Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 is out of order.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is the amendment out of order?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Because there is a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the charge on people's lives? Car accidents are not being properly investigated and people have died as a result. I am calling for a special unit to investigate road traffic accidents.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy might listen to the Chair. When the Chair is speaking, Members must resume their seats.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know why the issue cannot be debated. Something is wrong and I protest.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The situation is that there are Standing Orders governing amendments, and amendments that place a charge on the Exchequer are not allowed and never have been allowed. If the Deputy feels that should be changed, he should use the appropriate methods to change it. We cannot spend the day debating amendments that have been ruled out of order.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I make a point on section 2?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not deal with sections on Report Stage. They were dealt with on Committee Stage. We only deal with amendments on Report Stage, but the Deputy can speak to Deputy Crowe's amendment.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 21, after "2006" to insert the following:

"/ Achtanna um Tráchtar Bhóithre 1961 go 2006 ".

On the previous issue, there is a group that meets on fatalities, with two members of the NRA and six gardaí. It happens unofficially but I do not know how much it costs. The amendment seeks to insert the Irish language wording for Road Traffic Acts at that point. The matter arose in discussions on Committee Stage and I am interested to know why the Minister would be opposed to it. There are similar proposals in later amendments, but I cannot understand why the Irish language wording would not be included in the Bill. We have campaigned in Europe for recognition of the status of the Irish language, so it does not make sense to me why the Minister would not insert that wording in the Bill. The amendment involves a minor technical change and I hope the Minister will agree to it.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister gave some assurances following a discussion on this matter on Committee Stage. I want to revisit the issue because queries have been raised with me concerning the legality of this. Section 2 arises out of two Supreme Court rulings on how EU directives are to be transposed. This deals with the issue in the future. I had a concern about the robustness of previous penalties which were applied. On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that this section would not have any retrospective effect. I am concerned about the national car test, for example, and in particular the offence of driving without displaying an NCT certificate. This is an offence under Article 5, SI 395 of 1999. Last year, there were nearly 17,000 breaches of this regulation. Similarly, in the Kennedy case, the offences were created as a result of an EU directive. In this case, it was 96/96/EC. It was transposed not by the European Communities Act but by the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

This is similar, if not identical, to what happened in the Kennedy case. In that case, the penalty was considered to be ultra vires. The basis of the ruling was that the regulation arose directly out of EU legislation and, as such, should have been transposed by the European Communities Act or by new primary legislation which conferred authority on the Minister to make regulation for the matter in question.

Given the similarities here, the Minister should explain to the House why he is so confident that previous penalties will stand up. There is a view among some legal people that this is not the case. Previous penalties in respect of the NCT, including the non-display of an NCT certificate, may not have had a sound legal basis. If the Minister is prepared to give me a strong assurance on the matter, that is fine, but there are certainly doubts about this in my mind and other people's minds.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unnecessary to insert the Irish translation of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006 here, as suggested by Deputy Crowe. The Bill will be translated into the Irish language when enacted and therefore there is no need for the amendment.

As regards Deputy Shortall's point, we discussed this at length on Committee Stage. While I am not a legal person, I have obtained legal advice to assure myself in this regard. That advice confirmed what I said on Committee Stage, that the legislation is strong and the previous penalty points are secure. The Deputy is correct in that there is no more challenged law in this country than the road traffic legislation. The view expressed to me, however, is that the position is strong as it is.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 27, after "phone" to insert the following:

"and any other electronic equipment or general apparatus which may negatively affect a driver's capacity to drive".

The original Bill referred to mobile phones, but other electronic equipment is used in vehicles that can impair a driver's capacity to drive. Such equipment includes electric shavers, DVD players and televisions, which I have seen being used in cars. The amendment aims to strengthen the Bill's provisions in this respect. The current situation is madness. Everyone accepts that the mobile phone is out, but shavers, DVDs and TVs should be as well.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Essentially, section 3(1) has only one purpose, namely, to put an end to the dangerous practice of holding a mobile phone while driving a motor vehicle. The subsection has been drafted to make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle while holding a phone by hand, or supporting it by the neck, shoulder or any other improvised or contrived methods involving the body. It is fair to say that this prohibition enjoys total support in the House, including Deputy Crowe. I would be concerned about changing the nature of the prohibition through extending its application to include any hand-held piece of equipment, as proposed by the Deputy, because a level of unnecessary complexity and ambiguity would be introduced to subsection (1) that would dilute its effectiveness.

The power to impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mobile phones, in-vehicle communication devices, and information and entertainment equipment for the purpose of preventing or avoiding driver distraction arising from the use of an array of in-vehicle technologies and other equipment on the market, which is what the Deputy is referring to, is given to the Minister in section 3(4). This power will be exercised through the making of regulations by the Minister. We discussed this on Committee Stage. It would be the appropriate way to deal with the many technologies and equipment which Deputy Crowe no doubt has in mind.

It should also be remembered that it remains open to the Garda Síochána to prosecute under the long-standing offences of careless driving for the inappropriate use of technologies and equipment referred to in subsection (4), or any other equipment. Given that the legislative framework is now in place to do this, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no problem in withdrawing the amendment if the Minister is saying that he will examine the possibility of making regulations in this regard. The current situation is ridiculous. In some cases it is quite serious because people are following soaps on televisions in their cars while driving. It is crazy.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 4, 13, 16 to 22, inclusive, 31 to 34, inclusive, 41, 48, 51, 53 and 57 to 60, inclusive, are cognate and may be discussed together.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 28, to delete "the" and substitute "An".

This is a technical amendment and it makes sense. The Bill refers to "the Garda Síochána", whereas the title is "An Garda Síochána".

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been the tradition in all Road Traffic Acts from 1961 onwards and in other Acts, such as the Criminal Justice Act, to refer to the Garda as "the Garda Síochána" in the English language version of the Acts and "An Garda Síochána" in the Irish language version of the Acts. This is standard practice in all our legislation. That is the difference of definition between the two.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 6, after "to" to insert "promote driving with due care and attention or to".

I have no idea why amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are grouped together, as they deal with different matters. The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to direct the Minister to promote positively good, careful and attentive driving. The vague language in the Bill talks about "interfering with driver capacity". The Minister takes a more positive approach to the matter and the language used in the Bill should reflect that. Amendment No. 6 seeks the inclusion of a new paragraph as follows:

(e) any other equipment, apparatus, thing or activity which may impair or interfere with the driving capacity or capabilities of such a driver.

to leave an opening for the Minister to deal with developments in technology which are taking place at a fast rate. This would allow the Minister to ban or deal with new devices or apparatus that may come on stream without the need to resort to primary legislation. That would be a sensible approach which would widen the Minister's powers and enable him to keep up to date with various in-car technologies. I hope he can support it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This follows on in a more expansive way from Deputy Crowe's amendment. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage and obviously we want to keep the legislative framework as flexible as possible in terms of regulating in-vehicle communications systems. The Deputy is correct in saying that the ever-increasing use of technology is expanding daily. I note that one will soon be able to watch television on mobile phone. There are all sorts of questions about who will license them from some of the pay-per-view channels and so on. It is a serious issue. As stated on Committee Stage if I start to go down the road in primary legislation of identifying issues, a range of other issues would have to be added. Including it in a broadly based way where we have set the scene in terms of the use of hand-held mobile phones and allow for regulation to deal with a range of other issues more than covers the matter. Amendment No. 6 deals with the same issue.

Deputy Crowe referred to activities such as people shaving, drinking coffee, applying make-up, eating sandwiches or reading the newspaper. The list is endless. We have made the right start. The most overt and obvious danger in a car is the hand-held phone. Some would say that smoking cigarettes in a car is another issue. As a smoker, I am concerned about that one. There is a range of issues but we must start somewhere and I think we have made the right start. There will be a gathering up of all kinds of in-car technologies into the future. We are in the right frame and the strong advice to me is to keep it flexible.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My aim is to make the section more flexible so that if a new device comes on the market in six months' time, the Minister will be able to deal with it appropriately without having to go back to the drawing board. There has been much interesting research recently on the general issue of the ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones, some of which was covered in the media last week in the context of the accident rate for people who use mobile phones, whether hand-held or not. The research appears to indicate there is very little difference in accident rates involving people using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones. Some of the research has indicated that a hands-free phone is more dangerous because it involves the person stretching to wherever the phone is located on the dashboard. There has been research on that for the past ten years and it was covered in a recent newspaper article.

Does the Minister have a view on that? Does the issue of banning them arise at European level? One must start somewhere. I am not criticising the Minister but one must look at the research and work on an evidential basis. It appears there is little difference in accident rates. Perhaps the Minister would commission a study on that issue because we may be fooling ourselves into thinking it is perfectly safe to use a hands-free unit when the research does not show that.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is evidence based on that issue. I have power to make regulations to prohibit and go further. However, we must strike a balance and I would like to get public buy-in to the approach we are taking in all these areas. The Deputy is right to acknowledge we are generally in agreement that we wanted to start with the obvious one. I would like some more information on it. It feeds into the European regulations that may be made and getting agreement in Europe.

A person said to me that having a passenger in the car and chatting with the passenger is equally bad, and worse still is trying to control one's children in the back seat of a car. I am not saying everybody has that problem but there are inevitably day to day distractions within a car and I am trying to strike a balance on what one does in a car. Obviously the important thing is to concentrate on one's driving.

We have made the right start in terms of hand-held mobile phones. I accept this issue will not go away because of the expansion of technologies. The Road Safety Authority has a keen interest in what is happening in this area. I would like to see a European approach to this issue. At a European Council meeting in a general discussion on road safety, I raised the matter of a European-wide set of regulations and standardisation.

We will come to another amendment later with which I have much sympathy, where the Deputy talks about tinted glass in cars. That is a genuine issue and one that will have to involve manufacturers. Some of these issues will involve some agreement between the different promoters of this type of equipment and how we use it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, line 25, to delete "to a mobile" and substitute "to the use of a mobile".

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would bring forward this amendment. Section 3(7) sets out the defence provisions for the offence of holding a mobile phone while driving under subsection (1) or the offence of using a mobile phone or an in-vehicle communication device contrary to a prohibition on their use that may be introduced by the Minister by means of regulations under subsection (1). It arose out of either Deputy Shortall's or Deputy Olivia Mitchell's amendment that I accepted. This amplifies the point I made on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 7 is a drafting amendment to bring greater clarity to the subsection. The insertion of these words in the amendment in the subsection accurately reflects the offence referred to in subsection (6) relating to the use of a mobile phone or an in-vehicle communication device. It amplifies it arising out of Deputy Olivia Mitchell's amendment.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 9 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 10 is related. Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, to delete lines 27 to 29.

In all the amendments I have resubmitted, I have not tried to second-guess the Minister or to introduce new issues, partly because he promised another Bill but also because we have to give the new Road Safety Authority an opportunity to establish what needs to be done in many areas. Much of what is important can be done by way of regulation. I am anxious that the Bill we pass is sound. I kept my amendments to areas where the Act would be vulnerable in the future.

This is one of the areas where I consider that allowing people to use a hand-held mobile phone to call the Garda or an ambulance is leaving a hostage to fortune. I accept that in an emergency people must be able to telephone the ambulance, the Garda, the fire brigade or whoever else they want. Subsection (7)(b) caters for that whereas subsection (7)(a) opens up a minefield. There are opportunities for deceit by people who might later pretend they were telephoning the Garda when it might transpire they were telephoning to renew their passport. As well as the opportunity for deceit, one is offering a possible defence to people. The Bill would be much stronger if we were to remove what I consider a gaping hole.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand where the Deputy is coming from. The fallout from recent Supreme Court rulings has made everyone in the House very familiar with the importance of providing reasonable defences for offences in legislation. Subsection (7) has been drafted so that the use of a hand-held phone would be considered permissible in two circumstances only. The first would be a call to the Garda or the emergency services on numbers prescribed by the Minister. It would be the intention to prescribe 999 and 112 as these numbers. Calls to these numbers can be traced including, I understand, calls from pay-as-you-go mobile phones. That was the point raised by the Deputy on Committee Stage.

Given that subsection (7) is a defence provision, the onus would be on the person caught using a hand-held mobile phone to show to the satisfaction of the Garda or the court, as the case may be, that he or she was calling a prescribed emergency service. It would be relatively straightforward for a Garda to establish whether a call was to a prescribed emergency service telephone number. As indicated previously on Committee Stage I do not want to remove this defence provision from the Bill.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept what the Minister has said. I feel that is covered in subsection (7)(b).