Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this amendment. I thank Deputy Broughan, in particular, for the chance to discuss the production of driving licences in court and the recording of their details. As I and other Members of the House know, Deputy Broughan has taken a keen interest over the years in campaigning for improvements to road traffic. One of the issues he has highlighted is a problem that has existed for a long time, namely, the recording of the details of driving licences in court.

I share the sentiments of everybody who has spoken on this issue. There is a problem in that the matter is ultra vires. I cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Courts Service; that is a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality. It is unfortunate because otherwise I would accept the amendment.

In fact, it was thanks to Deputy Broughan that I introduced an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage to revise the existing procedure in this area which has not worked. My officials, therefore, discussed in detail with the Courts Service how it could be revised and made to work, and the result was the amendment that I introduced on Committee Stage.

The reason we need to record details is so that penalty points and disqualifications can be associated with a licence record. The new procedure in the Bill has introduced a requirement for a judge to ask for the production of a licence when a person is convicted. The court will then record the licence details or the fact that it was not produced. Non-production is an offence. Previous efforts to prosecute people for the non-production of a licence failed because the original summons did not state that they had produced a licence. I gather this will be rectified.

As I said, the new procedures were produced in consultation with the Courts Service and Garda, and they are satisfied they would work. I take the point about the five days. We need a speedier process, but it is not within my power to introduce that. I do not believe that the amendment would, therefore, be workable.

Section 22, which I am amending in the Bill, relates to what happens in court during road traffic cases. While I appreciate the motives of Deputy Broughan's proposal, it relates to internal Courts Service procedures outside the courtroom, and these are matters that are within the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality which cannot be dealt with under road traffic law. I would be concerned that the amendment might, therefore, undermine the revised procedure which we have managed to work out and I would appreciate if Deputy Broughan would, in light of that, withdraw the amendment. However, I will make representations to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister for Justice and Equality to make an appropriate change in the law when she comes to address this issue.

The five day element of the amendment is very useful. One or two amendments could be made to Deputy Broughan's suggestion which could be incorporated into the Bill. At the current time, the matter is ultra viresand I cannot implement the change.

See this speech in context