Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is making great play about people wondering about trigger happy authorised officers. I have witnessed trigger happy gardaí who have caught people. With something as black and white as speeding, it is like shooting fish in a barrel given the places they pick on a good wide road on a fine day to set up a speed trap. They catch enough people to fill their quota of fines. The notion that there are no trigger happy officials and there are processes in place to monitor them is belied by what everybody knows has been common practice to deal with something as simple as speeding because, traditionally, speed traps would not be found on bad bends on bad roads. That was something we changed when we were in government. When we brought in the legislation to provide for speed cameras, we said they had to be erected at known accident spots because the safest roads tended to have the most cameras.

The one major difference, however, regarding fixed penalties is they normally issue for clear black and white offences that require a physical measurement. For example, the parking of a car on double yellow line can be clearly identified. The latest speed cameras capture images of both the car and the driver, which means clear evidence can be shown to the driver and used by the garda. Speeding is a calculable offence. In other words, once the licence plate and driver are identified, the speed can be measured. Some motoring offences are prosecutable on the basis of reasonable opinion, for example, careless or dangerous driving which are not measurable. These offences are prosecuted in court and if the garda has a reasonable opinion that the motorist was driving carelessly, it is not considerable for an on-the-spot fine or penalty points and the only person competent to decide is a judge. All fixed penalties apply to measurable offences. Unfortunately, animal welfare breaches are not measurable in the same way and, therefore, there will be significant differences between strict authorised officers and less strict officers. The senior official cannot go to the farm to examine the issues and he or she will be faced with many reasonable opinions if he or she is to overturn the official's decision. At the very least, the section should be deleted because it has not been thought out. It is unprecedented to impose on-the-spot fines in matters of opinion rather than mathematical fact. In this case, the Minister should accept the amendment that provides there should be evidence at the very least.