First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) was read a first time. Second Reading THE ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. XXX of 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (4.21 p.m.)

Yes, hon. Minister, take a deep breath!

Madam Speaker, I move that the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. XXX of 2025) be read a second time. The Bill, Madam Speaker, relates to a very fundamental matter, that is, the preservation of human life and reduction of family sufferings as a result of road casualties and fatalities. Every year, we publish statistics of road accidents. We see the numbers and debate the trends for a while but numbers, Madam Speaker, have a way of sanitising tragedy. Behind every figure in those statistics, there is a grieving mother, a father who will not see his siblings grow up, a young professional whose potential and aspirations have been cut short or even a family which has been plunged into poverty because the breadwinner was taken away by a reckless act on our roads. The number of serious injuries and fatalities on our roads have become a silent pandemic, to repeat the words used by Jean Todt, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Road Safety. Madam Speaker, you had introduced Mr Todt to this House on Tuesday 08 April this year as the guest of the hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, himself a great proponent of road safety, who announced during his speech on the budget exercise the re- introduction of the penalty point system in January 2026. So, here we are with the presentation of this Bill less than five months later with a penalty point system which is different from the first version of 2013, in terms of the broader spectrum of offences it covers, the use of technology, the innovative redemption of points facility, several amendments to other sections of the Road Traffic Act, and many others with, however, the overarching objective remaining the same, that is, change in psychology of driving – a simple universal principle! Driving is a privilege and not a right. If you abuse of that privilege, you will lose it! I see on the list of orators today that the Leader of the Opposition will intervene on this Bill and I can sense it, amongst others, that he will surely put forth the argument that there has not been any consultation thereon, maybe. Madam Speaker, I have personally communicated…

Don’t pre-empt what he is going to say. Give him a chance!

During the PNQ, he had questioned about it.

Don’t say!

I have personally communicated and provided a lot of explanatory information on the Bill outside the House, in the press and so have many of my hon. colleagues, to whom I am thankful. The Bill has come for Second Reading today after 12 days from the date it was published on the website of the National Assembly, that is, on Friday 28 November 2025. So, ample time was given during which I had even invited one and all to make their views known either by writing to my Ministry or to let their views be heard in this House through their elected representatives. During the period 10 March 2013 to 27 July 2015, the Penalty Points System brought about evidence-based results as the number of fatalities on the road had dropped by 13% to 137. There were indeed 158 fatalities in 2010, 152 in 2011 and 156 in 2012. The provisions relating to the Cumulative Road Traffic Offence (CRTO) were amended a first time in 2018 and again a second time in 2023 to reduce the number of offences leading to disqualification of a driver’s licence from an initial 6 offences to 5 offences in 2018 and subsequently to 4 offences in 2023 because the CRTO was not giving the desired results. Still because the CRTO was not performing, it was amended again in 2024, so to speak for the third time, to enlarge the spectrum of offences from 11 offences to 23. This was supposedly, again, so to speak, to catch more traffic offenders and disqualify them, upon committing four offences within a shorter period of time. But then, as the 2024 elections were imminent, the amendment to extend the total spectrum of offences from 11 to 23 was not proclaimed. Again, for the second time, ten years down the line in 2024 after a first time in 2015, cheap politics took precedence over road safety in Mauritius. So, I let the hon. Leader of the Opposition to draw his own conclusion. He, who had questioned me during the Private Notice Question on Friday 07 February 2025, has asked me to state the measures being taken to address the increasing number of road accidents. Today, I am standing in this House with a sense of responsibility as Minister under whose remit falls the subject of road safety. We have come forward with a concrete piece of legislation to replace the non-performing CRTO left behind by the MSM government, and like I said earlier, still prevalent today. We have taken on board nitty-gritty of the specific concerns the Leader of the Opposition raised during that PNQ, and I am here referring to the problem, for example, of illegal rally of motorcycles. He was quite elaborate on this question; it is a very pertinent question. I must stress that this offence is included in the Third Schedule of the Bill and it justly carries the highest number of points, that is, 8 to 10 points out of a total of 15 points. But then, Madam Speaker, the legislation will not bring the desired results without effective enforcement by the Police and other authorised officers. Allow me, now, to respond to criticisms levelled against the Bill. Some have qualified the reintroduction of the Penalty Points System as a punitive measure that also seeks to replenish the coffers of Government with payment of more fines. I beg to differ. Under the CRTO, a driver’s licence could be disqualified as he has committed only 4 offences. The proposed Bill provides for a disqualification when 15 points have been exceeded, meaning that the person can no longer drive on reaching 16 points. Someone committing offences carrying 2 points, for example, will only be disqualified after committing such offences 8 times repeatedly over 36 months because you get 15 points for 36 months. As regards the nonsensical criticism of bringing more money to the coffers, I have to emphasise that none of the offences listed in the Schedule to the Bill under penalty points have had their accompanying fines increased. So, that argue does not hold water! The aim is not to generate revenue through fines, but to restore discipline on our roads, and to those who still persist and commit mistakes in a repetitive manner, to learn it the hard way – to have them removed from driving or riding on our roads until they have decided to improve their behaviours. The provisions laid down in the Bill are corrective rather than punitive in approach. The figures demonstrate them all. Between 2013 and 2015, when the Penalty Points System was prevalent, 9 persons only were disqualified from holding a licence. Yet, the number of fatalities had dropped by 13% while between 2015 to date, under the CRTO, 249 drivers have been disqualified and 2 licences have been cancelled. So, let all drivers, in particular professional drivers, take note of this fact before drawing hasty conclusions or allowing themselves to be misguided. Madam Speaker, the Penalty Points System has the critical “fear factor”, which is non- existent in the CRTO. The genius of the system is that the points allocated to any driver is constant and visible to him that any further offence will bring him closer to disqualification or cancellation of his licence. The possibility for him to lose the tremendous privilege of driving following a disqualification is the strongest psychological effect prompting a driving behavioural change in him. By the way, a distinction has to be made between disqualification and cancellation. In the latter case, the driver or rider has to take the test all over again. Madam Speaker, the re-introduction of the Penalty Points System is not a trial-and- error experiment that we are now resorting to like the previous government was doing with the CRTO. I have explained earlier the several changes that occurred over the last 10 years. The Bill is the product of a collective and profound reflection designed to meet an urgent national concern. It is a proven system adopted by several developed nations. Its re-introduction aligns our country with proven international best practices. Wherever the Penalty Points System has been in operation, it has shown significant and immediate positive impacts on road safety. I am optimistic for the same results in our country. The hon. Attorney General, whom I am very thankful to, has qualified this Bill as being technical one rather than a philosophical one. Allow me, therefore, without any further ado, to delve into the technical clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 introduces a crucial instrument of accountability, which is the Penalty Points Certificate. This certificate serves as a record of a driver’s accumulated penalty points and in line with our commitment to digital governance, this record will be accessible to every driver via a secure digital platform, that is, the MoKloud. This ease of accessibility allows drivers to monitor their points which in turn serves as a deterrent to irresponsible driving behaviour. Clause 4 also defines the permitted maximum number of 15 points, during a period of 36 months. For Provisional Driving Licence holders (commonly known as learners) the maximum limit is set at 10 points. The objective is to inculcate in them safe, responsible and disciplined driving habits from the very start of their driving practice. For Competent Driving Licence holders and holders of International Driving Permits, the permitted maximum number of points is 15, again over 36 months. A driver who has reached 16 points, shall upon application from the Licensing Officer, that is, the police, be disqualified by the Court for such period of time as the Court shall determine. Clause 5 relates to an existing power of the Court to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence. The amendment being brought sets the maximum delay within which the Court should forward any license which has been surrendered to it subsequent to the disqualification of the license holder to the Licensing Officer. The maximum delay has been set at 30 days. Madam Speaker, questions have been raised as to why the present Bill does not cater for allocation of penalty points relating to driving under the influence of alcohol, drug or other intoxicating substance, and dangerous driving. I have to reassure the House that the Road Traffic Act already provides for harsher sanctions spanning from cancellation of licence, imprisonment of up to 8 years for second time offenders and with fines which have been doubled in this present Bill to Rs500,000 for second time offenders. But then, I will invite hon. Members to read clauses 6 and 7 of the present Bill together with the second Schedule to the Road Traffic Act. In the interest of time, Madam Speaker, if needed, I can table information in relation thereto. Because if I talk about this, it is going to be too lengthy. I wish to undertake, if needed, I can table it!

Yes, table it, please!

I will give you later. I wish to underline that any disqualification may be from either holding a licence or obtaining a licence. The latter is relevant to the question raised. The Licensing Officer then keeps a record which will prevent the disqualified person from applying for a Provisional Licence for such period as the Court has determined. So, it’s not true to say that there will not be any effect to a person not holding a license at the material time of the accident because many people have said that people who have no licenses, will not be penalised because they don’t have license. But then they will be barred from applying for a license between a period of ranging from 12 months to 24 months if they are caught because the police will keep a record on this. Clause 8 of the Bill sets out the process for allocation of penalty points and also the period of effectiveness of any penalty points allocated. In all circumstances, penalty points are allocated by the Court in addition to any other sentence, including monetary or custodial, which it deems fit to pass. While allocating penalty points, the Court may, where appropriate, where the licence holder has exceeded the maximum number of points, disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a licence or even cancel the driving licence as the case may be. In the Bill, appeal procedures have been provided against the determination of the Court for either allocating a number of points, or disqualifying a person from holding or obtaining a licence or even against the cancellation of the licence. Where there is an appeal, any determination or decision of the Court is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. As regards the effectiveness of penalty points, every point allocated shall remain effective for a period of 36 months or until it has been taken into account for the purpose of a disqualification order. Through a collaborative mechanism set out between the Court and the Licensing Officer, accumulated penalty points will be managed efficiently and accurately. There seems to be a misunderstanding on this issue among the public as gathered from interventions made in the media. The law is very clear. Only the points which have been allocated and have “matured” or let us say, actually it’s called “ripe”, so to speak, for a period of 36 months will be erased automatically. The others will still appear on the penalty points certificate until their turns for the 36th month have come. Clause 8 also allows any license holder to apply for and obtain a hard copy of the penalty point certificate in his respect from the Licensing Officer on payment of a prescribed fee, over and above his status, he can obtain a copy free of charge, anytime on MoKloud. Clause 9 inserts a new section (i.e. Section 123H) in the main Act. This section sets out in details the period for which the Court shall disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driving licence where that person has exceeded the permitted number of penalty points. In a nutshell, the Court shall disqualify for a period of not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months holders of all types of licences be it local or international. Questions have also been raised as to how the Bill will cater for those driving without holding a driving licence. Clause 9 provides a more severe sanction for any person without holding a driving licence. His disqualification, like I said earlier, will be for a period of 12 months over and above what other legislations cater for. This Clause also provides that any person who has been disqualified shall surrender his licence or permit to the Court as soon as possible but not later than 5 days of any Court order made in that respect for retention. This process sends a strong message of deterrence to repeated offenders. It reinforces the seriousness and awareness of the loss of privilege of driving. Clause 9 also provides that the Court shall order for every person whose licence is disqualified for any period of time to follow a rehabilitation course, which shall be approved by the Licensing Officer, that is the Police, before the licence is restored to him. By virtue of the same section of the law, a person who is a licensed driving instructor will have to surrender his driving instructor’s licence as well for retention in the event that his driving licence is disqualified. Clause 10, focuses on the possibility for redemption of points and this is a novelty as compared to the last version of the penalty points system. The holder of a driving licence or international driving permit who has accumulated at least 10 points but not more than 14 penalty points may apply to the Court for the redemption of a maximum of 3 points. An application form has been prescribed for that purpose. The person has to complete a rehabilitation course before applying for redemption of points. It needs to be explained that, the redemption of a maximum of 3 penalty points shall relate to the last offence, implying that, if a person was allocated only 2 points for his last offence, only 2 points will be redeemed. If 4 points or more were allocated for the last offence, only 3 points shall be redeemed. The holder of a licence who applies for the redemption of points may do so subsequently only after 36 months. I think this is an important point to be retained. The holder of a provisional driving licence cannot apply for any redemption of points – meaning learners. Madam Speaker, the possibility for redemption of points is fundamental as it establishes a clear pathway for drivers to reduce their penalty points through an educational intervention and reduces the possible risks of disqualification. The contents of the course shall be defined by the licensing officer. This Clause underscores the fact that this government’s commitment to road safety is not at all about taking away licences maliciously, as some are pretending. It is verily about educating drivers, rewarding corrective driving behaviour and ultimately reducing the number of road accidents on our roads. Clause 11 and 12 are not of significance to the Penalty Point System. The first one increases the maximum fine for offences committed under the requirements of the Road Traffic Act from Rs100,000 to Rs200,000 and the second one deals with the renumbering of schedules attached to the Act. Clause 13 establishes the procedure for determining the number of penalty points to be referenced on a Fixed Penalty Notice where only one offence is detected on the FPN, the notice shall mention the lowest number of penalty points specified in that range of points for that offence. Where more than one offence is set on a single FPN, the lowest penalty points in the offence carrying the largest range of points shall be inserted in that notice. Where there are two or more offences within the same range of penalty points, the FPN shall make reference to the lower number of points of any of the offences. Clause 14 of the Bill establishes the payment process with regard to fix penalty notices and the manner in which the District Court shall endorse the notice with the appropriate penalty points and communicate same to the licensing officer. Clause 15 relates to instances where a person does not pay the fixed penalty and the case eventually goes to the court for determination. It also provides that where a person is convicted, the court shall allocate the highest number of penalty points for that offence. Where there is more than one offence in the notice, the court shall allocate the highest number of points in respect of the offence carrying the highest range of penalty points. So, depending on whether you go to the court, you will get the lowest lows of points or highest highs of points in case you lose at the court. Clause 16 and 17 deal with speeding offences detected by means of a photographic enforcement device for which the police causes a notice, in short PEDN, to be served on the owner of vehicle used in commission of the offence. The same principle of allocation of penalty point is applied in the case of PEDN as that applied for a fixed penalty notice. The PEDN has only one offence recorded therein and the lowest number of penalty points is referenced in the notice served on the offender. However, in the event the penalty is not paid and the matter is referred to the court, the court shall allocate the highest number of points for that offence. Madam Speaker, questions have been raised in several quarters as to why a range of points have been provided for each offence instead of fixed number of points. This approach gives licence holders the choice to admit outright the commission of the offence and thus pay the minimum penalty to be allocated the lowest number of penalty points. For those who decide to refer the matter to the court and are found guilty, the law provides for a maximum fine and highest number of penalty points to be inflicted. It is note-worthy that the Penalty Point System of 2013 also had a range of points and its application did not pose any administrative or legal problem. Clause 18 to 23 cover mainly the repeal and replacement of schedules. Clause 24 of the Bill addresses transitional arrangements, specifically it makes provision, detailing how disqualifications imposed under the repeal section of the law dealing with the CRTO will be legally dealt with during the transition to the new provisions set out in the Bill. Madam Speaker, the Bill is not a copy paste document of the previous 2013 legislation. It cannot be compared to the times and times amended legislation which constitutes the CRTO. This Bill is an improved and comprehensive piece of legislation which is designed to cope with our present road safety challenges and response as much as possible to the call of the hour in terms of road safety. The new schedule of offences comprises 33 traffic offences as compared 19 under the 2013 legislation, covering various aspects of road safety. This expansion in the number of offences is critical as it plucks in several loopholes and addresses dangerous driving behaviours which were previously dealt with only by fines; a course of enforcement which lack deterrence for repeated offenders. All the offences listed in the schedule prioritise factors identified in road crashes data namely in four categories which is – • Speed – for example, driving at excessive speed; • Distraction – for example, the use of mobile phones whilst driving; • Restraint – for example, the non-use of seatbelts and failure to use child restraints; • Recklessness – for example, dangerous driving, overtaking over continuous white line, and failing to comply with traffic signals. The thresholds and values in this Bill have been specifically calibrated to align with evidence-based standards used in the most successful jurisdictions. The range of penalty points are in no way arbitrary; they are correlated with the frequency and severity of an offence contributing to fatal and serious crashes. Madam Speaker, one key aspect of the modernisation of the Penalty Point System is the Penalty Point Certificate. There will not be any driving licence counterpart as there was in the first penalty point of 2013. The digital e-counterpart will incorporate sophisticated QR- code for security and authenticity purposes. To ensure the accurate and real time management of the Penalty Point System, a comprehensive IT enhancement programme integration will be undertaken across the following key government entities for a seamless inter-operability among each of these platforms and to securely link these 3 systems principally. 1. The Revenue Collection and Case Management System of the judiciary; 2. The Integrated Driving Licence Management of the Police; 3. The National Land Transport Authority IT System. Madam Speaker, countries like Singapore and the UK, which have a penalty point system in operations since decade, both of fatality rates per 100,000 population are 1.9 per 100,000 and 4.7 respectively. The rates of fatalities reflect the high level of discipline and good drivers’ behaviour achieved through strict application of the traffic laws and effective enforcement. In the case of our country, our fatality rate is 10-11 per 100,000, which is five to six times more than Singapore population and has remained constant for a decade. We need to benchmark ourselves with countries which have been successful and try our best through all possible means to lower our fatality rates. This is the ambition of this government and one of the priority objectives of my Ministry and I sincerely hope that we succeed. To conclude, Madam Speaker, the legislation we are passing today, will determine the road safety of our citizens for tomorrow. I am optimistic that it will contribute to save lives and consequently reduce the suffering of many families. I reiterate that the philosophy of the Bill is for safe driving to be inculcated and duly rewarded and for recklessness to be addressed with utmost severity and swift consequences. It is also an opportunity to bring our legal framework on road safety at par with international norms while emphasising discipline and responsible driving. For all good intents behind the reintroduction of the Penalty Point System, I am convinced that hon. Members in this House will uphold this Bill. Let this Assembly be remembered as the one which finally took the bold and decisive step to curve carnage on our roads. Let us together give our citizens the safety they deserve while using our roads. It is my sincere duty to acknowledge the dedication of all those who have been involved in the preparation of this significant piece of legislation. I wish to extend my deepest appreciation and thanks to the officers of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, police department, the NLTA, the Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit and the staff of my Ministry who form part of the committee I chaired on the subject matter. Their diligent efforts, collaborative spirits and expert advice have been instrumental in meticulously drafting and refining this critical Bill. Above all, I would like to thank the hon. Prime Minister for his firm and unwavering support in enabling the introduction of the Bill and the hon. Deputy Prime Minister as well. This morning, he actually called me for more details. I am thankful to the hon. Attorney General for always lending a helping hand and invaluable advice whenever required, and I look forward to working with the hon. Minister of ICT as regards the digitalisation aspect, which remains a sine qua non for the successful implementation of this legislation. By passing this Bill, Madam Speaker, we are not merely imposing new rules; we are laying the essential foundation for a long-term vision, a disciplined road network and a nation where road trauma is significantly reduced. On this note, Madam Speaker, and with these remarks, I commend the Bill to the House. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded.

Thank you. Maybe, we can raise for tea. Yes. Thank you very much. At 4.51 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.42 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Hon. Members, please be seated! Yes, hon. Leader of the Opposition! (5.43 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the floor to intervene on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. Here we are again, Madam Speaker, having another debate in this House on the Road Traffic Amendments. This time, it is for the reintroduction of the Penalty Points System. Honestly, Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why it took a whole year for the Government to reintroduce a system that was implemented before. I recall when I put a PNQ to the hon. Minister back in February, he had stated that they are working on the reintroduction of that system. In the month of July, I had put another question to him. At that time, he had said that Cabinet had approved. It is only six months later that this piece of legislation is being introduced in the House. Madam Speaker, I still remember how critical the current Minister was with regard to our road traffic system back in his days in the Opposition. I believe one year down in his mandate now, he has seen the amount of work that has been done and the challenges that still remain, it is safe to say that he has been humbled, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, we are not here today to discuss on the performance of the hon. Minister, and I shall not stoop to that level by being demagogical on the number of…

(Interruptions)

Il est toujours en train de faire du bruit. One moment! Do you mind staying in your seat so I can see at the back who is mumbling? Come inside. Do not go outside.

Is this okay?

Will the hon. Member, back bencher, please let him speak?

(Interruptions)

If he has something to say, yes.

Non, non. Mais vous, ce n’est pas le moment.

May I now, Madam Speaker?

Please, carry on.

Thank you. Like I was saying, I shall not stoop by being demagogical on the number of deaths on our roads even though that number has already exceeded the number of the previous year. As we say, one death on our roads is too many, Madam Speaker. Mais en fait, aujourd’hui, le comportement de certains automobilistes est – si je peux faire une comparaison – comme ces internautes qui démontrent une agressivité sur les réseaux sociaux. C’est malheureusement une tendance très dangereuse au niveau de notre société. Madam Speaker, the Penalty Point System – let us be blunt – was an utter failure when it was introduced back in 2013. Permettez-moi, pour étayer ce que je suis en train de dire, de citer l’extrait d’un hebdomadaire, le Week-End du dimanche 30 novembre, qui écrit ceci avec un type qui dit pourquoi le permis à points de 2013 a échoué. On retrouve dans cet article…

C’est un article récent ?

Oui, très récent. C’est au mois de novembre, le dimanche 30 novembre 2025, Madame la présidente. Dans cet article, on se sert des termes tels que « C’est un système trop lourd. Des points mal enregistrés. Transmission lente. Dossiers incomplets. Suspension erronée. Application illégale d’un district à un autre district. Contestations [et le ministre en a fait part] des chauffeurs professionnels. » Voilà un peu ce que disait cet article, Madame la présidente. Unfortunately, nothing in the present Bill offers a solution to all the reasons of the failure of the Penalty Point System back in 2014. Therefore, we are simply going backwards. Now, during the previous mandate, Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, considerable progress had been achieved with regard to road traffic. For example, road safety was introduced in the school curriculum from Grades 1 to 6 as we all firmly believe that education is key in changing this mindset of hors-la-loi that presently we see on our roads. But unfortunately, I have to raise an issue in this House, Madam Speaker, to the attention of one and everybody, but especially to the Prime Minister. Somebody has brought that to my attention, Madam Speaker. Somebody who has been convicted for numerous traffic offences, and it goes over the years. If you will allow me, Madam Speaker, I will refer to some of those traffic offences where he has been convicted. For example – • Convicted on six occasions of one or more offences under CRTO; • Disqualified for all types of vehicles for two years; • Failing to give notice for non-renewal of motor vehicle license; • Failing to give particulars of driver; • Exceeding speed limit by not more than 15km/h; • Failing to produce driving license on demand; • Insurance vignette not affixed; • Exceeding speed limit by more than 15km/h; • Exceeding speed limit.

What are you citing to us, please?

Yes, somebody…

No, but what are you citing exactly?

Convictions.

Convictions of somebody?

Yes, for traffic offences.

Okay.

Why am I citing this? Because I understand that he is…

(Interruptions)

Let me finish what I am saying.

No, the…

He has been recruited as an Adviser in the actual Government, Madam Speaker.

Oh, okay.

That is why I am citing this! Otherwise, why would I waste the time of the House?

No, if you say…

Using a handheld microphone or telephone handset whilst driving.

It is totally irrelevant!

Failing to produce driving license on demand or photocopy thereof.

(Interruptions)

Hon. Leader of the Opposition, just one moment!

(Interruptions)

Will everybody let me do my job?

(Interruptions)

I do not mind you are saying all this, but start by saying why you are saying it. Then, we will understand! And who you are talking about?

I will come to that also, Madam Speaker.

Non, non. Sinon on se dit que vous parlez de n’importe qui. Je ne sais pas.

I have said. I have said, Madam Speaker. That person I am mentioning, he is an Adviser…

Now, you are saying! Now, you are saying!

…of a Minister in Government.

Now, you are saying!

Yes, I have said that.

But when you started talking…

Okay, Madam Speaker, there is a long list of convictions.

Okay.

Okay?

Donn so nom!

Exactement!

No, Madam Speaker, I will not.

(Interruptions)

I will give it to the Prime Minister later.

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It is not fair he throws this around, and he says he is an Adviser.

He is an Adviser to which Minister?

So, people will think he is any Minister’s Adviser. Give us the name!

He is an Adviser in which Ministry?

On a point of order, it is unfair.

In which Ministry is he advising?

Madam Speaker, …

If that person was advising me, I would like to know.

He is an Adviser in the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.

Okay! Good. What I would suggest, hon. Leader of the Opposition, you have made your point. Can you please refer us to the documents that you have got and tell us where these documents emanate from? Is it made public? Has it been made public? Il faut me dire!

Do you want me to table the document, Madam Speaker?

No, table it if it is authentic and if it has been made public. Yes, table it if it has been made public. On n’a pas besoin de cacher les choses.

Whether it is 20 years ago, Madam Speaker, you cannot recruit somebody who has been convicted for so many offenses that is why I raised this issue whilst we are debating on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

To’nn bliye to leader ti touy dimounn!

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker ….

(Interruptions)

You have to give him…

So, what has happened now?

I will continue.

Okay.

Now, another issue that happened and shocked everybody was video of a biker over speeding on the motorway and mocking a patrol officer on his way and the hon. Minister, I think he was wrong in doing that – decided to meet that biker. He should have left that to the competent authorities to deal with that biker.

Madam Speaker on a point of order!

No! You mean on a point of personal explanation?

The biker asked to meet me but I did not meet him.

Okay. It was not a point of order.

He said on media that he met him. Now, Madam Speaker, with regard to drug abuse, necessary amendments were brought to the law to allow the police to detect drugs in the bloodstream or urine of a driver and this was a major breakthrough in law enforcement. Now, at the beginning of the year, the hon. Prime Minister in a reply to PMQT put to him by hon. F. Quirin, mentioned that only for the month of January, 13 drivers have been tested positive to drugs. What I would have expected, what I would have wished is that that the hon. Minister tells us up to now, how many drivers have been tested positive to drugs. Madam Speaker, let me say a few words on the cumulative road traffic offences system which is being abolished today with this legislation. What we should know is that this system led to the cancellation of approximately 13 driving licences over the past two years. At first among 11 offences, a driver or motorcyclist ran the risk of suspension of their licence if they committed four offences in a span of 24 months. The law, Madam Speaker, was amended in 2024 to add 12 more offences to this list, some of which I know have been included in the present Bill, such as – • failing to wear high visibility clothing as a rider; • breach of lane discipline on dual carriageway; • failing to give away when coming from a less important road, and also • taking part in a rally. And these inclusions, Madam Speaker, already existed in the legislation. 10 additional offences, now, have been included in the present legislation to reach, like the hon. Minister had said earlier, a total of 33 offences. But, just one reference, let me refer to offences 2 and 3 regarding headlamps and rear lamps during darkness which I agree Madam Speaker is a hazard. But what if it happens while the person is driving? So, he will now lose four points and it seems to me this is very harsh, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we are now moving from a system where a driver or rider was allowed a maximum of four offences from a list of 23 offences in a span of 24 months to a system of points based on categories of offences on a list of 33 offences over a span of 36 months. Personally, Madam Speaker, I believe the present system has been subjected to some slight modification and repackaged in order to give the impression that this government is acting upon the urgency of the situation on our roads. However, any new amendments should be a step forward whereas I believe that these amendments bring us backwards. En résumé, Madame la présidente, le ministre nous propose du déjà vu et avec l’attribution de licence graduelle qui figurait déjà dans les amendements de 2024, cela vient confirmer cette théorie. Now, the hon. Minister might argue as to why the previous government did not proclaim the 2024 amendments. Well, I can tell the hon. Minister, you have had one year and yet you did not do it, waiting for some 112 deaths on our roads and now you are proposing the penalty point system which, like I said earlier contains the same offences, Madam Speaker.

Atone my friend. Atone!

Madam Speaker, the previous government was also coming forward with a driver and educative centre and I wonder what happened in one year on this project since I understand that the land had already been identified. Now, with regard to – and the hon. Minister mentioned that in his speech –fines that are on the way up. Now, considerable increase for certain offences is present in the amendment brought to the House today. But let me remind the hon. Minister because he made mention to that in his speech – that when they were sitting on the Opposition bench and when those fines were increased under the previous legislation, this is what they said, Madam Speaker. And I refer to the hon. Minister to what hon. Dr. Boolell said when he intervened on the legislation during that time and I quote – “With that substantial increase in fine, you might as well take my vehicle because the fines are so excessive. I won’t be able to pay”. Another quote, Madam Speaker – “This is not the reason why the government has to rip off taxpayers directly or indirectly.” Although I agree that we should increase the fines, Madam Speaker. Now, some who intervened at that time even suggested that this would provide police officers with excessive powers and the opportunity to abuse the system and take bribes in order for drivers to retain their licences. Yes, it is in the Hansard that is why I am quoting that, Madam Speaker. Madame la présidente, la loi était suffisamment, à mon avis, sévère mais le problème sur nos routes est beaucoup plus profond. Déjà notre flotte de véhicule sur nos routes est passée à 743 190 véhicules – un record, on doit l’accepter. Généré par la brillante idée de ce gouvernement d’augmenter la taxe sur les véhicules soi-disant pour les rendre ‘inaccessibles’ à une certaine classe, mais cela a résulté à un panic buying à la veille de la présentation du dernier budget. Avec une flotte de plus de 740 000 véhicules sur nos routes, cela nous fait en moyenne environ 250 véhicules par kilomètre de route, soit le double de la moyenne mondiale. Et qui dit plus de véhicules, Madame la présidente, dit aussi une augmentation de la probabilité des accidents sur nos routes. Autre fait qui est intéressant – et je dois le souligner – en ce qui concerne les bus électriques, je constate que l’honorable ministre favorise ce programme, c’est-à-dire, on aura une flotte de véhicules, de bus électriques qui nous viennent de l’Inde et de ce fait, dans cette démarche, cela nous permet de faire d’une pierre deux coups, c’est-à-dire d’utiliser l’énergie propre et en même temps, encourager les mauriciens à voyager par le transport public et de ce fait, réduire le nombre de véhicules sur nos routes. Par contre, ce qui est navrant, Madame la présidente, c’est de constater que le gouvernement ne va plus de l’avant avec l’extension du Metro Express, car cela aurait permis de diminuer davantage le nombre de véhicules sur nos routes, et de ce fait, les accidents. Mais, Madame la présidente, le problème le plus grave demeure cette fâcheuse culture de voyous sur nos routes, cette tendance de certains automobilistes et motocyclistes de faire exprès d’enfreindre les règles sur la route. C’est pourquoi j’ai cité un peu plus tôt, Madame la présidente, le cas de ce monsieur. Comme on dit dans le langage créole ; gagn nissa lor larout.

(Interruptions)

Comme si les lois sont là pour ne pas les respecter, et puis se vanter autour de son entourage comme ce motard que le ministre – et il me dit maintenant qu’il ne l’a pas rencontré – et qui roulait, il faut le dire, Madame la présidente, peut-être à plus de 150 kilomètres par heure sur l’autoroute. Mais, je pense que ce n’est pas le permis à points qui va faire disparaitre cette culture auprès des chauffards, car il faut tout de même qu’il y ait des contrôles de police sur nos routes, afin d’intercepter ces bandits. Mais, leur constat aussi, Madame la présidente, c’est que la situation du law and order dans le pays est déplorable. On aurait pu demander aux policiers de faire ce travail, mais ils sont surmenés en ce moment-ci et il y a un flagrant manque d’effectifs, et en plus de ça comme je l’ai dit, ils ont du pain sur la planche. Madame la présidente, c’est l’ancien gouvernement qui avait adopté la politique de zéro tolérance sur l’alcool au volant, mais force est de constater que beaucoup échappe toujours à la loi et malheureusement, Madame la présidente, c’est les innocents qui perdent leur vie. Permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de citer un jugement, le jugement Durocher en 2008 avait renversé une loi qui permettait à la police de suspendre le permis de conduire et avait statué que seul un magistrat avait ce pouvoir. Depuis, rien n’avait été fait jusqu’à l’amendement de 2024, et j’aimerais que le ministre aujourd’hui considère cet amendement de façon à demander à la cour de suspendre immédiatement le permis d’une personne impliquée dans un accident fatal et testée positive à un alcotest ou à un test de drogue. Je pense que j’aurais le support de pas mal de membres de cette auguste Assemblée dans cette démarche et tout conducteur, Madame la présidente, pris en flagrant délit ne pourra pas reprendre le volant avant que la cour ne rende son verdict. Madame la présidente…

(Interruptions)

C’est déjà dans la loi.

Madame la présidente, le Premier ministre – je me réfère à lui comme il a fait des commentaires – avait même suggéré qu’il fallait faire saisir les véhicules de tels accusés. Ben, j’aimerais bien savoir combien de ces véhicules ont été saisis à ce jour, surtout après les tristes évènements par exemple, de Camp Levieux et de Cité la Cure. Madame la présidente, on ne peut non plus tolérer qu’une personne passe à travers les mailles du filet en invoquant le refus de se soumettre à un alcotest ou à un drug test.

(Interruptions)

Tout refus…

(Interruptions)

Tout refus doit être considéré comme un délit plus sévère qui devrait entraîner une plus grosse amende, et pourquoi pas une perte de points considérable. Selon les statistiques, Madame la présidente, les motocyclistes et surtout les jeunes sont les plus vulnérables. Peut- être que le gouvernement devrait considérer à revoir cette section de la loi qui permet à un mineur de conduire une moto avec un simple learner. Madame la présidente, il est impératif aussi – ça je pense qu’on le voit sur nos routes – de légiférer sur l’utilisation des scooters électriques. Je l’admets, c’est un moyen de transport pratique, mais souvent conduit sur les routes principales de notre pays par des personnes qui n’ont pas eu une formation adéquate et très souvent qui ne portent pas de casque, Madame la présidente.

Ça c’est vrai !

(Interruptions)

Là tout le monde est d’accord.

Oui !

Oui, ce n’est pas fait pour ce genre…

Oui, s’ils sont d’accord permettez-moi d’ajouter ; autant de choses, Madame la présidente…

(Interruptions)

…qui sont absentes de ce projet de loi. Madame la présidente, je suis assez sceptique par rapport à la mise en chantier de cette législation. Il y a chaque année en moyenne 1 350 000 décès dans le monde sur les routes. Nous sommes une petite île et pourtant, le constat est aussi alarmant chez nous. Aujourd’hui, le gouvernement propose de revenir à un système qui a échoué, avec les mêmes paramètres et les mêmes problèmes. Mais, je ne veux pas être pessimiste, Madame la présidente, car il y va de la vie de nos concitoyens, et ce genre de sujet doit rester apolitique et l’intérêt supérieur de notre pays, de nos concitoyens doit primer. Toutefois, Madame la présidente, le ministre du Transport terrestre nous a beaucoup critiqué de son temps dans l’Opposition. Aujourd’hui, c’est à son tour de gérer cette situation qui empire de jour en jour, et je lui souhaite bon vent. Merci.

Merci beaucoup. Alors, nous avons Dr. Boolell, yes? He was on his feet before I could see him. (6.11 p.m.) The Minister of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries (Dr. A. Boolell): Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I have listened – like all of us – intently to the speech delivered by the hon. Leader of Opposition…

Not all of us, some are absent.

Yes, some deliberately chose to be away from you, the Leader of the Opposition. I think overall, he has been rather fair. His criticisms are well meant. One of his regrets is that we should have proclaimed the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, moved by the then Minister, hon. Ganoo in 2024. Other than that, let me remind the hon. Leader of Opposition that this Bill was not thrust upon us. It was a Bill well prepared and moved by the hon. Minister who has a lot of milestones. As he has said, there was a Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General who came to tender advice to us on road safety, and that his presence was largely due to the intervention of our Prime Minister. Let me state very clearly that when it comes to road safety and road security, we have no lessons to learn from the Opposition. If you may recall, in 1997, the Prime Minister, Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, stated emphatically that the link road from La Vigie to Nouvelle France should be closed because it was the corridor of death with its two lanes. Then, the Prime Minister met – if my memory serves me right – the President of the EU Commission, and funding was obtained to turn this corridor of death into a dual carriageway to cater for the needs of motorists and to drive safely on a dual carriageway. So, this is important. It is good to remind ourselves of the governance of a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister, and all of us, that we are a government which acts in the interest of the public, and we put safety and road security first. When we go through the provisions of this Bill, what is the main thrust, as I said? It is deterrence. And deterrence is high on our agenda. It is a message which is being conveyed loud and clear to all road users. One should not forget that in his speech, when he moved his Second Reading, the then Minister of Land Transport and Light Rail reminded us that the road network, as of April 2024, stands at 686,704 vehicles on our road. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition stated that electric cycles have to be registered. But they have to be registered, first and foremost, with the National Land Transport Authority. It is going to be done. This Bill, Madam Speaker, has its merits, and the merits far outweigh any of the points that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We were cautious. I recall when we were discussing our electoral programme – I think all of our good friends will recall – it was an issue that was raised, flagged and flogged, and we stated very clearly that we are going to introduce the Penalty Points System. That was said. I recall hon. Anil Bachoo was there. There were almost wide discussions, and the technicians who were with us highlighted the merits of Penalty Points System. Since the last 10 years, Madam Speaker, there has been progressive decline in road safety and security. When we do a comparative study and look at the contrasts, it stands to reason that the decision taken by the hon. Minister, with the support of technicians, after advice was tendered by Mr Todt, the Penalty Points System is the best. I recall what it was when I was in New Zealand. In New Zealand, they have what they call the Demerit Points System. The Demerit Points System is no different from our penalty system and it is very effective. So, as a loving nation, we have to look at safety and security priorities. If we love our children, if we love our people, we have to make sure that safety and security are all encompassing, and rest largely on prevention, education, good infrastructure, fitness centre. We have to inculcate the values of responsibility on our drivers. Safe driving – click clunk! But make sure that when there is a click clunk of the safety belt, the message conveyed is safe driving because we know what are the consequences. Notwithstanding deterrence, repeated offenders cannot get away with murder. Repeated offenders will have to bear their consequences. When we look at the primary purpose of the Bill, it is clear. It is to create an effective mechanism that promotes better – the word “better” is there – compliance with traffic regulations, and the ultimate goals of enhancing the safety of road users and encouraging responsible driving behaviour. The key note is responsible driving behaviour. The Cumulative Road Traffic Offences introduced in 2015 was initially, of course, intended to improve road safety by disqualifying drivers after they committed a host of specific traffic offences, but it failed to deliver. We are yet to find out what are the expected outcomes. The expected outcome is that there has been no outcome. The outcome is that we had no choice, but to ensure that we come up with the Penalty Points System. Despite their alleged best endeavour, several amendments were brought to the then Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill to make the Cumulative Road Traffic Offences harsher. Over the years, from 2018 to 2023, the number of offences required for disqualification was adjusted. So, we are now introducing – the Minister has moved the Bill – the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. XXX of 2025), and it is indeed a turning point. The Penalty Points System is an effective deterrent, as I have said, especially for repeated offenders who risk having their driving licences suspended or cancelled. But the good thing to note is that the proposed system is fair, transparent and clearly outlines the consequences of irresponsible driving. The Cumulative Road Traffic Offences mechanism, which is still in place, operates as a reactive measure, addressing offences only after a driver has already accumulated a certain number of convictions. This driving has shown its limits. The Bill makes a vast difference. It encourages and reinforces disciplined driving. Compliance with road safety rules is vital. It becomes a legitimate reflex condition, and drivers have to act cautiously as a consequence of each traffic violation committed. Madam Speaker, I have said it and it is good to reinforce that the Penalty Points System introduces an essential deterrent effect that the Cumulative Road Traffic Offences lacks. Its strength lies in the fact that the points assigned to a driver serve as a continual and visible reminder that any additional offence bring him closer to having his licence suspended or cancelled. So, the threat of losing the valuable privilege of driving acts as a powerful psychological motivator, prompting meaningful changes in driving behaviour. Let us now look at the salient features of the Bill which have been stated loud and clear by the Minister, but it is good to reinforce some of them. I will refer to the main features. The 33 offences will now carry penalty points as against 19 during the first deployment of the system. And, there is no doubt the proposed system will be a more effective response to the rising traffic toll of fatalities recorded on our roads in recent years. In the proposed Bill, provision is made for a range of penalty points to be allocated to each offence instead of a fixed number of points. Moreover, when an offence is detected on the fixed penalty notice or the photographic enforcement device notice, reference shall be made to the lowest number of penalty points in respect of that offence. Whereas if a person doesn’t agree with a fixed penalty point or the photographic enforcement device notice, he can go to court, that’s as of right and the court shall allocate the highest number in the range of penalty points if person is, of course, guilty. This will encourage a speedy settlement of fines. I have heard that detection of an offence would be difficult if a driver has burned the traffic light because a person will not be caught on camera as a is no camera sometimes at specific places. But this is going to be addressed. Now, the Bill provides for penalty point certificate and the digital version, of course, we have to move with constant breakthrough in technology, the digital version of which can be accessed any time on the MoKloud platform. And, this is the essence of this Bill, moving with technology and making it accessible to one and all within the comfort of your room at the time when they are probably, they are also worried but at the same time enjoying arm chair comfortability. Only a hard copy of the certificate duly provided and certified by the police will be against payment. Digital access to the certificate will allow the individual to better monitor the penalty points and adjust the behaviour on the roads. The Bill, as per clause 9, allows for a permitted maximum number of penalty points, I think that was said by the hon. Minister in relations a holder of provisional license, it’s 10 points; 15 for competent license holder but all points will be valid for a period of 36 months and the holder of an international driving permit will also be entitled to a maximum of 15 points. Madam Speaker, of course, a person who has been disqualified, and we refer to clause 9, the person who has been disqualified, has no choice but to surrender his license to the court which shall be retained as long as the disqualification is in force. Basically, what I am saying is that this Bill is a very thorough; no stone has been left unturned and credit goes to the experts and to the State Law Office, to have prepared a Bill which has substance and a Bill which not only will act as a deterrent but it’s a Bill which has all its merits. Madam Speaker, let me refer to a PQ which was put to the hon. Prime Minister. I am not going to go over the fines because that will be spelt out, I am sure, when the hon. Minister will make his concluding remark. But there was a PQ with two supplementaries put to the hon. Prime Minister by hon. Dr. Aumeer, at the last Sitting. And, the hon. Prime Minister’s reply said it all, ‘no retreat no surrender over life and livelihood’.

Of course!

We have a high incidence of road traffic accident. Enough is enough. Drink, drug, drive is not only an offence but a serious misdemeanour, a serious crime. Madam Speaker, the purpose is not only to convey a message but the message has to be received loud and clear. And, there is notwithstanding a deterrence but the provisions of the law are there to be applied as and when required in relation to offences and the gravity of the offences. Life is precious. Those who are victims suffer tremendously on all counts and waiting for a case to be heard and damages to be paid is hell. This tragedy deserves to be addressed and justice should not be denied or delayed. The Court has been impressed to deliver a judgement within reasonable time and we all know what it means for a wheel bound victim to wait. One of the most important aspects of the legislation is the increase in the fines relating to causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving which under the influence of alcohol, drug or intoxicating substance, the sentence can be – intoxicating substance from Rs50,000 to Rs100,000. The second, for subsequent conviction will carry maximum fine of Rs500,000. But the forensic scientific lab has to deliver. It has to be able to carry out the test and tell with certainty and reliability as to the level of drugs in the blood of the alleged offender. Madam Speaker, there are so many issues that can be raised and discussed but let me make it clear that I have intervened to convey a message – deterrence, first and foremost. If we are going to drive, make sure that we drive carefully. Afterall, we are here to protect lives and as a responsible Government, we have moved a legislation which has substance and the substance is there to safeguard and to protect those whose lives are important to all of us. Thank you very much.

Yes, hon. Seeburn! (6.28 p.m.) Mr M. Seeburn (Second Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it is with a deep sense of response that I rise today to speak in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. A Bill that introduces the long-awaited point-based system. A reform whose time has not only come but whose importance can no longer be ignored as it addresses an important issue that affects every road user and every family in our country, that is, road safety. Madam Speaker, in recent years, our nation has witnessed a troubling and persistent rise in road accidents. Every statistic is more than a number, sometimes a mother grieving the loss of a child, a family shattered overnight or sometimes someone’s future is tragically cut short as stated by the hon. Minister of Land Transport. Madam Speaker, these are matters of serious concern. These are realities for too many Mauritians. We must act decisively. We must reduce road death and serious injuries. Our road once a symbol of connectivity and progress are increasingly becoming a space of danger, uncertainty and loss. Madam Speaker, the situation on our road demands honesty and boldness from all of us, including the hon. Leader of the Opposition who made several observations on this Bill, yet he did not express any disagreement. Road accidents in Mauritius are claiming lives, inflicting devastating injuries, thus leaving families and communities in grief. These tragedies carry not only emotional consequences but also social and economic loss. Madam Speaker, we must ask ourselves – are we prepared to remain silent, passive while tragedies multiply? Are we willing to tell our citizens that we saw the warning signs, yet we failed to act. The answer is no, Madam Speaker. Today we are confronted with a simple duty. A duty to act before another life is lost. This amendment is a firm answer to that call. It establishes an effective framework for better compliance with traffic laws. It aims to enhance the protection of road users and foster a culture of responsible driving. Madam Speaker, at the heart of this amendment, is the reintroduction of the penalty point system, the permis à points. The reform establishes a structured approach that holds offenders accountable, a system that discourages repeated dangerous driving behaviour. By assigning penalty points for traffic offences and suspending or restricting licences when drivers accumulate too many points, thus encouraging better and safer driving behaviour. This is a well-drafted legislation by the State Law office introduced by the Minister of Land Transport which addresses nearly all the major issues. Madam Speaker, the amendment promotes deterrence and promotes drivers’ responsibility. By assigning demerit points to traffic offences, the system gives drivers a tangible accumulating penalty beyond one-off line. Knowing that repeated infractions can lead to licence suspension or revocation, this will make careless drivers more cautious. Madam Speaker, studies around the world have shown that drivers who approach the threshold of licence loss, significantly reduce their probability of committing further offences. The system further helps to identify and remove repeat and high-risk offenders. It further gives the authority a tool to remove persistent dangerous drivers because they cause serious accidents. Madam Speaker, the Bill reintroduces a modern penalty point system covering 33 different traffic offences. It is our duty as protectors of public safety to ensure that the system is adopted and implemented effectively. Our aim is to correct driving behaviour and build a culture of responsible driving. We must ensure that the system will function, it will deter and above all, save lives. It will further require a nationwide education campaign so that every citizen understands the 33 offences, how point accumulates and how points can be redeemed through rehabilitation programmes, thus making it fair and transparent. The reform introduces something crucial that has been missing for too long – a structured and transparent system of accountability, a deterrence against repeated violations, a behaviour shift from impunity to responsibility, a national commitment for prevention over cure. Madam Speaker, most importantly, it sends a message – loud, clear and united across this House. The life of every citizen and every road user matters more than the convenience of few reckless drivers. Few accidents mean lower burden on hospitals, less cost for insurance and damages, and stronger social stability. Madam Speaker, this is a government that does not wait for tragedy to escalate before acting. We are serious. This amendment tackles these driving behaviours by introducing consequences that change mindsets and habits. If we are serious about reducing road accidents, we must confront the root cause and tackle the main reasons which are speeding, drunk driving, dangerous overtaking, driving while distracted over mobile phone use, ignoring traffic signals among others. These causes high risk of road accidents leading to loss of lives, serious injuries, emotional trauma for families or event economic loss for the country. Madam Speaker, the amendment is to deter reckless driving. It is to create accountability and encourage safer driving habits with a view to reduce fatalities and accidents. It is not about punishment but rather about prevention and protection. The amendment to the Third Schedule now clearly assigns penalty points that ranges to 33 road traffic offences grading according to seriousness from 2 to 10 points for the most dangerous violations. What does this tell us? It tells us that the law finally differentiates between minor offences and a dangerous act with casualties and deaths. For example, riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet carries 2 to 4 points, failing to give uninterrupted passage to a pedestrian on a crossing carries 2 to 4 points, and speeding beyond 15km but not more than 25km above the limit also results in a 2 to 4 points while grossly dangerous conduct such as dangerous driving attracts the highest point penalties under the schedule. Madam Speaker, some may claim that the system is too severe but to answer it directly, a careful driver will never meet the limit of this system. As hon. Dr. Boolell, earlier said, the penalty point system is the best system to address these issues. Madam Speaker, the Bill also offers a path of redemption. Drivers who accumulate 10 to 14 points may apply to the court for redemption of up to 3 points after completing a rehabilitation course which may further encourage better driving culture. This shows that the amendment does not merely punish; it reforms, rehabilitates and protects. Madam Speaker, countries around the world that have adopted the penalty point system have claimed that it has worked. The system has helped to change driving behaviours. It improves accountability and most importantly, save lives. Furthermore, international experience shows that a penalty point licence, when embedded in strong enforcement education, can significantly reduce crashes, injuries and death. Japan has used a point-based system for decades and as part of a broader and safer framework, helped over long-term fatality rates with reduced accidents. Spain’s penalty point system produced a clear reduction in drivers involved in road accidents with injured people. Australia also used a point-based system and authorities have reported a decline in casualties during intensified enforcement windows. Israel’s evaluation of a point demerit-based system showed large drops in violations and meaningful reduction in accident involvement among drivers. Madam Speaker, systematic reviews confirms that the approach can cut harmful outcome by around one fifth when properly implemented. Today, our Government proposes the same because we believe the safety of Mauritians are not negotiable. The reform places Government of Mauritius on the right side of progress, aligning our laws with effective global standards. Madam Speaker, let us be clear; it is a system designed to protect and not to punish. It is a lifeline for families. It is a national necessity. The population wants the Parliament to act. Citizens want safer roads with more responsible drivers and less road tragedy. Madam Speaker, the law alone does not stop reckless driving but consequences do. When you know that dangerous driving behaviour on the road carries measurable personal consequences that is, penalty points with the risk of driving licence cancellation, you drive differently, you think differently and you act differently. Madam Speaker, this is a listening, caring and responsible government doing what is right. The people watching us today in villages, towns, homes and hospitals do not want symbolic gestures. They do not want politics as usual; they want actions, responsibility and protection. They want to know that this Parliament has listened and today, we are answering them with prevention, responsibility and leadership. The greatest right we can protect today is the right of every road user to reach home safely. Let this Parliament be remembered that we collectively choose to save lives on the road so as to make a safer and better Mauritius. The Bill is the most significant step in a decade towards safer road, responsible drivers and a more disciplined society. It requires the support of the House with conviction and unity, and with this shared belief that every life lost on our road, is one life too many. Madam Speaker, with these words, I thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Ms Henriette-Manan. (6.40 p.m.) Ms D. Henriette-Manan (Third Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall be short but I hope to the point. A life lost on our road, is a stark reminder that every journey we take, carries responsibility, not certainty. This is what makes this amended Bill before this august Assembly today so crucial. Our roads have claimed far too many lives, inflicted deep pain on families and created havoc across our society. As decision makers, we cannot stand aside and simply watch and pray. Action is imperative and I commend this Government for taking decisive steps and addressing the issue with the urgency it demands. A new approach was needed; a new approach is being proposed. Bravo to the hon. Minister and his team. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is an important legislative reform aimed at modernising our traffic regulations and strengthening road safety. Rodrigues welcomes this reform, but again, it must be adapted to the unique realities of our island. Although in recent years, Rodrigues has seen a significant increase in the number of vehicles on the road. Despite this growth, we remain one of the regions with the lowest number of serious road accidents. On average in recent years, up to 2024, Rodrigues has recorded between 175 and 200 road accidents per year, including around four fatal accidents in 2024. The highest number of deaths by road accidents registered over the last five years in a specific year being six recorded in 2021. These numbers are relatively low compared to mainland Mauritius. However, we have still experienced tragic road fatalities, reminding us that safety can never be taken for granted. With the rise in traffic, especially two-wheelers, we must anticipate future risk. That is why we welcome measures that aim to strengthen, control and discourage those who intend to disregard the road traffic code. One of the most important elements of this legislative reform is the strengthening or introduction of a point-based driving license. A point-based driving license promotes responsibility and encourages prudence on road. It sanctions dangerous driving fairly. Those regular offenders are deterred from repeating these offences. It encourages safer behaviour without penalising responsible road users and it educates, as it is mentioned that offenders whose license had been suspended, need to follow road safety classes before being submitted back their driving license. For Rodrigues, this system is particularly relevant as it acts as a preventive tool deterring speeding and reckless driving, especially driving under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating substances, and it acts as a fair mechanism even on our small island. However, for the system to work properly, enforcement is capital. To ensure effective enforcement, our traffic officers must be better equipped. This means to be equipped with modern speed radars, have reliable communication tools, have vehicles adapted to Rodrigues’ topography and regular specialised training. A law cannot be effective if the officers enforcing it lack the appropriate tools. Rodrigues cannot be left with insufficient enforcement capabilities. A point-based license without proper control would be a law in principle, not in practice. Now, no one disputes that Rodrigues has a challenging topography. Winding roads, narrow bends, several sections passing through villages and rural areas, these make high speeds naturally unsafe. But this does not mean that the current speed limit capped at 50km/h should remain frozen in time. That limitation was set many years ago and does not fully reflect the evolution of our vehicle fleet nor the improvement of several road sections and the current mobility needs of our people. In many areas, the limit has become outdated and people are being sanctioned unfairly. Visitors as well as Rodriguans often question this limit. With the introduction of the Penalty Points System, it becomes even more unfair. I therefore propose a measured and sensible revision of speed limits differentiated according to road category, but again, any increase, even a modest one, must go hand in hand with stronger enforcement. Another persistent issue affecting road users in Rodrigues, far more than on the mainland, is the presence of unattended animals on the roads. Only last week, a road accident occurred as a result of cattle crossing the roadway. It is therefore imperative that such situation, which is defined as offences under the Road Traffic Act Part IX Section 156, be clearly redefined to include animals left unattended and that the offences are accompanied with more strict penalties. Increase in fines, for example, and better enforcement in order to deter livestock owners from allowing these incidents to continue. Too often, owners face no consequences, enabling these violations to persist with complete impunity. Lastly, I cannot discuss amendments to the Road Traffic Act without emphasising the urgent need to upgrade our existing road infrastructure and construct new roads so that all Rodriguans can enjoy road facilities similar to those in the Republic. The RRA, our regional Government, up to now, included has done their best with the resources available. But I appeal to the Central Government to continue its support as there are still critical roads in Rodrigues that need to be built to connect citizens to essential services. For example, in Anse Fémie, residents who owns vehicles often have to leave them miles away from their homes due to the lack of proper access roads. Madam Speaker, hon. Members, Rodrigues remains one of the regions with the lowest number of serious road accidents, as I stated. This is an achievement we must protect. But the rising number of vehicles, the growing use of two-wheelers and recent tragic accidents are clear signals. We must strengthen our legislative framework and enforcement. I, therefore, request that the Act be adopted, but to include those amendments to the Road Traffic Act mentioned which are specific to Rodrigues. Only then can we truly ensure safety, support development and guarantee that mobility goes hand in hand with responsibility for every Rodriguan. With these words, I support the Bill submitted to the House.

Very good! Before you were born, there were no vehicle on the road.

Premie fwa mo al laba, ti ena enn veikil!

Exact! Only one! Anyway, people used to walk for long distances. They were very fit! The next speaker, hon. Jugurnauth! (6.50 p.m.) Mr S. Jugurnauth (Second Member for Savanne & Black River): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this Bill in this august Assembly. I rise today as a back bencher of the Government with a solemn responsibility to support the hon. Minister and the policies of the Government while also giving voice to the legitimate concerns, aspirations and expectations of the constituents who have entrusted us with a mandate. My duty is not merely to endorse, but to contribute, to refine, to question and to propose improvements that strengthen the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill before us. Road safety is not a theoretical matter. It is a national necessity. Every statistic represents a family devastated, a life interrupted, a future altered. The reintroduction of the Penalty Point System is a step towards creating a culture of responsibility and discipline on our roads. A culture that many nations such as the UK, Singapore, Australia, Ireland and other countries have successfully cultivated. For such a system to succeed in Mauritius, it must inspire confidence, Madam Speaker. It must be firm, but also fair. It must discipline repeated offenders without unfairly punishing those who make honest isolated mistakes. I take for example, the offence of failing to wear a seatbelt while the safety imperative is an unquestionable. The sanction must be proportionate. I propose that the first offence attract a warning or fine, preserving penalty points deduction for repeated offences. This progressive approach mirrors the best practice of several jurisdictions and avoid alienating responsible drivers who may commit an unintentional lapse. Madam Speaker, a similar logic applies to minor mechanical defect. A citizen may leave home with all lights functioning, only for a rear lamp to fail due to the vibration or poor road safety conditions – should such a driver immediately lose points? If safe city footage can confirm that the lights were functioning earlier, Madam Speaker, then justice requires that such evidence be admissible. It is not leniency, it is fairness. This brings me to a broader inconsistency. The law rightly penalises speeding. Yet, a vehicle fitness inspection, the accuracy of the speedometer, central to speed compliance, is not systemically verified. How can we demand strict adherence to speed limit if the very instrument used to measure speed is neglected during fitness checks? Legislative coherence demands that the system supporting enforcement be reliable as the penalties being posed. Hon. Members, modern law must be supported by modern tools. Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. Minister, he took on board the partnership with the Ministry of Technology to introduce a dedicated national road safety mobile application. Such an application provides real-time access to – (i) Penalty point status; (ii) Notify drivers of mechanical issues detected during inspections; (iii) Facilitate access to road safety footage for legitimate defence; (iv) Centralised payment of fines and bookings of fitness inspections; (v) Store digital vehicles document and dashcam footage. Enable enrolment in rehabilitation programme countries leading in digital governance like Estonia, South Korea and many other countries have demonstrated how such platforms improve transparency, efficiency and public trust. Rehabilitation is another indispensable pillar. International experience shows that education reduces repeated offenses more effectively than punitive measures alone. The Bill makes provisions allowing drivers to redeem points throughout structured rehabilitation courses in a progressive initiative that deserves full support. Madam Speaker, the Bill is a commendable step but like any legislation, it benefits from refinement. With the improvements proposed: proportionate penalties, technological safeguard, legislative consistency and digital innovation, we can build a road safety framework that is both firm and just, modern and human. I, therefore, express my full support for this Bill with the conviction that the amendments proposed today will be considered by my colleagues to serve our citizens and make our roads safer for all. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I also note that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is agreeable partly with us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, Dr. Ms Thannoo!

Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the adjournment of the debate. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly.