Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The amendments propose to increase the timeframes for masters to take certain steps under the Bill, such as making submissions to the determination panel requesting an oral hearing before both the panel and the appeals officer, and to provide extra information to the appeals officer too. The proposed amendments practically involve doubling the time period given for the master to input to key stages of the process. If I acceded to these amendments, it would delay the application of the points. Under the EU control regulation, points for licenceholders apply for three years, with a commencement date of the date of detection of the serious infringement. The amendments would delay the effective implementation of the three-year requirement. In addition, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on SI 3 of 2014 for licenceholders in December 2017. The judgment makes it clear that one of the obvious purposes of the EU regulations is to ensure that the system of sanctions and dissuasive measures operates efficiently and without undue delay. With this in mind, increasing the timeframes concerned in the manner suggested would hinder the efficient and effective operation of the points system.

Whereas the Supreme Court judgments relate to the licenceholder system, it is considered that the court's analysis applies equally in the context of the masters' points system provided for in the Bill. It should be noted that in the context of the licenceholder points system, certain timeframes were increased in SI 318 of 2020 to facilitate licenceholders, for example, making a submission or asking for an oral hearing within ten working days. A number of times were significantly increased. Those increased timeframes now feature in this Bill. I am satisfied that the current timeframes have given adequate time for licenceholders to make their case. For all of the reasons that I have mentioned, I do not propose to accept the amendments.