The compulsory carrying of a driving licence was to have been introduced in 1999 but that has now been changed to 2001 and will probably have to be moved to 2002. The written theory test section of the driving test was to have been introduced in 1999 but was delayed until 2001 and then introduced only for first time applicants. Provisional licence holders who have taken and failed the driving test have been exempted from the new theory test. A national seatbelt wearing survey, which was supposed to have been introduced in 1998, will not now take place until next year. The national speed survey, which was to have been conducted in 1999, has also been put back until next year. The average waiting time for a driving test was to have been reduced to ten weeks nationally but it has now gone up to 14 weeks again.
Meanwhile, 25% of the drivers on the roads are not qualified to drive. They have not passed the driving test, they do not hold a full driving licence and they would not be allowed on the road unaccompanied in most other European countries. Enforcement of existing road safety laws is weak. Of the over 400 deaths on the roads in each of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, only 12, 15 and 12 cases, respectively, were brought for dangerous driving causing death. The remaining cases were brought for dangerous driving only. The number of drink driving convictions work out at an average of just one per garda per year.
Those who are wondering today if the Taoiseach and his Government are serious about implementing the national health strategy would do well to examine their record on the national road safety strategy. The road safety strategy is not unconnected to health. The most traumatic admissions to accident and emergency departments in hospitals are from road accidents. The economist Peter Bacon was engaged by the National Safety Council to produce an economic assessment of the road safety strategy. He estimated that the State would save over £500 million by implementing the national road safety strategy and that it would save almost four times the cost of implementing the strategy. Most of the savings would have come in the health services.
Unfortunately the Government, which was so loud in launching and publicising the national road safety strategy, has failed to implement it. Eddie Shaw, chairman of the National Safety Council, has stated: "If the strategy had been implemented, people would be walking about now who are dead."
The Bill is before us now because road safety is seasonal. Road safety, breath tests and drink driving advertisements are as much part of the Christmas season as Santa Claus and, like Santa Claus, they disappear again after Christmas. The reality is that road safety is not a priority at all for the Government because it has not implemented its own strategy.
Page 13 of the national road safety strategy itself states:
If responsibility for this strategy is seen to rest with Government and public agencies only, then it will fail. Road safety depends critically on public support from individual citizens and from voluntary and other local interests. This shared responsibility for our wider ownership of road safety is a critical success factor for many of the specific policies and measures of this strategy.
It is interesting that the National Safety Council, the State agency responsible for promoting road safety, was frustrated by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government when it attempted to give meaning to the theory of localising the road safety strategy.
I would like to quote from a speech given on 27 January 2000 by Mr. Cartan Finegan, the former chairman of the National Safety Council, shortly after his departure from the council. I will quote some sections from the speech which were not widely reported, but which summarise the degree to which the attempt to localise road safety was frustrated:
A lesson learned from the UK and Australian experience was that community ownership of road safety was essential and that this could best be accomplished through local authorities in recruiting commercial, social and educational involvement in the campaigns. In fact, the road safety strategy document was unequivocal in relation to that. Bringing it down to county level, involving schools, health services, chambers of commerce, etc., particularly the newly elected council, required the organisational resources of a road safety officer in each county to develop a road safety plan, a programme of activities linking in with road engineers and gardaí and national campaigns for road safety. The recommendation by the board of the National Safety Council to Government was that each county would have a full-time safety officer, instead of the existing systems where a designated official allocated approximately two hours per week on the safety function. From extensive consultation with county managers and councillors, it was evident that no new or extended functions would be taken on unless financial resources were provided and the cost benefit analysis had included £1.3 million, to be required over three years, to cover the cost of full-time road safety officers.
This was the recommendation of the National Safety Council. Mr. Finegan, who was chairman of the council when the national road safety strategy was adopted, continued:
The recommendation was rejected by the Minister, quoting the ongoing re-organisation of the local authorities and the proposed setting up of special policy committees. A revised recommendation was made, that ten counties as a pilot scheme be set up, but the December budget contained no provision for the necessary funding. There is a definite irony in the fact that 29 counties have full-time and funded arts officers and by the end of this year there will be eleven full-time and funded heritage officers in the counties, notwithstanding the constraints of local authority re-organisation quoted by the Minister. It would be a strange inversion of values if the promotion of arts and heritage ranked over the value of human life.
That is a strong statement, coming from the former chairman of the National Safety Council, describing the degree to which the efforts of the NSC to localise road safety and to get approval from the Department of the Environment and Local Government for the appointment of full-time road safety officers in each local authority was frustrated.
It may be that the location of the road safety function is a problem. It could be argued that it is no longer appropriate to allocate responsibility for road safety to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The Minister may face a conflict in relation to road safety as he is responsible for funding local authorities, which are responsible for physical road safety measures and infrastructure, including the sometimes rushed construction of roads. Such matters seem to be taking precedence over road safety. The National Roads Authority has also been given a road safety function, despite the fact that its primary role is the building of roads and the reduction of journey times on major national roads.
I wish to give an example of such conflict in my constituency. A roundabout outside Loughlinstown Hospital links the Bray-Shankill bypass which will eventually be part of the M50 motorway, the N11, the road serving Shankill village and the road into the hospital. The staff and management of the hospital have asked for many years that traffic lights be placed at the roundabout, so vehicles exiting the hospital can safely enter the flow of traffic. It is impossible to leave the hospital grounds at peak times, for example, during the morning rush hour. The request of the hospital authorities was supported by the local authority, which asked the NRA to provide traffic lights. The NRA refused to make such a provision, however, arguing that its job is to increase and improve the flow of traffic. It is a straightforward conflict. The National Roads Authority sees its role as facilitating the quickest possible flow of traffic through the roundabout and on to the N11. It is not in the least concerned about how long it takes for a doctor, nurse, ambulance or patient to get in and out of the hospital.
If we are to be serious about road safety, the time has come to give responsibility for the problem to a dedicated single State agency. There is an argument that the agency should be the National Safety Council. Following a recent report by consultants, we were told that the Minister intends to establish an agency with responsibility for driver testing. It does not make sense to me that one agency will be responsible for the promotion of road safety, another will be responsible for the driving test, another will be responsible for collecting road tax and the Department of the Environment and Local Government will be responsible, in theory, for the provision of resources to implement the road safety strategy.
There is an argument for giving responsibility for all aspects of road safety and driver behaviour, comprising everything from the issuing of driving licences to the funding of road safety measures, to a single State agency. I believe, furthermore, that such an agency should be accountable to the Minister for Health and Children, not to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, who has many responsibilities in this area. A connection needs to be made between road safety expenditure and health expenditure, especially in hospital accident and emergency wards, which will decline if road safety measures are successful. The case is supported by the assessment in Peter Bacon's report, which outlined the huge financial cost of road accidents and deaths. The full implementation of the road safety strategy, which needs increased expenditure, would lead to a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries on our roads. This, in turn, could lead to huge savings in health and hospital budgets. Road safety should be seen as a function of the Department of Health and Children rather than a matter merely associated with roads and infrastructure, as has been the case.
Road safety is not a financial issue, but a human one. Nobody can put a value on the lives lost on our roads or on the human suffering which results. It is clear that we have an enforcement problem even of existing road safety legislation. We are now creating a new raft of such legislation which introduces new offences when the existing road safety legislation is only being implemented and enforced on a haphazard basis. I quote from a letter received by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, from the Campaign Against Dangerous and Drunken Driving:
As you know, there are two separate charges. (1) Dangerous driving only, brought in the District Court and (2) dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm, brought in the Circuit Criminal Court. The whole problem is that the Director of Public Prosecutions brings charges of dangerous driving in the District Court where the culprit kills or seriously injures an innocent victim. The charge of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm should be brought instead in the Circuit Court. Of the 400+ deaths on the roads, only 12 cases in 1997, 15 in 1998 and 12 in 1999 were brought for dangerous driving causing death in the Circuit Court. The remaining 380+ cases went to the District Court under the charge of dangerous driving only. The result of this scandal was that the culprit who killed or seriously injured a person gets off with a fine of usually about £1,000.
The Garda has numerous responsibilities and a huge workload in terms of policing the increasingly difficult society in which we live. It simply does not have sufficient resources to fully enforce road traffic laws. Until such time as a dedicated traffic corps is created within the Garda Síochána or a separate traffic police force is established, we will not see full enforcement in this area.
I generally support this Bill although there are issues which it should have addressed. A great deal of emphasis is placed on drink driving. There is a widespread problem of illegal recreational drug use, particularly cannabis, in this country and our road safety legislation should address that. The road safety strategy refers to research into the effects of recreational drugs other than alcohol on drivers and these should be specifically addressed in the legislation. Significant numbers of people under the influence of these drugs drive motor vehicles.
We need to reduce speed limits, particularly in urban areas where the current speed limit is 30 miles per hour. A provision should be included in the Bill whereby local authorities can, in urban areas or housing estates, introduce speed limits significantly lower than this to reduce traffic to a crawl in housing estates or near schools. We must address the problem of end-of-life vehicles, an issue I have raised on a number of occasions during Question Time, which contribute to road safety problems in so far as vehicles which do not pass the NCT are being driven around housing estates by joyriders at nights and weekends and are eventually burned out in the corner of a field. We must also address joyriding itself. My colleague, Deputy Broughan, introduced a Bill some time ago on this matter and I would like to see its provisions incorporated into this road safety legislation. Cycle ways have been developed in Dublin and some other urban areas and, while I welcome their introduction, we must address the issue of cyclists who put pedestrians at risk.
The implementation of this legislation must be examined. This Bill proposes the introduction of a regime under which a garda will be able to issue on-the-spot fines and penalties for motoring offences. The legislation will confer significant additional powers on the gardaí. I strongly support the Garda Síochána which has served this country very well and which has a difficult job to do. Only last week, allegations of Garda abuse were made in this House. We must introduce a mechanism to ensure that any abuses of the powers which this Bill will confer on gardaí, however limited, can be dealt with. As it stands, a person who commits a traffic offence is charged and brought before the courts. However, under the new regime, a garda will be able to impose a one point penalty on a motorist whose left indicator does not work, for example. Once 12 points are accumulated, a person loses his or her licence for six months. The House must address any potential for the abuse of these powers during the Committee Stage debate.
I propose to table a number of amendments on Committee Stage on behalf of the Labour Party seeking the inclusion of the measures and desired improvements to which I have referred. The Labour Party generally supports this Bill but I regret that the road safety strategy on which it was built has not been implemented with the same enthusiasm as it was launched. Road safety should be given a much higher priority by the Government than is evident from the delay in introducing this Bill.