Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This Bill, as has been pointed out, seeks to amend a number legislative measures arising from the decision in the Ellis case. As I said on Second Stage, I do not have a difficulty with the changes. Many of them reflect what was in my Private Members' Bill, the Criminal Procedure and Related Matters Bill 2021, or go beyond it. The one question I have, on which I have not tabled an amendment but which arises from the Road Traffic Acts, concerns the fact that this Bill, arising from the Ellis judgment, deals primarily with mandatory sentences arising from second offences. Section 26(5)(b) of the Road Traffic Act relates to consequential disqualifications regarding offences under sections 52, 53 and 56. For someone convicted of a second offence of having no insurance, there is a mandatory consequential disqualification. Not having considered this matter until I was reading the amendments tabled for today, I must ask whether there is any issue transgressing what the Supreme Court said in respect of the Ellis case? It is not a custodial sentence, obviously. The approaches to disqualifications from driving are quite different because one does not have a right to drive. It is a privilege to be granted a licence to drive in this country, as it should be, and therefore that privilege can be removed as the law and courts see fit. Nonetheless, there is in section 26(5)(b), which was inserted by the Road Traffic Act 2010, mandatory disqualification on a second insurance offence. I am wondering whether the Minister of State or Department has a view on whether that also transgresses the ratio handed down in the Ellis decision.