated to a driver record in the national driver file.

I have heard of people, inadvertently perhaps, giving the wrong licence number when sending back information to the Garda.

Ms O. Mitchell

I have heard of that. I understand. Will the amendment allow the Garda to check after the event when the penalty points have already been recorded?

Mr. Cullen

It will give the Garda the power to go back and check that the information taken on the spot was correct.

Ms O. Mitchell

How would they ever know?

Mr. Cullen

When the gardaí go to the licensing file they cannot match the number with the person and they know something is wrong. They must then go back and clarify the information. I have been told of a case in Cork where a false licence was offered.

Ms Shortall

Will the Minister deal with the practice of making the cheque out to the wrong amount when paying a fine?

Mr. Cullen

Such a case arose in the United Kingdom where a cheque cannot be accepted if it exceeds the amount of the fine. We have allowed for that and whatever amount is paid is accepted and the excess is returned to the sender.

Ms Shortall

Has that practice been challenged here?

Mr. Cullen

No, a case arose in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 13, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

"PART 5

Insurance

25.—The Principal Act is amended by substituting for section 56 the following:

‘56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless—

(a) either a vehicle insurer or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle, by him or her at that time, or

(b) there is in force at that time an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums, subject to subsection (2) of this section, without limit, which the user or his or her personal representative or such other person or his or her personal representative becomes liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user.

(2) The insurance required by this section may be subject to the following limitations and the following exception or any of them—

(a) it may in so far as it relates to—

(i) injury to a person, be limited to such sum as the Minister specifies in regulations,

(ii) 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.

(3) An approved policy of insurance referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section extends to damages or costs on account of injury to persons or property incurred by the negligent use of a mechanically propelled vehicle by the user in any of the designated territories to the extent required by the law relating to compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of mechanically propelled vehicles of the territory where the damages or costs may be incurred, or to the extent required by this Part, whichever is the greater.

(4) Where a person contravenes subsection (1) of this section, he or she and, if he or she is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner are each guilty of an offence and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.

(5) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under this section, it is shown that, a demand having been made under section 69 of this Act—

(a) the person on whom the demand was made refused or failed to produce a certificate of insurance or certificate of exemption then and there, or

(b) such person, having duly produced such certificate consequent upon the demand, refused or failed to permit the member of the Garda Síochána to whom such certificate was produced to read and examine it, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the vehicle was being used in contravention of this section.

(6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section is the owner of the vehicle, it is a defence to the charge for the person to show that the vehicle was being used without his or her consent and either that he or she had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent its being used or that it was being used by his or her employee acting in contravention of his or her instructions.

(7) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, it is a defence to the charge for the person to show that he or she was using the vehicle in compliance with the express instructions of the owner.

(8) In this Part "designated territories" means the European territories of the Member States of the European Communities (other than the State) and Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

(9) In this Part a reference to the territory in which a vehicle is normally based is a reference to—

(a) the territory of the state of which the vehicle bears a registration plate,

(b) in a case where registration is not required for a type of mechanically propelled vehicle, but the vehicle bears an insurance plate or a distinguishing sign analogous to the registration plate, the territory of the state in which the plate or sign is issued, or

(c) in a case where a registration plate, an insurance plate or a distinguishing sign is not required for a mechanically propelled vehicle, the territory of the state in which the person who has custody of the vehicle is permanently resident.

(10) In this Part—

"mechanically propelled vehicle" includes a semi-trailer or trailer (whether coupled or uncoupled to a mechanically propelled vehicle) used in a public place;

"semi-trailer" means the drawn component of an articulated vehicle or a vehicle constructed or adapted for use as such drawn component;

"trailer" means a vehicle attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle (or to another vehicle attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle) or a vehicle constructed or adapted for the purpose of being drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle;

(11) Nothing in this Part shall be read as extending compulsory motor insurance cover to any person in or on a semi-trailer or trailer when used in a public place.'.".

At present, unlimited motor insurance cover for personal injuries is compulsory under section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Until now, insurance companies have provided that level of cover in Ireland without question. They have spread the risk by reinsuring with specialist reinsurance companies. Internationally, reinsurers are declining to carry unlimited risks, partly because of poor equity performance and increased risks such as those associated with potential terrorist attacks. As a result Irish motor insurers, through the Irish Insurance Federation, have made strong representation to my Department to set an upper limit on the amount of insurance cover required by law as they may shortly not be in a position to provide unlimited cover in the absence of re-insurance cover for their own risks. Their concerns relate to their stability in the advent of large claims and to premium cost increases if unlimited cover continues to be required.

Some EU member states already have ceilings on the cover required. Others are now considering whether or not to introduce an upper limit. No individual case of inability to obtain re-insurance has come to my attention so far. Nonetheless, I am concerned that the difficulties faced by insurers could quickly result in the non-availability of any level of insurance cover for motorists.

The amendment proposed would empower the Minister to make regulations to set a limit to the amount of compulsory cover required where this becomes necessary and so enable insurers to provide cover for a known level of risk. I assure the committee that I would need to be satisfied beyond doubt as to the need for a limit before making any regulation to change the present requirement of unlimited cover.

Many amendments have been made to section 56 over the years, both to enhance the initial provisions of national law and to implement various EU directives on motor insurance. The proposed amendment would consolidate all such amendments for convenience and clarity.

Amendment No. 46 would effect the deletion of a reference in the table in section 23 to the penalty applying for the purpose of the section. The relevant penalty would now be stated in the amended section 56. The provision in the table is, therefore, superseded and redundant.

This is also a big issue in the airline business. I was aware of it in my previous portfolio.

Ms O. Mitchell

The amendment represents a huge change in the position as we have known it heretofore. I will not even attempt to comment on its implications. We must be allowed return to this issue on Report Stage. I do not know what the implications of this measure are but I know they are significant. This step has never been taken before.

Will the Minister make his speaking note available to Members or even a note by way of clarification of what is behind it? I did not catch everything he said.

Mr. Cullen

I will do that for the Deputy. This is a very big issue in a broad sense, not just in the context of this matter. It affects everything, after what happened on 11 September 2001 in New York. It is clear that insurance companies are becoming extremely concerned about the possibility of massive terrorist attacks and the ability to insure against those. Major issues face various industries, not just this one.

I am doing this because I do not want us to end up without motor insurance, which could happen. If a ceiling were required, we would need to determine the level. I would like to discuss this with the Deputies opposite to come to a collective view as public representatives on the matter. It is a fight that remains to be won and I would be quite happy to talk about the matter. I will provide a note on the section.

Ms Shortall

While I appreciate the problem the Minister has identified I am not happy about his proposals for tackling it. I want to consider it and come back to the Minister. Is he talking only about terrorist attacks?

Mr. Cullen

As I understand it, this refers to a mass catastrophe caused by a major terrorist attack, out of which the matter arose. The Deputy is right in asking whether we define it as a terrorist attack.

Ms Shortall

We have a huge problem with the number of uninsured drivers, as well as other issues such as the level of compensation awards made in the courts, etc. The insurance area is very complex and action needs to be taken to address the overall issue to bring us in line with other countries. I am unclear as to the exact nature of the problem about which the Minister is talking or the nature of the solution he proposes.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is this an attempt by insurance companies to take risk out of their business? They are being handsomely paid to cover such risks.

Ms Shortall

Is the Minister talking about extreme situations?

Mr. Cullen

Yes, absolutely. I accept this is a serious amendment and I understand its background. Insurance companies are limited companies, which is the bottom line. This does not apply solely to the motor industry. Across the board they will not accept their traditional position of being exposed to unlimited liability. When I had some discussions on the matter I had understood an EU position existed. However, it does not appear to be among my notes. I would like to check it out again and would be quite happy to discuss this at some length on Report Stage. My reason for acting was that I did not want to end up with Irish people suddenly having no motor insurance. It is that simple.

Ms Shortall

What is the origin of this matter?

Mr. Cullen

It comes from the insurance industry. Speaking from memory, as the Deputy may be aware, after 11 September 2001 governments had to move effectively to underwrite all the airlines. To my knowledge, that position has not been fully resolved. What was short-term cover has now become longer-term cover because the insurance industry will no longer accept it, given that the world is now a very different place. It is having a knock-on effect on all sectors. Insurance companies cannot get reinsurance, as this is no longer a risk worth carrying.

Chairman

While perhaps I should not do this as Chairman, to help everybody, could I suggest that the Minister make his briefing notes available to the spokespersons and the members of the committee to assist anybody who might want to raise the matter on Report Stage? We all see the problem that exists.

Ms Shortall

While in theory the Chairman's proposal is fine, the Minister needs to give an undertaking that time will permit the kind of debate required on Report Stage and that the debate will not be guillotined. This is a three-page amendment, inserting a new section dealing with an entirely new issue of which I have not had the chance to read a single line.

Mr. Cullen

I may have caused some confusion. Most of amendment No. 45 is a restatement of what exists. The new parts are subsections 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii), which will read:

(a) it may in so far as it relates to—

(i) injury to a person, be limited to such sum as the Minister specifies in regulations,

(ii) 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,

All the rest of the amendment is a restatement.

Ms Shortall

Why was it not inserted as a short amendment?

Mr. Cullen

The advice we got was to restate the entire section because amendments are made by regulation.

Ms O. Mitchell

This subsection refers to negligence and has nothing to do with terrorism.

Mr. Cullen

I am told we cannot use the word "terrorism". I have openly given the genesis of this matter and outlined why it has been brought to our attention.

Ms O. Mitchell

The exposure created by terrorism requires savings created by negligence. Is that accurate?

Mr. Cullen

The insurance industry is not capable of taking that extreme type of risk and is now refusing to take unlimited exposure.

Ms O. Mitchell

In any area.

Mr. Cullen

Yes, it goes across all areas.

Ms O. Mitchell

Is this due to any cause?

Mr. Cullen

Effectively, yes. We can come back to it in some detail on Report Stage.

Ms Shortall

I refer to what the Minister said about the amendment containing only a few lines that are different.

Mr. Cullen

The rest is a restatement.

Ms Shortall

Of what?

Mr. Cullen

It is a restatement of section 56 of the 1961 Act.

Ms Shortall

As we do not have a copy of that Act handy here, it is not acceptable to debate a matter like this.

Mr. Cullen

I am only trying to be helpful because the Deputy said she believed reams of new provisions were contained in this amendment.

Ms Shortall

There are reams of additional provisions in the context of the Bill we are discussing.

Mr. Cullen

The new provisions are contained in five or six lines. The rest contains the section that already exists in law.

Ms O. Mitchell

Its implications are enormous.

Mr. Cullen

I fully accept that and do not dispute it.

Ms Shortall

Did the original Act refer to terrorism?

Ms O. Mitchell

It did not, nor does this one.

Chairman

It is not possible to refer to terrorism.

Ms Shortall

Apart from that, was terrorism envisaged in the original Act?

Mr. Cullen

No, it would not have been. I am trying to reflect the reality that insurance companies will no longer accept unlimited liability, which is the bottom line regardless of whether I like it. The same is true for the reinsurance companies that cover the insurance companies. They have said this will apply to the motor insurance also. They will simply not do it. I am trying to protect the motorists of the State by moving in this direction and saying that we will put a ceiling on it. I accept that this is not easy.

Ms Shortall

It is potentially dynamite.

Mr. Cullen

It is serious — I do not dispute that. It came to me late and I am deeply concerned about it. I am aware, however, that this is going on across the spectrum, not just in Ireland.

Ms Shortall

Has the caution the Minister exercised in respect of the other major issues been applied to this?

Mr. Cullen

There is a danger no vehicle will be insured in the country. This is new and I am concerned about it. I will reflect on it between now and Report Stage and see where we go. I am told there is a serious danger to the insurance of motorists unless this protection is in place and I have some ability to put a ceiling in place. I will test that further and come back on Report Stage.

Ms O. Mitchell

Will there be unlimited liability available to me as a motorist in future?

Mr. Cullen

No.

Ms. O. Mitchell

Will liability be limited to what the Minister inserts in the legislation?

Mr. Cullen

Yes. We will have a serious discussion of what that will be.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cullen

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 13, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

25.—Part 1 of the Table to section 23 of the Act of 2002 is amended by the deletion of the matter in columns (2) and (3) at reference number 18.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 47 not moved.

Section 25 deleted.

SECTION 26.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 13, lines 21 to 35, to delete paragraph (a).

On Second Stage I pointed out that that the Government proposes to deal with taxi drivers who have committed offences in this section but we dealt with this issue in detail in the Taxi Regulation Act.

There is considerable public concern about safety, partly because there was overnight deregulation with no consideration of quality assurance for drivers and cars and there have been extraordinary delays in establishing the office of the taxi regulator. The regulator still has no office or staff and plays no role in the laying down of minimum standards or monitoring the situation. That is quite dangerous. Personally, I recommend to my daughters coming home from town to travel on the Nitelink and not in a taxi because of the dangers involved. There has been negligence at official level when it comes to ensuring reasonable standards apply to people driving taxis and getting licences.

The approach taken in this Bill, however, is too blunt. The Taxi Regulation Act is adequate if it is properly enforced and policed. My reading of the proposals here is that people who have committed summary offences such as failing to have a television licence could be disqualified from holding a taxi licence for a year. If someone was imprisoned for seven days for a minor offence as part of a campaign, he will be precluded for life from holding a taxi licence. The Minister is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and he should reconsider. People break the law in minor ways and that should not preclude them from pursuing a career in the taxi industry.

Mr. Cullen

I accept the Deputy's point. In the Bill there is a range of defined exclusions and I take the point about television licences. It is not the intention of the legislation but the possibility exists that it could happen so there is merit in the amendment. There are many offences defined in the Bill and we cannot ignore them. We must achieve both aims. I will come back to this on Report Stage if the Deputy withdraws her amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 26 agreed to.

Title agreed to.