More changes as Senate passes Road Traffic Act
WITH June being National Road Safety Month, Parliament appears to be on a mission to introduce the new Road Safety Act by next month. But that mission now depends on rerouting the Bill through the House of Representatives and, eventually, into the gazette.
This follows Friday’s passage of the Bill in the Senate with the Government agreeing to 161 more amendments, in addition to the 131 which were made when the House of Representatives passed it in February.
The cooperation between the Government and Opposition carried through on Friday seemed much improved over previous weeks, and both Leader of Government Business, Senator Kamina Johnson Smith and Leader of Opposition Business Senator Donna Scott Mottley seemed quietly pleased with the collaboration.
Despite this, Opposition member Senator Lambert Brown raised a number of objections, including the affordability of the fines for some road users.
However, it was obvious that the majority of the members were satisfied with the amendments and were inclined to have the Bill passed as quickly as possible, including with harsh penalties for some offenders.
Senator Johnson Smith noted that Friday’s amendments, which included substantial changes to a list of amendments which had been tabled when she opened the debate three weeks ago, were worth the wait.
Like Senator Scott Mottley, she felt that Friday was a very important day in the life of the Parliament, as after 70 years under an archaic Road Traffic Act which was only amended ‘here and there’ over the period, Jamaica is about to implement a modern Road Traffic Act which should bring discipline to local traffic.
“It is important that we manage the amendments scrupulously, and this is why we have taken the time and have circulated an amended list of amendments — to help us easily work through the changes that have been made,” she noted.
She thanked members on both sides for the constructive suggestions that they had made in the effort.
She said that the delay was good because it ensured “policy alignment and technical soundness”, with assistance from the involved ministries, and legal support from Attorney General’s Department and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
Scott Mottley expressed concern about how the current law had affected people with disabilities.
She suggested a $100,000 fine as the penalty for parking in spaces reserved for disabled people, and suggested that the funds should be dedicated to specific projects to assist disabled people.
She also suggested that there should be no more amnesty for individuals who fail to pay for ticketing or fines imposed by the court.
However, she was also full of praise for the cooperations shown by the Government, and the support given by the technical staff of the various ministries concerned.
“It was very enlightening to be asked to make this presentation. It put me in a space where I actually had to look at some things through different lenses, and this is why I say I am really humbled to be making this presentation today,” she said.
“The old legislation has served its purpose and its time has come and gone,” Scott Mottley said.
Among the main changes made was to increase the proposed $10,000 fine for not having a certificate of fitness to $15,000, based on a request from Opposition Senator Sophia Fraser Binns. However, the fine awardable by the court is at $30,000 or, in default, 10 days imprisonment.
Senator Johnson Smith noted that 117 deaths have already occurred this year on the nation’s roads.
She said that it was horrifying to consider how many of these deaths had occurred on the roads during the three weeks the Bill took to pass through the Senate.
She pointed out that the Bill is about ensuring the protection of road users, whether they be pedestrians, drivers, passengers, pillion [riders] or motorcyclists, as all road users are affected.
“We can only begin to stem the indiscipline, the recklessness, the careless, the lack of respect for others demonstrated on our roads…with stronger traffic laws; with proper implementation and enforcement of our laws; and, of course, with the education of the public about those laws. So let us continue that process together,” she urged the Senate.
However, she rejected a proposal from several Opposition members for a two-day grace period for drivers who fail to produce their driver’s licence when stopped by the police.
“The issue is not the period of time, the issue is the inability of the police at the time of an offence to identify the offender,” she stated.
“We have not accepted the argument posited that a 48-hour grace period is a useful and flexible way to get behavioural change…We believe that this is in fact the problem the police are in trouble with now. The Act currently provides for 48 hours,” she noted.
“But what has happened is that this has become a loophole, a lacuna; it has become an opportunity for abuse of the law and exploitation of what was supposed to be a facilitation for law-abiding citizens,” she said.
She noted that the police and the Road Safety Council had informed the joint select committee, which reviewed the original Bill in 2015, that some 95 per cent of people who had indicated to the police their intention to produce their driver’s licence within 48 hours of the request, had not done so.
“What has happened is that the whole intention of ensuring that you are able to prove your identity, so that a ticket can be issued in respect of an infraction for which you have just been pulled over, and so that the process can unfold in an efficient manner, is now completely undermined,” Senator Johnson Smith said.
“That not only allows persons to escape prosecution for breaches of the Act, but it also wastes the police’s time and undermine their faith in the law and their commitment to enforce it.” she said.
She said that the select committee had discussed and felt there should be no grace period, but that the fine should not be inordinate. She said that, in that case, the Government had agreed to reduce the fine from $10,000 to $2,000, but that there would be no grace period.
Turning to the issue of licences being revoked or suspended, she said that the suggestion that having been without a driver’s licence for sometime would mean that the driver “had learnt a lesson”, would not be accepted and the drivers would be required to retrain and retest before the licence is returned.
However, she said details of who would be responsible for the retraining and retesting of the driver will be dealt with in the regulations, which are to be tabled later in Parliament.
The Road Traffic Bill, which will repeal and replace the existing 1938 Act, was passed in the House of Representatives on February 6. It also includes restrictions on using hand-held devices (including cellular phone) while driving, and requirements to obey silence zones and traffic signals.
The Bill will now go back to the House of Representatives, which will have to approve Friday’s amendments before it gets the Governor General’s assent.