By agreement, the Government has given the remainder of its time to Fine Gael. Deputy Kenny is sharing time with Deputies Ring, Hayes, Farrelly and McGahon.
Private Members' Business. - Road Safety: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Olivia Mitchell on Tuesday, 20 February 2001:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the failure of this Government to–
combat the carnage on our roads, which leads to a death every 19 hours;
reach its own road safety targets;
reduce the spiralling cost of car insurance;
implement its own road safety strategy;
publish the Road Traffic Bill;
and calls on the Government to immediately introduce–
a structured programme for driver training;
statutory registration for driving instructors;
a road safety education programme in second level schools;
a multi-media campaign on safe driving;
a scheme to reduce the current backlog for driving tests to 8 weeks;
training for driving testers;
a reformed driving test;
a dedicated Garda traffic corps;
a penalty points licensing system;
a statutory insurance ombudsman.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
endorses the Government Strategy on Road Safety 1998-2002 as the first ever national road safety strategy adopted by an Irish Government;
notes the priority given by the strategy to actions to address speed, drink driving and seat-belt wearing; recognises the considerable progress which has already been made in relation to policies and measures promised by the strategy and that the interim targets of the strategy have been achieved;
notes and commends the commitment of all road safety agencies to intensify actions in the areas of enforcement, engineering, legislation and public awareness under the co-ordination of the strategy;
and calls upon these agencies to continue their efforts so that remaining policies and measures are delivered and the five year targets of the strategy are fully achieved.
–(Minister of State at the Department
of the Environment and Local Government,
Mr. D. Wallace)
The late John Kelly used to speak in the House and at parliamentary meetings about the dangers of giving young people the facility of driving a ton of metal down a highway at 100 miles an hour. The evidence and analysis of most fatal accidents is sent to the traffic corps at national level and traffic corps personnel con centrate on that. I compliment Deputies Naughten and Coveney for producing their report and scheme in respect of this matter. Time is short and I wish to make a few suggestions.
The traffic calming measures in place throughout the country do not succeed in their objectives. They are like chicanes in Formula One racing. They comprise signs surrounded by concrete bollards or parapets and are often badly lit. They are not painted clearly enough according to the requirements of the National Road Authority and there should also be reflector strips there. Many drivers do not see these signs and once they get through these narrow passages they find themselves on the straight road again and are inclined to resume speed. The areas between traffic calming bollards should be painted a different colour, such as red, so that drivers know they are in a zone of controlled speed. There will not ever be adequate Garda surveillance for all villages and small towns and unless permanent cameras are installed in these areas people will continue to break the law.
In the administrative county of Mayo, the third largest in the country, there is a dedicated traffic corps of four gardaí. When the patrols overlap one squad may work from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. while the other operates from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. but it is physically impossible to cover an area that size with a force that limited.
It is crazy that a 17 year old can receive a provisional licence for two years and then two further years without undergoing a test, instruction or tuition. A person is given a licence that raises the possibility of him or her becoming involved in a serious traffic accident. The measures mentioned by my colleagues are worthy of consideration and until we make it socially unacceptable to engage in such activity we will not have an answer to this problem. I commend the motion to the House.
I am glad to speak on this matter because for years I have been trying to address this problem and the problem of drinking. All Governments, including my own, refused to address these linked problems. The glorification of drink is tragic and we recently received a report that highlights this. We did not need it to tell us about the number of young children, particularly girls, who are drinking.
Last month 50 people were delivered to graveyards, which is tragic. The media focused attention on this through its coverage, not Fine Gael, and we must accept that unless deterrents are introduced young people will continue to kill themselves like flies crashing against a wall. They are endangering the road for everyone. Fifty deaths in one month is like the First World War.
We must come to terms with this. The creation of a highway patrol, similar to those in Germany and France, is absolutely necessary. The patrol must be given draconian powers and should be able to impound cars if necessary. A points system must also be introduced. Why are cars which can reach 150 miles per hour allowed into the country when the speed limit is 60 miles per hour? It is a nonsense but then we are very good at nonsense. We have any amount of legislation which is not enforced. The first thing we must do is fix governors on to cars if we are serious about stemming the flow of young people into graveyards. That should be a priority for any Government – Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour should act as one on this. Recent graphic advertisements pass over the heads of young people because they feel accidents will not happen to them but to someone else. We must realise that boys and girls of 17 have no sense of responsibility; nobody under 21 should be allowed to drive a car. Our main responsibility is to the thousands who use the roads every day. We read every day of awful tragedies in every county in Ireland and last night two young men died in Emyvale in Monaghan; we must stop this and deterrents are the only way to do so.
Since I became a Member no Government has had the courage to address this problem and the associated problem of drinking. Young people have been cynically and successfully targeted by the breweries.
Mr. Hayes
I support the motion and I particularly congratulate Deputy Naughten, who published a position paper on behalf of Fine Gael on this important issue last September. Deputy Naughten has raised this issue in different ways in recent years and I am glad he and other colleagues sponsored this motion.
I have great respect for the Minister of State but it is an absolute disgrace that two and a half years after the publication of the Government's plan to improve road safety we have yet to see the penalty points legislation. We are a laughing stock among other EU countries, all of which have a penalty points system. We now have the ludicrous system whereby the Six Counties have a penalty points system while the Republic does not. I recently asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to outline the number of successful prosecutions which had been taken against those driving dangerously on the Dublin-Belfast road. Deputy McGahon knows that road well; it is the most dangerous road in Ireland because there are not ever any prosecutions for dangerous driving on it. What happens if a garda takes a prosecution against someone from Northern Ireland driving in the Republic? Where does the case go once that person returns to Northern Ireland? There is not a prosecution so a case is not launched against such people. There is no way of bringing them to book, as one cannot extradite a person for a traffic offence. We must introduce a penalty points system on both sides of the Border which would ensure that Northern Ireland drivers who drive dangerously in this jurisdiction would be given penalty points in Northern Ireland. The reverse would apply to drivers from the Republic driving in the North. The situation is the same in France and Germany.
We need to do this quickly but the Government has not introduced the necessary legislation two and a half years after it promised to do so. The time scale for road safety has been forgotten and that will have to be addressed. Deputy McGahon is right in saying we need deterrents. I support the principle of taking cars off the road if their drivers continually drive dangerously.
Last September Deputy Naughten made an innovative proposal regarding car insurance for young people. He proposed that young drivers who sign up to a stringent new hazard perception test and a range of other tests rather than the typical driving instructor test should have a preferential rating when it came to car insurance premia. Many young drivers are bad drivers; wearing baseball caps they drive around housing estates causing all sorts of difficulties because they have no experience. However, there are also many young drivers who want to drive safely and well and those who take that difficult test should be given the low premia enjoyed by other responsible people. Those two issues are crucial and I ask the Government to give consideration to them.
I support the motion. I had the opportunity last week to refer to the worst accident black spot in the country, namely, Slane Bridge. The accident to which I referred was not caused by car drivers on this occasion, it was caused when a lorry went out of control. On the local radio station this morning there was a report from a woman who saw a lorry approach the traffic lights on Slane Bridge yesterday and overtake a car that had stopped because the traffic lights were red. The lorry crossed the bridge even though the lights were against it but thankfully the gardaí were present and they confiscated the lorry.
There is no doubt that there are many accident black spots throughout the country and that accidents are often caused by the way some people drive. However, every young driver should not be penalised for the sins of a few individuals. Modern cars are capable of reaching much higher speeds than those used on our roads when I was young and when I was unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident or two. When driving a car in those days one could not accelerate beyond 35 miles per hour before the steering wheel began to shake. Therefore, one did not accelerate to higher speeds and was more safe as a result, but that is not the case today. The Government should negotiate with the insurance companies and insist that only people, particularly young drivers, who are involved in accidents for which they are at fault and which were caused by speeding, should be penalised. Everyone should not be penalised because of the actions of a few.
The National Roads Authority is responsible for implementing Government policy in respect of national primary roads. Accidents at Slane Bridge have now claimed the lives of 22 people. Traffic lights were erected on the bridge in recent years and David Garvey, Lord have mercy on him, was the most recent person to be killed as a result of having to stop vehicles at the bottom of a steep, one mile long hill. If a lorry happens to go out of control approaching the traffic lights, the people in the cars in front are the ones who will suffer.
The Minister's private consultant addressed a meeting in Slane last night and stated that lorries will, in future, be stopped at the top of the town and made to travel down the hill in convoy. I have no problem with that. However, the Minister has the power to provide the National Roads Authority with the money to construct a new bridge. My colleague, Deputy Bruton, took such action in Navan when the National Roads Authority had no intention of providing a new bridge over the Blackwater in order to alleviate traffic congestion. The bottom line is that the buck stops with the Minister of the day in terms of dealing with accident black spots. The Minister of State should communicate that message to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It is not acceptable to me, as an elected representative for County Meath, that heavy goods vehicles will be stopped at the top of Slane town and that money will not be made available to build a new bridge. People want a new bridge to be built in order that many lives will be saved.
I wish to share time with Deputies O'Shea and Upton.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Labour Party supports the motion, which was tabled by Fine Gael. I congratulate my colleague from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, on her appointment as Fine Gael spokesperson. I also compliment Deputy Naughten on tabling the motion and the work he has consistently done on this issue over a long period.
This is a life and death issue. More than 400 people are killed and approximately 10,000 are injured on our roads every year. That is a level of carnage which is worse than that which obtained during the blackest periods during the troubles in Northern Ireland. On a daily basis, families are suffering the unnecessary loss of a loved one as a result of road accidents.
It would be unreasonable to suggest that the direct responsibility for these deaths and losses rests with any Minister. The responsibility for a death or a car crash rests ultimately with drivers and other road users. However, we must reflect on a number of fundamental facts as we debate this issue. First, our record on road safety is the worst in Europe. An article by Michael O'Regan in The Irish Times of 10 January referred to a report given to a committee of the House by Mr. Brian Dalton of the insurance division of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employ ment and stated that Mr. Dalton had indicated that Ireland is currently ranked third worst of the 15 EU member states on road accident frequency and its fatality rate was the highest in Europe. We must consider the reasons for this. It cannot be the case that we have the worst or the most careless drivers in Europe because there is no evidence to suggest that Irish drivers are somehow worse than their European counterparts. We must look at a number of other reasons for our poor record.
We must give due consideration to the contributing factors such as the condition of our roads, the competence and qualifications of drivers, the adequacy of road safety legislation and the degree to which the rules of the road are enforced. On all of those issues, responsibility rests with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In terms of addressing the avoidable factors which contribute to the deaths and injuries that occur on our roads, the Minister has been a failure. The extent of his failure is underlined in the extraordinary statement made late last year by the chairperson of the National Safety Council, Mr. Eddie Shaw, which was reported by Tim O'Brien in The Irish Times on 20 December 2000. The article in question states:
Announcing that 408 people had died on the State's roads so far this year – 11 more than the corresponding period last year – the chairman, Mr. Eddie Shaw, criticised the Government for not implementing aspects of the five-year strategy The Road to Safety 19982002 . . . Mr. Shaw was unequivocal in his criticism of the Government for "launching a strategy with no budget". He pointed out that the penalty points system for drivers was supposed to have been developed during 1998 and legislation to enact it brought in by 1999, but that was not now expected until the end of 2001 or early 2002.
The article proceeds with a direct quote from Mr. Shaw to the effect that:
"Road deaths are twice what they should be by international comparison, and if the strategy was on target 50 people who have died so far this year would be alive. Ultimately we could drop the kill rate by 50 per cent."
I cannot recall any occasion on which the chairman of a State agency criticised its parent Department, the Minister to whom he is accountable and the Government in such trenchant and unequivocal terms.
Mr. Shaw was not the first chairman of the National Safety Council to tackle Government policy because, according to The Irish Times report, his predecessor, Mr. Cartan Finegan, warned the Government as early as March 1999 that the strategy was in danger of failure. The article further states that according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Finegan had “an increasingly fraught relationship with the Department of the Envir onment in 1999 and repeatedly asked for support”. It is not the Opposition parties which are pointing the finger at Government for its failure in this area. It is those who were appointed by Government and who are responsible for implementing Government policy who are saying that this is a failure of Government, that Government has not delivered.
An obvious example of where Government has not delivered is its failure to introduce the penalty points system. Last night the Minister of State informed us that the drafting of the Road Traffic Bill, 2000, was approved by Government on 26 July 2000, two years after it was to have been introduced. The drafting has been approved but, six or seven months on, we have not yet seen a draft. No Bill has yet been published and the Minister of State has informed us that even when it is enacted it will not take effect because a number of other initiatives must be taken to facilitate the introduction and administration of a penalty points system, for example, the commencement of section 24 of the Road Traffic Act and the compilation of a national driver file. Not only have we had almost three years of inaction by the Government on the issue, we also have a prediction of further long-fingering into the future.
We have had a problem with driver testing in recent years. It is no secret that the number of cars was increasing dramatically. The Department of the Environment and Local Government was the recipient of the car registration tax collected owing to the increased numbers of cars and it did not make provision, until five minutes to midnight, for additional driver testers. The result has been huge delays in driver testing and also, because of the failure rate among those undergoing the driving test, a quarter of drivers are not qualified to drive because they do not have a driving licence. This has happened under this Administration.
On top of that, the Government is presiding over a traffic and transport policy which concentrates increased volumes of heavy traffic on roads which are not adequate to deal with it, which puts most of the freight and passenger traffic onto our roads. When the roads are not adequately developed, not properly surfaced, with bends and other kinds of problems, lorries rushing to meet a shipping deadline at a port and jostling with cars containing business people rushing to a meeting somewhere, as well as people who are going about their personal business, we have all of the ingredients of the crashes and so-called accidents and tragedies we have witnessed. The Government, in a nutshell, has not dealt with the factors which are contributing to road deaths and accidents on our roads. It has been a miserable failure in this area. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government and his two lieutenants, the Ministers of State, Deputies Dan Wallace and Molloy, both of whom have some responsibility in this area, have been an absolute failure in dealing with what needed to be dealt with at a legis lative and policy level to try to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
It is baffling that in a country where the normal speed limit is 60 miles per hour and the speed limit on motorways is 70 miles per hour there are vehicles which can travel at speeds of up to 140 or 150 miles per hour. Without that capacity, the excessive speeds that contribute to accidents could not be reached. It is crazy that cars on our roads can reach speeds up to 80 miles per hour above the speed limit on motorways.
In preparing for this debate, I cast my mind over the incidents I see on the roads that give rise to accidents and to people taking risks and that could be eliminated. Like most Deputies, I drive much more than the average driver. What I particularly notice is learner drivers driving at peak times at relatively slow speeds, forcing other drivers to drive in convoys. However, if drivers are to learn to drive properly, they must be exposed to peak-time conditions. My secretary informed me recently that as she was going home from work one evening, she found herself travelling behind a large van, in front of which was a learner driver. The driver behind her became frustrated and pulled out, something he should not have done. There was not an accident, but it seems it came close to it. We need to address the problem of road rage and discourtesy in our driving culture. I do not know what can be done about the learner driver situation I described. On certain parts of the national primary route large convoys of heavy goods vehicles can build up and effectively slow down the speed of traffic to around 40 miles per hour. People then become frustrated and pull out from behind these convoys and that can give rise to dangerous situations.
The phenomenon of road rage is not unique to this country, but it is very much a feature. We have all seen drivers on motorways and dual carriageways who nip in and out of lanes, overtake in the slow lane and so on. This is dangerous and if somebody wants to pull in to let traffic behind pass, a difficult situation can arise. The convoys I describe could be convoys of trucks, cars or a mixture. Farm machinery on roads at specific times can give rise to problems as well. There are times, for instance, when farmers want to avail of good weather to spread slurry, but their vehicles can cause a large back-up in traffic. I am not sure what can be done about that, but I suggest a regulation to discourage farm machinery from using busy roads at peak times. There are aspects of our driving which, because of the inadequacy of our roads, can give rise to convoys developing, to traffic slowing down, to people becoming irritated, to road rage setting in, and to people taking chances they would not normally take.
Coming up to Dublin this week, I was travelling in darkness and encountered fog along parts of the road. I passed two vehicles, each of which had only one headlamp – this is obviously an enforcement issue. I was not certain, as I looked up the road, that the vehicle approaching me with one light was a four wheeled vehicle. It was a van. These matters are hugely important. There must be more stringent enforcement of the rules regarding car lights. If there is one car on the road with only one functioning headlamp, it is one too many.
Another problem arises with regard to heavy goods vehicles, which appear to be involved in a large number of accidents. There are speed limits and other regulations in place for these vehicles but we regularly see them travelling too fast on our roads and motorways. Something effective and urgent must be done to address that problem.
I encountered another road safety problem during the local election campaign in 1999. I was canvassing on a large housing estate in Waterford. A green area, provided by the local authority, was located across from where I was canvassing and a small saloon car, with no registration plates and occupied by two young men, was being driven on it. Although it was a beautiful evening, there were fortunately no children or senior citizens walking across the area. I rang the Garda and was informed that the young men were not in violation of the road traffic Acts as they were not on the public road. These cars, I understand, can be bought for £10 or £20 from a garage and young men can drive them around before setting fire to them and abandoning them. It is another danger on the roads that unregistered and uninsured vehicles such as this can be driven on public areas, not to mind on public roads.
We must apply ourselves to tackling these situations and I hope the Minister will take my comments into consideration. My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, spoke of the lethargy on the part of the Department and the Minister in establishing a proper penalty points system. Introducing a penalty points system under which people can lose their licences is the only effective way of getting the message across. People will realise that the current situation cannot continue.
A not altogether unrelated point is that we should seek to eradicate the practice of allowing learner drivers to drive unaccompanied. Obviously, it will be necessary to deal with the driving test delays. The Government must also address the driving culture in this country and the anger we constantly see on our roads. In my experience, drivers are more courteous in Britain and are more concerned about other drivers on the road.
I drove home from the House a fortnight ago and on the road between Waterford and Tramore, where I live, there had been a fatal accident. A young man on a motor scooter had been killed. I do not know the exact circumstances aside from the rumours one hears. However, seeing a diversion on the road and ambulances and gardaí at the scene brings home the reality of fatal accidents.
We must work on a number of aspects of road safety and much can be done through regulation and enforcement.
Dr. Upton
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The ongoing tragedy of the carnage on our roads, not just every weekend but practically every day, must be taken seriously and addressed. When one reads that there is a death on our roads every 19 hours, it concentrates one's mind on the gaps that exist in road manners, road safety and the legislation that applies to road safety.
There are so many gaps to be filled it is difficult to know where to begin and to identify the primary problems. However, it is absolutely ludicrous that a young person can buy a car with just a birth certificate to prove their age and enough money to pay for the licence and insurance. Legally, they are entitled to sit into the car by themselves and drive it at a speed of up to 70 miles per hour without any other control or training being required. That is ridiculous. There is no other occupation or profession in which no training, accreditation and approval of some description are required in advance of undertaking the occupation. Safe road use is not underpinned when such a system is legally acceptable. It allows the conditions I have described to prevail.
The culture of good use of the roads and safe driving must begin at school level, particularly at primary and second levels, where it would be possible to inculcate the ideas of safe driving and the rules of the road. There is also an opportunity to introduce driving lessons at second level. The transition year, for example, could usefully be used, where pupils are over the required legal age, to introduce them to the good culture of safe driving. They might also begin to appreciate some of the hazards and risks involved if driving were introduced in that fashion rather than in a more negative fashion later when there are, in effect, challenges before them to break speed limits and so forth.
We have failed to apply the law. Monetary fines appear to have little or no impact on drivers who are in breach of the law. The only way to deal with this is to introduce a penalty points system. I have called for its introduction on a number of occasions. The penalty points will be shown to be an effective means of keeping track of people's road traffic offences. Sloppy and reckless driving leads to most of the accidents and road deaths. However, the State does not appear to have any way of keeping track of an individual's road offences.
A truly dangerous driver could escape for a long time with cautions and fines until they finally kill somebody. This is the type of driver the penalty points system will remove from our roads. I tried to use a series of parliamentary questions last year to assess whether lives could have been saved. On 5 December, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed me that five people were convicted of the charge of dangerous driving causing death during 1998 and 1999. On 12 December I asked if the Minister could provide the Dáil with the summonses served and the convictions made against these five people. The Minister was unable or unwilling to provide this information even though the question only referred to five specific cases. It is legitimate to ask if the five individuals convicted in those two years would have been off the roads if penalty points were in place.
The current shambolic system means past road traffic offences are hidden, yet these regular offences can point to low standards of driving. Penalty points would force drivers to get into the habit of good driving. They are easy for the Garda to enforce and the driver knows how many chances he or she has left before they will be put off the road. The bureaucratic nightmare that is now in place discourages the Garda from enforcing the law. The Government's road safety plan has been in place since 1998 but the figures for road deaths indicate it is a failure. That is because the most important element of the plan, the penalty points, is still a long way from being in place.
In reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, promised that the Bill would be enacted by the end of this year. He could not give any commitments on the availability of a national driver file by the end of the year yet penalty points to keep track of offences can operate without such a file.
Ireland is an IT hub so the Department should have no problems accessing the skills to implement the necessary IT infrastructure. A penalty points system is in operation in Northern Ireland and I would like to know what contacts the Minister has had with his counterpart in the North to assist in the implementation of a similar system.
I also wish to address the training provided for driving instructors. What standards are necessary to set up a driving school? Can anyone decide to set up such a school? Who evaluates driving instructors? What qualifications are they required to have? Are the qualifications accredited or evaluated? It appears that one does not have to have accreditation or evaluation and that anyone can become a driving instructor. No other profession operates with such a lack of standards and accreditation. No teacher or course instructor in any other area would be able to deliver a course without being accredited.
The epidemic of mobile telephones has hit the country. This does not just involve people using telephones in the office or the restaurant. Unfortunately people are also using mobile telephones when driving. Motorists who drive with one hand and use the other hand to hold a telephone are surely not observing best practice. Will the Minister outline how many prosecutions and convictions there have been due to dangerous or careless driving because the driver was using a mobile telephone? This road hazard is on the increase rather than on the decrease. People are taking little notice of recommendations or advice on the use of mobile telephones when driving.
Learner drivers should always be accompanied by a qualified driver. However, it is ridiculous that a learner driver can drive unaccompanied and without training. There is no enforcement of any requirement to be accompanied by a qualified driver even when the learner is on a second or third provisional licence.
There was a reference to speed limits. It is ridiculous that the maximum speed limit is 70 mph yet cars are designed to travel at 130 mph or 140 mph. What is the logic in providing someone with a vehicle which can travel at speeds which are illegal? This issue must be addressed in terms of managing driving speed.
Some of the recent safe driving advertisements have been informative and startling and I hope they are effective. However, there is a need for a pro-active campaign on safe driving. There should also be a dedicated Garda traffic corps which will not just hand out parking fines but will monitor safe road use and good driving practice.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Conor Lenihan, Martin Brady and Collins.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am pleased to speak in this debate and to support the motion, as amended. I am delighted this subject is being debated but it would have been preferable if we could have agreed the wording of a motion. We need to get the message across that road safety is an important topic which is of serious concern to all Members.
Some Opposition Deputies acknowledged, perhaps not implicitly, that this Government has prioritised and driven the road safety agenda efficiently, actively and effectively. The road safety strategy is already producing good results in terms of outcomes and delivery of promised policies and measures.
Higher public, media and political priority is now being given to road safety and this debate is testament to that fact. The media is also giving regular coverage to road safety. The Government has led and welcomes this process. By setting quantified and clearly stated objectives for road safety in its strategy, the Government has deliberately held itself more accountable than any previous Government for progressing the road safety agenda.
I will outline some of the achievements. It is unhelpful that Fine Gael speakers have tried to talk down the progress being made with the strategy. This may be a good idea from a political point of view but it is not very productive from a road safety point of view. The annual toll of road deaths was reduced by more than 12% in 1999 and 2000 since the introduction of the strategy. In 1999, serious injuries from road accidents were reduced by nearly 15% relative to 1997 which was the base year for the strategy. Compared with a continuation of the rising trends obtaining up to 1997, it can be estimated that more than 100 lives were saved in 2000 due to the implementation of the strategy.
We can take some pride from these statistics. However, I agree with Opposition Deputies that no one can be complacent about the tragic and avoidable toll of human life and health which road accidents take. There is not an acceptable level of road accidents. It is right that there should be political support for progressively ambitious road safety targets. It is also right that impatience should be felt at any setbacks or delays in the existing strategy.
It is wrong, however, for criticism of Irish road safety performance to be based on exaggeration or false claims some of which have, unfortunately, been put forward in this debate. Ireland does not have the worst, or a low ranking, road safety performance in terms of EU comparisons. By the most reliable indicator of road safety – the number of road deaths per head of population – Ireland stood at 12.4 per 100,000 in 1998 which was the seventh highest among EU member states. In the past two years Ireland's rate of deaths per 100,000 population has reduced further and is now 11.2.
It is also wrong to claim that the strategy has failed to meet quantified outcome targets. The two interim targets set for achievement by 2000 have already been met and exceeded. These were to bring the rate of Irish road deaths within the prevailing EU average of 116 per 100,000 population and to implement accident reductions at 240 locations on the national road network.
There has also been exaggeration by a factor of eight of the probability of the involvement of young people in fatal accidents. I say this not to minimise the real and continuing risks to young people from road accidents but to avoid compounding distress or sacrificing credibility by insisting on wrong assertions.
Within the framework of the Government's strategy, the road safety agencies have been taking practical actions to make our roads safer. For example, the NRA's roads programme is reducing the number of fatal road accidents by an average increment of 14 each year and the number of serious injury accidents by 40. The gardaí served 224,000 fines on the spot for speeding and 84,000 fines for non-seat belt wearing last year. This form of interaction between the gardaí and road users did not exist before 1997 and has been intensifying since then. The National Safety Council has valuably joined forces in a succession of safety campaigns with the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to achieve greater economies of scale and coverage in relation to road safety awareness throughout the island.
Concern is being expressed and criticism is being levelled at the delay in implementing a pen alty points system. It must be understood that the strategy comprises a wide array of policies and measures. They have different timescales and requirements in terms of deliverability. No one measure constitutes the key to the strategy. It is widely accepted that road safety strategies must consist of many different policies and measures and that all have their contribution to make.
A penalty points system will be an important and worthwhile measure in support of the strategy and it is being pursued urgently. However, it will not of itself guarantee the success of the strategy, as some have wrongly assumed. It has been publicly stated since mid-1999 that the IT systems needed to support a national driver file, with penalty points functionality, would take until 2001 to put in place. My Department is working urgently to ensure delivery of this target. I intend that the legislation in support of penalty points will be published shortly and that it will be processed by the Oireachtas ahead of this deadline. Everything is being done by the Government and the Department to try to ensure it will be in place in time.
Last night the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, was not in a position to finish his speech and to respond to points made about driving tests. It was not until 1998 that the trend towards greatly increased driver tests demand became fully established and that the link between this demand and the buoyant Irish economy asserted itself inescapably. In 1998 there was an increase of 23% over 1997 resulting in an all time record of 146,506 test applications. This trend continued in 1999 with 153,389 applications. That is an increase of 5% on 1998 and 45% on 1995. Once again that record was broken in 2000 with 167,000 applications received. That represents an 8% increase on the record intake in 1999 and 55% on 1995. Indications so far this year are that we are likely to receive approximately the same volume of applications during the current year.
Despite this unprecedented rise in demand, the waiting times for driving tests have improved considerably with the average waiting time falling from 33 to 20 weeks, while the longest anyone has to wait for a test has fallen from an average of 41 to 22 weeks. The current backlog of driving test applications is 72,000. This is down from the high of 102,000 in 1999 and a reduction of 16,500 on the starting figure for 2000. This improvement in the level of service has resulted from a number of measures taken by my Department.
Improvements to the service in 1999 and 2000 were achieved by increasing the numbers and productivity of driver testers. Significant additional resources have been allocated to the service, which now numbers 115 testers compared to 66 in 1998. The recruitment of additional testers, both permanent and contract, followed the holding of a competition by the Civil Service Commission and lengthy negotiations with the driver testers union to agree greater productivity and the recruitment of contract testers. Additional staff and productivity, together with Saturday working, has increased the testing capacity of the service to over 200,000 standard tests annually. Access to the service has also been improved through the provision of three new test centres in Tallaght, Raheny and a second centre in Limerick. In response to the upsurge in demand in 2000, the Department took steps to employ retired testers and recruited 12 additional testers. We also negotiated a bonus scheme with existing testers with a view to maximising their productivity. We also propose to recruit additional contract testers this year. I am confident these measures should enable us to meet our customer service target of ten weeks' maximum waiting time for an appointment by mid-year.
I emphasise that where an individual requires a test for urgent reasons they will be facilitated as far as possible. During the most recent period for which figures are available, 44% of applicants were tested within 15 weeks. I am conscious of the need to provide a testing service which can offer tests within a reasonable period of time and I assure the House that both I and my Department will take the measures necessary to ensure that a quality service is provided. It is also important to note that a number of people on the waiting list for driving tests have indicated they do not want a driving test for some time.
As regards driver testing and road safety, the parameters for the driving test now reflect the high standards laid down in EU directives which facilitates the recognition of Irish driving licences in the EU and internationally. The driving tester must determine whether an applicant is competent to drive a vehicle safely and with due regard for the safety and convenience of other persons. The role of driver testing in ensuring that drivers reach an acceptable level of competence is important in the context of road safety. I assure the House that the content of the test will be kept under constant review and where opportunities to improve the test become available they will be taken.
The question of training for driver testers was raised by the previous speaker. I acknowledge that due to the unprecedented demand placed on the service in recent years and the need to train an additional 49 testers, the opportunity to put in place a comprehensive training programme for driver testers has been limited. However, I am pleased to inform the House that a comprehensive training programme for testers will take place this year. It will incorporate refresher training to ensure a consistent application of test standards as well as customer care skills.
The road safety strategy proposes improvements in driver training and testing as well as in educational programmes as complements to its primary counter-measures in relation to speeding, alcohol and seat belt wearing. Proposals for improving the quality control and regulation of driving instruction have been announced. These include the recognition of certain private approved bodies which would operate to quality standards and train, assess and register driving instructors.
An initiative by the Irish Motorcycle Action Group to establish a network of motorcycle instructors has also been supported by my Department. Funding has been advanced to the Irish Rider Training Association which has been established under the auspices of MAG to enable it to carry out this task. There is a commitment to address the issue of initial practical training for motor cyclists.
Time does not permit me to address some of the other issues raised. It is important to note that the Government has been the first to prepare and adopt a road safety strategy. Within its framework and co-ordination, the road safety agencies will continue to strive for a reduced toll of fatalities and serious injuries. A 20% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by the end of 2002, relative to 1997, is the minimum we must target. We can and will succeed in delivering this.
I fully support the Government's strategy to improve road safety. The Government's strategy for road safety for 1998 to 2000 was the first national road safety strategy to be formulated by any Government. While I welcome the progress being made towards improving road safety, more must be done if we are to substantially reduce the level of fatalities on our roads. I fully support the statement made before Christmas by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, in which he said, "There is no acceptable rate of road fatalities or injuries in this country". He is correct in his analysis of the matter. He further stated, "All road accidents must be regarded as preventable, and the avoidable loss of life is tragic".
Speed is a central reason there are so many fatalities on our roads. By the end of 1999 Ireland's road fatality rate per one million inhabitants stood at 112. Road deaths increased by 59, or nearly 13%, between 1997 and 1999. In the same period serious injuries decreased by over 15%, but there is no acceptable rate of road fatalities or injuries. The Government has implemented a range of new measures to support road safety improvements, including a greater Garda enforcement of the road traffic laws in the areas of speeding, drinking and seat belt usage. Fixed automated speed cameras and breath testing have been introduced. These measures are being further extended in support of greater road safety.
Research into the involvement of young people in road accidents and the problem of drugs and drinking is being advanced. Education and information on road safety is being improved, including the joint promotion of campaigns with the Northern Ireland authorities. The road safety strategy depends on the active and co-ordinated implementation of all its policies and measures. The implementation of any single measure is not sufficient alone to ensure the success of our road safety strategy. An effective road safety strategy must maintain public confidence at all times. A rigorous enforcement of our traffic laws is important in the ongoing battle to reduce the number of casualties on our roads.
I welcome the comments made by the Irish Insurance Federation in its pre-budget submission last year when it said that the motor insurance industry actively supports the national road safety strategy. In 2000, members of the Irish Insurance Federation contributed £900,000 to the National Safety Council's road safety promotional activities. I agree with the policy position that the enactment of educational and engineering measures in the national road safety strategy is a vital component of a comprehensive approach to road safety promotion.
The current high level of accidents and casualties on our roads is a contributory factor to insurance costs. It is important that financial resources are available at all times for the implementation of the national road safety strategy. I am confident that the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government fully agree with the need to allocate substantial financial resources to upgrade the level of Garda activity in enforcing the road traffic laws and to enable the National Safety Council to scale up its road safety educational and advertising activities.
It is accepted by all agencies and interested groupings in the high level group on road safety that benefits can accrue to the State from the allocation of increased resources in order to implement the national road safety strategy. Putting aside increased resources for that strategy must be seen by all as an investment that will pay rich dividends, rather than as an expenditure with no tangible returns. The tangible return that can be delivered by the successful implementation of the national road safety strategy is the reduction of fatalities and other causalities on our roads.
There is hardly a family on this island that has not been touched in some shape or form by a road accident. Some families have suffered more than others, particularly where loved ones have died. There is no acceptable rate of road fatalities or injuries. It is incumbent on all of us to implement the key provisions of the national road safety strategy at every opportunity.
Two years ago, the Government established the motor insurance advisory board. One of its recommendations is that the proceeds of the 2% levy on motor insurance business under section 92 of the Finance Act, 1982, should be applied to road safety projects within the framework of the national road safety strategy. The Government should give serious consideration to this recommendation.
Young drivers have to pay high levels of motor insurance and, therefore, I welcome the fact that the Government has established the motor insurance advisory board to ascertain how car insurance can best be reduced for such drivers. The plain fact is that young drivers pay exorbitant levels of car insurance, with some in their early twenties paying as much as £3,000 or £3,500 for annual car cover. This is not an incentive for young people to start up a small business because car insurance would be such a prohibitive cost in the initial stages of such an enterprise. If young drivers can drive without any accidents for a short period, their insurance costs should be substantially reduced. Insurance companies have to come clean in proving that young drivers are not being discriminated against. There are varying levels of insurance premia for young drivers across different insurance sectors. Speed is a reason young drivers are involved in accidents, but the vast majority are paying exorbitant levels of car insurance.
I thank Opposition Deputies for the temper of their contributions in recognising that this is a serious issue and not one to be kicked around like a political football. We can all foresee that a penalty points system will be introduced. That is a welcome development. We must address a number of elemental questions in this debate. Why is it so dangerous to travel on our roads? Why is motor insurance so expensive for younger people in particular, although not just for them? Why do we compare so badly with other countries when it comes to accident records? Even the contrast between here and the six north-eastern counties is striking. Why are we so different from other countries? Why are our roads so dangerous? Why is insurance so expensive? There are a number of reasons, none of which has to do with Government.
Let us be honest – it is not just in relation to driving, but a whole plethora of areas in our national life, including the conduct of politics – something in the Irish culture has not been compliant for many years. Now that we are prosperous we have an opportunity to makes ourselves fully compliant in our respect for the law, including safety in the workplace and on the roads. Unfortunately, that culture of compliance has not been well established for long, but we are moving from a culture of non-compliance to one of compliance. More than anyone else, the Minister is leading the way in that respect, both in terms of his local government reforms and in terms of the way we penalise and punish those who transgress road traffic legislation.
Why are we so dangerous on the roads? Is it because, in some ways, we have been so successful? Every year there are many thousands of new car registrations which are adding pressure to a stretched road infrastructure. Nobody could have predicted that spectacular success or the number of people who are able, and eligible, to buy new cars. That is a huge change.
Part of the problem would be greatly reduced if we could get people off the roads. It would also mean less capital outlay. In addition to focusing on the safety record, a points system and the drink driving issue – all of which are important – we should concentrate on the other areas for which the Minister is responsible and which are not often discussed in debates such as this. These include the development of the rail infrastructure and alternatives to road transport. When one considers insurance claims figures, the level of claims by those aged between 18 and 34 is striking. The number of serious accidents those young people cause, whether through exuberance or inexperience, or a mixture of both, is striking.
There is also a much deeper issue, a compensation mentality, "compo hunting", as it is called, that has nothing to do with young people, which reflects on all of us, individually and collectively. That compensation culture is very strong and prevalent here. It is encouraged by the court system.
A relative of mine who lived in Paris was knocked down by a passing car mounting the pavement. Typically reflecting our culture, he half expected he would get a sizeable claim for his injuries which were not very deep but he was unconscious for a period. When he appeared before the French magistrates court, he was shocked to be informed there were set fees for injuries, that if one suffered a mild concussion, it was worth X number of francs. That is the way the system here should operate. Unfortunately, we have juries, judges and a legal system that tends to be well disposed towards the humble claimant of compensation and this attitude arises from our culture and our history. I am sure Deputy Shatter, who is a very experienced lawyer, would agree. Our juries, legal system and judicial personages are far too generous in the awards they make. They do not take the broader national interest into consideration. This gives rise to the question of freezing awards to dampen the level of compensation claims and to implementing set fees. That issue is important in regard to this motion.
In terms of making our roads safer, the introduction of a points system is desirable. Any measure that relates to driver training is important.
To address the problem of joyriding, more positive interventions are required at a local level. With regard to the abuse of horses, the Fettercairn horse project in my constituency has been very successful. It illustrates the benefit of diverting the attention of the youth into other areas of activity. We should invest in go-karting initiatives for the youth in disadvantaged areas. Many youngsters steal cars because there is little else to divert their attention in the underprivileged areas from which they come. If they have an opportunity to drive, through the initiatives I mentioned, the position might be much better.
I have full confidence in the Minister's ability to tackle these problems. He is one of those Ministers who listens to the backbenchers, absorbs what they have to say and takes it on board. He is one of the Ministers most open in that regard in the Government.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Neville, Shatter and Olivia Mitchell.
That is agreed.
When I saw this motion, I thought I would not like to be on the Government side and I wondered what its members might say. During a Private Members' motion, generally the Opposition berate the Government for what it has not done, what it promised to do and what it failed to do. There might be some plusses, the Government might say it did this and that. Unfortunately, I did not hear the contributions of the Government speakers other than Deputy Lenihan's and a little of the Minister's.
Deputy Lenihan spoke on the Social Welfare Bill earlier and Deputy Flanagan referring to his contribution said Deputy Lenihan always adds a little light relief. I was interested to hear what he had to say on this motion. It was notable that he did not greatly praise the Government. Talking of lateral thinking, we were go-karting out somewhere in Bohernabreena at some stage. The issue of safety on our roads is the Achilles' heel of the Government. It is certainly the Achilles' heel of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In 1998 the Government published a five year road safety strategy that referred to reducing the 1997 level of deaths on our roads by 20% by 2002. Sweden has a zero acceptance level of road deaths. Why have we decided that a certain level of road casualties is acceptable? This was the Government that made famous the call for zero tolerance in the justice area. Why can we not do likewise in terms of safety on our roads?
The Minister briefly mentioned that the Government has brought publicity to the issue. It has, in that we see photographs of, if not the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, wearing a helmet on the back of a motorbike, the Minister astride one. Regrettably that is all they have done. However, the issue has got further publicity because of the horrific carnage on our roads in recent times.
There are several matters wrong. Our driver training is outdated, the driving test has not been radically changed since it was introduced first in the early 1960s. We do not have a system of statutory registration for driving instructors. For the driving test, we have a waiting list as long as my arm. There are in the region of 300,000 provisional licence holders on the roads. If my memory serves me correctly, that figure is incompatible with the number of people who are awaiting driving tests. How can there be so many provisional licence holders on the road and so few people, albeit on a long waiting list, waiting to be tested? Why are we allowing people to obtain up to eight provisional licences and not doing anything about it?
A few measures could be introduced without imposing any great hardship. Many motorists drive vehicles with only one headlight or no rear lights and on many occasions gardaí do not pros ecute them. It is considered too minor an offence or the garda knows the motorist in question. The Garda have a small book with various fees they can charge or penalties they can impose and we should consider extending that system. It would be preferable if a garda were to give a motorist a ticket for a £50 charge for failure to have a light working on his or her motor vehicle than to prosecute the motorist, as such offences clog up the court, waste Garda time and are ineffective in many respects.
With regard to contractors and the condition of our roads, there is a good deal of development taking place around the country and no one seems to be policing contractors. The road between Blessington and Dublin is like a quarry lane. It is disgraceful.
Many commentators have spoken about the introduction of a penalty points system. Deputy Lenihan spoke about our lack of compliance and our culture of not complying. Statistics reveal that 50% of motorists break the speed limit and I am probably one of those, as are probably half, if not more, of the Members of this House. The introduction of a penalty points system is needed. It is the only deterrent that would address that offence. In this case, the imposition of a fine will not work. However, if I were given three penalty points for taking a right turn when I should not take it between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m., I would not take that turn, but I would continue to take that turn until such time as I were given three penalty points on my licence.
With regard to the role of politicians, many local authorities are trying to get approval for road improvements and politicians are afraid to make the difficult decisions and back them.
With regard to road safety at schools, there are children and vehicles in the area of schools and the Department, in conjunction with the local authorities, should examine road safety in the vicinity of schools.
I emphasise the failure of the Government to address the serious issue of road safety.
I am pleased to contribute to this debate and congratulate Deputies Naughten and Mitchell on introducing the motion.
I will dwell specifically on the number of road accidents in rural areas, which is directly related to the condition of the roads in rural areas. Not enough is being done to ensure the condition of roads in rural areas is improved. We have had a severe winter and there are reports of a growing number of accidents on county roads due to the deterioration in their condition. There should be a plan over a period, be it two, four or ten years, to ensure that we bring the condition of county roads up to an acceptable level, that of the condition of roads in urban areas. There is no reason we could not asphalt rural roads over a reasonable period. Regional roads are currently being asphalted and that is welcome, as it has greatly improved their condition. We should extend that programme of work to include initially country roads on which traffic has greatly increased and then to those roads on which there is less traffic. The improvement of the condition of those roads would substantially reduce the number of accidents and it would also substantially reduce the level of mechanical problems with vehicles.
The OE test has shown a higher level of mechanical failure in rural areas than in urban areas which is directly related to the condition of the roads. It would improve car performance levels and reduce accident levels if county roads were improved. Too often we see heavy goods vehicles and cars avoiding potholes and bad patches of road by dangerously crossing the lane. Sometimes one even sees it happening on a bend. A comprehensive programme to improve rural roads would have a positive effect on accident levels. The Government has not recognised the growing car ownership, the increase in the number of young drivers on our roads and the higher number of commercial vehicles.
I sympathise with the 4,000 people affected by the 400 deaths on our county roads last year. I support my colleagues who have urged the Government to introduce a penalty points system as an important way of ensuring people become aware at an early stage that they run the risk of losing their licence.
My colleagues, including Deputy Mitchell, have highlighted the fact that there is a death on our roads, on average, every 19 hours. A total of 415 lives were lost last year. Many thousands more suffered serious injury. So far this year, 54 people have died. The Government stands indicted of a scandalous failure to implement its own road safety strategy. In 1998, amid great fanfare and publicity, the Government launched a strategy with a fairly modest objective: by 2002 the number of deaths on our roads would be reduced by 20%. It has become clear that there is no realistic possibility of that objective being achieved. Tragically, it is more likely that the number of road deaths will have increased by 20% between 1998 and 2002.
There are many reasons we have major accidents on our roads, so many deaths and the lives of so many young people are lost. A total of 25% of car drivers only have a provisional driving licence. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, despite being in office for three and a half years, has found it impossible to organise a driving test system which ensures young people can take a driving test within eight to ten weeks of application. In Dublin, one can wait for nine to 12 months to take the test. As a consequence, the law which prescribes that a person with a provisional licence should be accompanied by a qualified driver is flouted and unenforceable.
We have an unreliable railway service which fails to provide a proper transport system to allow people to travel from one part of the State to another. This is part of the reason we have so many road deaths. People know that the railway service cannot be relied upon. In our cities, particularly Dublin, the Government has failed to implement a coherent and comprehensive public transport strategy. This means that there are more cars on our roads than should be the case. In my constituency, the southern cross motorway should have been completed two years ago. Luas should be operational by now. Instead, the Government has been paralysed by an inability to make decisions. When decisions are finally made, they take years to bear fruit because the Government is caught in such a bureaucratic quagmire.
Three and a half years ago the Government's road safety strategy promised that a penalty points system would be introduced to penalise motorists who did not comply with the rules of the road. Legislation to implement such a system has yet to be introduced in the House. We were promised that speeding would be dealt with by installing six speed cameras between 2000 and 2002. There are only two cameras to identify cars speeding in a way that could cause major accidents.
If we are to tackle this problem, we need to put out of office a Government which has shown it lacks the capacity to do so. It is a Government which needs to reduce the number of accidents and deaths on our roads, to put in place a comprehensive and reliable public transport system, and to complete major and necessary road works, the absence of which contributes to the regular occurrence of fatal accidents.
And return to office a party which did not even recognise the problem.
Since I spoke last night the number of deaths in the first seven weeks of this new year has risen to 57. It is that inexorable upward trend which motivated this motion and makes it vital that the Government refreshes its commitment to its road safety strategy. Nobody in the House expects the Government to wipe out deaths on our roads. We do not live in a risk-free environment. There will always be the potential for a set of circumstances which leads to an accident. It is the accidents which are preventable for which the Government must take responsibility and do everything possible to prevent.
Speaker after speaker last night spoke of the shambles that is our driver testing system and the non-existence of legally required training or education, either at the early stages of learning to drive or later as new conditions emerge. There is no training or ongoing campaign to make the public aware of how to handle roundabouts, motorways or cycle paths, in which the Minister's Department has invested heavily. Although cycle paths are supposed to be a life saving measure, this will not happen as neither cyclists, motorists nor pedestrians know how to operate them. There should be a campaign to inform the public how to use them.
It is essential that everybody knows the rules of the road and that we all operate to the same rules in order that assumptions can be made about how others will behave. The lack of information available about the rules means that no such assumptions can be made. Last night, the Minister spoke proudly about the increase in the number of on-the-spot fines. He said that it had doubled since 1998. Although this implies more Garda activity, it could equally be interpreted as an increase in speeding. It is a meaningless figure to give.
A main target of the strategy is to reduce speeding, but this can only be done by changing people's behaviour, which was what the penalty points system was supposed to do. I do not accept the Minister's attempts to talk this down, as it is fundamental to the strategy. Human behaviour is seen as the main contributory factor in accidents. Changing it, therefore, is vital. This can only be done by enforcement. My colleagues have referred to the farce of having only two cameras. The reason there are only two cameras is more farcical. The reason is they are too efficient and detect too many people speeding. Their capacity to detect is greater than that of the Garda to prosecute. I regret the self-congratulatory nature of the Government's amendment to our motion which is inappropriate on such a topic. It will ring hollow to the families who have lost loved ones. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGuinness, John J.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael. |
Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia. Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
Níl–continued
|
Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí. |
Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.