So far this year 149 people have been killed tragically on the roads compared to 133 in the same period last year. In April of this year 30 people were killed, that is 30% up on April of last year. All of these are tragic cases. Hundreds of people have been seriously injured. It is obvious that the positive effects of the penalty points system are wearing off. Many reckless drivers are of the opinion they can drive at speed without fear of getting caught.

In a recent District Court case in Cork a speeding conviction was overturned on the basis that the defendant was entitled to a paper print-out of the speeding offences taken by the radar gun. There is real evidence that up to 60,000 convicted by this method and others will appeal their cases on the same basis. This matter should be addressed as one of urgency by the Government. The Taoiseach and the Government have a duty to enact emergency legislation to close off this loophole. We are nine days from the June bank holiday weekend which, traditionally, unfortunately, and tragically, has often brought carnage to our roads.

Earlier this year the Government introduced emergency legislation to deal with the immigration issue and electronic voting and later today it will introduce emergency legislation to deal with issues of compellability in the Judge Curtin case. The Government should show the same sense of urgency by closing off this loophole as there should be certainty in this matter, otherwise, unwarranted and unwanted tragic deaths may occur. We are talking about life and death issues. Is it the Government's intention to introduce emergency legislation to close off this loophole, which this side of the House would support, or to seek a declaration from the High Court that paper evidence is not needed in cases where drivers are caught by radar guns for speeding offences?

On the first point raised by Deputy Kenny, we will continue to provide, improve and upgrade our road structures and to enforce the existing legislation through the powers of the Garda. Obviously too many people are being killed and injured on our roads and, therefore, we have to continue to drive that forward.

On the second point, the Department of Transport has been examining the case at the District Court in Cork. It dismissed a speeding offence detected by a Garda using a hand-held speed detection unit on the basis that no record was produced of that unit and furnished to the accused person before the commencement of the trial for the offence. The issue arises from the District Court's interpretation of section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 2003. Section 21 provides that the onus of establishing prime facie proof of a constituent of a range of road traffic offences, including speeding, which is the issue highlighted by Deputy Kenny, may be discharged by tendering evidence of measurements or other indications that were given by electronic or other apparatus, including a camera, containing a record produced by that apparatus. It further provides that in proceedings for an offence, a record or a copy of the record shall be prime facie evidence of the measurements. A radar speed detection gun produces a visual record of the speed of the vehicle that exceeds a speed limit. The Garda who detects a speeding offence using a radar gun intercepts the motorist on the spot and issues a fixed charge notice on which he records particulars of the speed measurement. There are other types of offences as well.

The Department of Transport has asked the Attorney General to examine the issues raised about the use of radar guns with a view to identifying whether a change to the Act is required. We expect to have that advice shortly. If an amendment to the Road Traffic Act is required the Government is likely to include it in the Road Traffic Bill which deals with many related Acts and closes off loopholes on many other issues. That scheme has been approved by the Government since the end of April. That amendment will be brought forward with that Bill as soon as we have the Attorney General's advice. We appreciate the Deputy's co-operation in passing that legislation.

That puts this matter into limbo. From the driver's point of view — and the Taoiseach does not have to drive any more — the driver will ask whether he is likely to be caught if he breaks the speed limit and if caught whether he is likely to be convicted. I have paid a fine or two in the past having been caught by the radar gun. About 95% of all penalty points relate to speeding and in the case of the 60,000 drivers who have been caught for speeding, the majority of those offences where caught by use of the radar gun.

The Government should act immediately and provide certainty in legislation. Given that a District Court has determined, in the particular case where the driver involved was travelling at 80 mph in a 60 mph zone, that paper evidence was required, the Government should act immediately by introducing emergency legislation to close off this loophole. To wait for advice from the Attorney General to include it in an amended transport Bill will unfortunately probably mean that some persons will die as a result of speeding incidents that could have been prevented if certainty was brought into the law now. If emergency legislation is introduced to close off this loophole, this side of the House will support it. I urge the Taoiseach to work on that forthwith.

I have no argument with what the Deputy states. What is involved is a process. We have in preparation a very good Bill on road traffic, that not only takes account of this but several other recent judgments and will close off loopholes. Additional powers and new procedures are provided under the Bill which will target speeding and other traffic offences. It would be advantageous to have the Bill in its entirety through the Oireachtas. However, if the Attorney General believes it will take too long because there are too many heads in the Bill, and a major case is at stake, it would be advisable to do as the Deputy suggests and amend the legislation. If we were to put at risk many of the cases before the courts, we would go down the route suggested by the Deputy.

Let us wait and see the advice provided by the Attorney General. If he believes we should move now because we are putting too many cases at risk, we will bring in a one section amendment to deal with it. If not, it will be included in the road traffic Bill and I will report back to the Deputy as soon as the Attorney General advises me.