Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not accept the amendment and I will outline my reasons for Deputy Troy. We have a problem here sometimes with drafting. I understand Deputy Troy's intent but the effect of what he has set down is not the same as what he intended. We often hear complaints that drink-driving cases take too long to go to court. According to the wording of the amendment, Deputy Troy wishes to move these cases from trial in front of a judge in a District Court to trial by jury in a higher court. This would further delay the process. That is what it would mean if we were to change the reference in the legislation from summary offences to, as suggested in the amendment, trial on indictment. I am sure what is proposed is unintentional but it would further delay what is already a very lengthy process. If there were a trial on indictment in every case, it would involve a jury having to be called and the case going to the Circuit Court. There might be up to 1,800 people and a very long process. I do not believe the Deputy meant for every case to go to trial on indictment but that is the effect of the amendment.

If the amendment were accepted, people in the lowest range of alcohol while driving - 50 mg for standard drivers and 20 mg for specified drivers such as learners or novices - would have to go to trial by jury, with a possible penalty of up to €10,000 and-or two years in prison. I am slightly at a loss. I have been subject to much criticism about this Bill being disproportionate. This amendment is disproportionate as well. It would be an extraordinary move to bring every case of prosecution for alcohol while driving straight to the Circuit Court and before a jury. I do not believe it could possibly be the intention to go straight to the Circuit Court.

The proposed amendment will unbalance the legislation on intoxicated driving. Deputy Troy is proposing to make this change to section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, which deals with intoxicated driving. The Deputy might not have noticed that section 5 of that Act, which deals with intoxicants and being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle, parallels section 4 in structure and in offences. By proposing to amend one and not the other, he is doubling one set of penalties and leaving the other untouched. This seems to be a disproportionate response. The Deputy probably meant, and would like, to make these equalised in one way or the other but he has not done so.

There is a general difficulty here. I see it in several of the amendments that have been ruled out of order. Members of the Opposition have difficulties in drafting amendments. The fact is that they have certain intentions - whether they be the best or worst of intentions and with which we may or may not agree - but the meaning of the amendments when they are drafted and tabled is not exactly what they intended. That raises the question of whether parties in the opposition have enough expertise at hand to draft complicated amendments to traffic legislation which is, by definition, extraordinarily complicated and difficult. I am not being obstructive here but this happened with the last Bill we dealt with and the Clancy amendment. We had a very well meaning amendment, the sentiments of which I agreed with and accepted, but when it came to it being implemented, it was drafted in a way which made that difficult. I will remedy that on Report Stage of this Bill. However, I will raise this question at Government level. Members of the Opposition do not necessarily have the facilities to draft legislation in the way it should be drafted and whereby it means what they intend.