Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
Road Traffic Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed).
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
4.—(1) As and from the commencement of section 3, a person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place where any of the windscreens or windows to the front or either side of the driver’s seat are non-transparent is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of €5000.
We discussed this matter at some length. This amendment relates to tinted windscreens and side windows on vehicles and the fact that it would be impossible to enforce the new law in respect of hand-held mobile phones if one cannot see the driver. That is the main reason we need to move to outlaw tinted windows. I suspect there are other reasons. It should be possible for the Garda or anybody else to see who is driving the car. On Committee Stage the Minister said he would look at standards and move towards change on a Europe-wide basis. That type of approach is like the retrofitting of cyclops mirrors. If we wait for the rest of Europe to do it, we will be waiting forever. This is an area where the Minister could lead the way. He can certainly introduce these changes in respect of cars in this country and, if issues arise in regard to foreign registered cars, they can be dealt with. The majority of those driving vehicles with tinted windows are Irish and could be dealt with if a change in the law were introduced. I ask the Minister to reconsider that issue.
This matter was discussed on Committee Stage and I said we would return to it on Report Stage. I understand the motives of Deputy Shortall and other Deputies in tabling these amendments. I share their concerns about modifications to windscreens and side windows that result in excessively blacked out windows. However, regulating for the control of modifications to the glazing of motor vehicles gives rise to certain complex issues. I shall detail some of them with as much clarity as possible.
The regulatory framework for vehicle standards is set at a European level through a harmonised system of motor vehicle type approval. Standards for new cars in the EU are specified in a range of EU-type approval directives that are incorporated into a system known as EU vehicle whole type approval. Whole vehicle type approval facilitates the achievement of a single market for cars through harmonised safety and environmental standards. New cars must have whole vehicle type approval to be placed on the market in the EU and it is not open to a member state to ban vehicles which have it. To receive whole vehicle type approval a car must meet the technical specifications for a range of items, including the glazing and the field vision of drivers, which are set down in a series of separate directives. The technical specifications for glazing in these directives allow for tinting. There are enforcement difficulties in distinguishing between type approved and non-type approved glazing.
As I indicated on Committee Stage, I intend to develop national technical standards for glazing opacity in motor vehicles with a view to incorporating them into the construction, equipment and use of vehicle regulations. In that regard, I propose to ask the Road Safety Authority, on its establishment, to examine the matter and advise me on appropriate standards.
In the meantime, one of the recommendations contained in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the mid-term review of the NCTS is the establishment of a technical standards forum to consider and make recommendations on vehicle technical matters associated with the national car test, NCT. I now intend to implement that recommendation. The matter of excessively blacked-out windows could be referred to such a forum on its establishment and I intend to do that. The outcome of the work of the proposed technical standards forum also involves industry. I intend to include all the stakeholders on it so that I can tie them into an agreement. I will ensure the manufacturers' representative is also on it. We may lead Europe in this regard.
I had intended dealing with the issue of glazing through the NCT, but now that the Deputy has raised it, I have had another look at it. We will put the issue into the mix of the forum and it is hoped we will get a resolution on it. If we have a resolution in time for the second Bill in this area, we will include it. I am acting as quickly as I can on the issue. To act unilaterally without agreement from the stakeholders would be a pointless exercise and would not put real meat on the bone.
The Minister seems to be taking a reasonable approach. However, he just said that if he could get agreement with the stakeholders, he would move to legislate in the other Bill promised. Earlier he said there were EU restrictions with regard to this. Which is it? We have been back and forth through the arguments in respect of cyclops mirrors. My advice is that there is nothing stopping the Minister from requiring the retrofitting of cyclops mirrors. The Minister of State spent some time dancing around the issue and took the same line as the Minister that he could not move unilaterally without the rest of Europe. Then he said that if he could get agreement ——
I wish to make it clear that I will deal with the glazing issue. I just set out the backdrop with regard to Europe.
I wonder what causes the difficulty. Is it at European level or does it relate to stakeholders?
The difficulty certainly relates to the standards set at European level. Notwithstanding that, we can look at the issue.
Europe sets minimum standards, does it not?
Yes. There appears to be much conflict with regard to the tinting being done, much of which is non-type approved. We can try to deal with this area. Even if I do not get agreement, I agree with the Deputy it is the right thing to do and I think we should do it. If we get enough of a consensus to make it work, I will move ahead with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 5, line 29, to delete "and".
This amendment attempts to make the legislation more robust. On Committee Stage the Minister said the section was adequate and that it limited the authorisation period. I have spoken to a number of people since and the information available to me is that it is open to interpretation and could allow a series of authorisations to be granted at the same time. We did not introduce random breath testing because it would be seen to be unconstitutional to give draconian powers to gardaí to stop people and the only way we felt it would be constitutional was if it were limited in some way. Perhaps this legislation hinges on our ability to show we are being proportionate and that we will impose limits.
The section attempts to constrain the powers of gardaí by reference to times and places, perhaps to places where drink driving was historically prevalent. My amendment seeks to include a definite expiration date. This would add to the legislation and make it more robust. I have spoken to legal people on the matter and they feel the section is quite open.
Section 4 of the Bill outlines the scheme for roadside alcohol testing, known as mandatory alcohol testing, and the legal basis for the establishment and operation of Garda checkpoints. Mandatory alcohol tests can only be pursued on the specific written authorisation of an officer of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. That authorisation must be in writing and must clearly establish the place, date and the hours at any time between which a test may be operated. An authorisation may, potentially, straddle two separate dates. However, the hours during which the checkpoint may be established must be clearly set out in the authorisation.
The proposed amendment seems to envisage that an authorisation may extend for a period of up to eight days. This could not be the case based on the provisions presented in the text of the section. Authorisations must be specific. As I indicated on Second and Committee Stages, it is envisaged that the Garda Commissioner will prepare detailed guidelines for the operation of the checkpoints that will address this issue.
There is need for transparency in procedures for setting up checkpoints. With this in mind, the wording of the section was drafted very carefully following a significant consultation process with the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney General to get the correct balance of proportionality. I understand from where the Deputy is coming, but we carefully examined this area. More than any section, this one caused the greatest concentration and focus of both internal advice from the Attorney General's office and external opinion. The best experts tried to get the balance right so that we could be confident in producing the legislation to the Oireachtas that it captured correctly the balance of proportionality and, therefore, had the most robust chance of withstanding any challenges in the court. Between the Garda Commissioner guidelines that will be set out and the advice from the Attorney General, we feel this is the best we can deliver and that it will withstand any challenge.
It is not clear from what the Minister said how this new arrangement will overcome the issue of proportionality unless there are draft guidelines of which the Minister is aware.
I have not seen the guidelines. They will be an operational matter for the Garda.
Has the Attorney General suggested particular guidelines?
I do not have a set of guidelines now.
With all due respect, having delayed this issue all last year on the basis of the Attorney General's concern about constitutional issues, it is bit much that we are now being told there is no problem. The public deserves an explanation why there has been such a volte-face in this regard. Last year there were particular constitutional problems, but now there appears to be no problem. It would be nice to have an explanation how the Minister got around these problems.
Does the Minister intend to set a target in respect of the number of checkpoints that will be set up in the different Garda divisions? This should not be left to the whim of the local Garda inspector. For example, we saw from figures relating to the roadside breathalyser that two Garda divisions made no use of it. This may be because of the particular leaning of the local Garda inspector or some other reason. Last year we were told some gardaí were concerned about complaints from publicans. If the mandatory testing is to work properly, the Minister needs to set clear guidelines in respect of targets. He needs to set targets for the next six to 12 months in respect of the number of checkpoints that should be set up. Otherwise this may not have any real effect. I ask the Minister to consider sending out a directive to the Garda Síochána or else ensuring that targets for the numbers of checkpoints would be contained in the new road safety strategy. I would welcome his commitment.
I agree with the Deputy. There has to be transparency. It would be helpful if people in any area could expect a defined number of checkpoints and they should be informed at the end of every quarter or period of time that these checkpoints have been set up. I would be interested in the statistics of the number of people caught randomly as opposed to the previous way.
The Road Safety Authority is having discussions with the Garda Síochána because it is beginning to develop the road safety strategy which will take over from the strategy which ends this year. I am not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is directly responsible for the day to day operations of the Garda Síochána. However, there is no difference between the Deputy's view and mine.
I accept the Minister's good faith but if a proposal does not appear within the four corners of the Act then there is no guarantee it will be implemented. All the Opposition can do is try to make the legislation robust. We cannot depend on promised guidelines or on the whim of gardaí — no matter how senior the garda might be — in determining how precisely he limits and is proportionate in his actions. This should be copperfastened in legislation.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, line 30, after "operated" to insert the following:
", and
(c) the date and time at which the expiration of the authorisation shall occur,
such date and time being not more that 8 days after the date referred to in paragraph (a)”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 22, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (2) by the substitution of “50” for “80”,
(b) in subsection (3) by the substitution of “67” for “107”,
(c) in subsection (4) by the substitution of “22” for “35”,
(d) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):
"(4A) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply to a person who is the holder of a learner permit as if the references therein to 50, 67 and 22 were references to 20, 27 and 9 respectively."."
This amendment relates to the blood alcohol limit for drivers. It proposes to bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries in respect of the blood alcohol limits allowed. This country has a very serious problem with drink driving and there is a long way to go before the culture is changed. The Minister stated on Committee Stage that he believed we should follow a zero tolerance level in respect of alcohol and driving. That is all very well but this thinking must be put into effect in legislation. I am somewhat concerned about the approach adopted in recent times by the Minister and some of his Government colleagues. In an effort to deflect criticism the Minister is using the mantra of personal responsibility. I agree that everybody should take personal responsibility in respect of driving and many other aspects. However, Government is responsible for ensuring adequate detection rates.
In a comparison with most other European countries, Ireland fares abysmally when it comes to detection rates. The chances of being stopped and breathalysed are very slight. So long as a regime is in place that does not have a detection system on a par with the rest of Europe, people will continue to take chances. We know they are doing that and sadly, we saw carnage on our roads again last weekend, as there is all too frequently, particularly on weekend nights. The message has not got across.
It is known that when people are detected, the samples show they are not just one drink over the limit but rather are significantly over the limit. The Minister needs to take steps to ensure that the limit is reduced in line with the rest of Europe. Other countries have had successes and we should learn from what they have done. Is there something about Irish drivers that we can tolerate a level of 80 mg when others regard 50 mg as the appropriate limit? Research shows that the accident risk between 50 mg and 80 mg is quite significant in terms of response times and reaction to unforeseen circumstances. If the Minister is serious about clamping down on the issue of drink driving and if he is serious about changing that culture which desperately needs to be changed, he needs to introduce a new regime. Along with random breath testing, we need to have modern, progressive blood alcohol limits in line with the rest of Europe. For that reason I propose a reduction in the limits from 80 mg to 50 mg.
I refer to comments made by the Minister earlier in the year. I am concerned at his approach to road safety. He is very fond of issuing press statements, making announcements and flying kites. This is his opportunity to follow through on some of those ideas. I do not see the follow-through in this legislation. We have certainly waited long enough for this Bill. When challenged about the omissions from the Bill, the Minister takes the line that it must be looked at further. He was looking at it last year and this year it is the road safety authority who are looking at it. He now says there will be another Bill. It is always another year away before radical change is brought about.
The public is increasingly pointing the finger at those who have responsibility for the legislation and for the enforcement regime and on the huge inadequacies in both those systems.
This point was made by the European Union Transport Ministers. One Minister said it was because of a fear of losing votes in the case of coming down too hard. There is a general view among politicians and among European Transport Ministers that the public has moved on past where politicians are. The days of being afraid of incurring the wrath of publicans or any other vested interests should be long gone. The public is looking for leadership on this matter; the public wants to see an end to the increasing level of carnage over many years. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show leadership on the problem of drink driving and to reduce the limits.
I refer to the issue of zero tolerance which should be a zero drink limit for learner drivers. My amendment proposes a zero limit or a negligible limit for learner drivers. We are far too lax regarding the more than 400,000 learner drivers on the roads. They are predominantly young people who end up with their cars wrapped around trees while some lie injured on the side of the road, late on Friday and Saturday nights. There is an onus on all to move to end this situation and to bring about an enforcement system that actually means something. I suggest that as well as reducing the limit for all drivers down to the European norm, that the limit for provisional drivers should be reduced to 0.2 mg, in line with the rest of Europe. I urge the Minister to support this amendment.
I support Deputy Shortall's amendment. It is a good one. There was a slogan some years ago, "Just two will do", which was unfortunate as people would then get the idea that, provided they were below the limit, they could still drive. That is correct. The difficulty is that people do not improve with alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant on the central nervous system. A person who is completely drunk can be seen to have completely lost his or her marbles. A drunk would go around like somebody who has some type of brain lesion. Certain brain lesions can mimic the effects of alcohol. Cerebellar control comes from higher centres, so the higher centres are depressed. The result is that a person who is drunk demonstrates the effects of somebody with a brain lesion or brain damage. If a person drinks for long enough the effects will be permanent. Psychoses can result from excess chronic alcohol usage. Unfortunately, this can lead people to end their days in a psychiatric hospital.
It is well known that the more alcohol taken, the more depressed the central nervous system will be. It also affects the higher centres of the brain in the cerebrum. A person drinking a number of pints of beer, for example, will be more affected than a person who has drunk just one or two pints. The difficulty is that the amount taken leads to a proportionate increase in disability. Somebody who is completely drunk is totally disabled and not fit to walk, let alone drive a car. The effect of 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol is different from the effect of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol. It is proportionate, and there is an effect at the lower level.
Other countries in the EU have introduced the lower level because they feel it is not safe for a person to drive above this level, but the penny has not dropped with us. Although we are good Europeans in various ways, the message has not been brought home to us. It is time for the stipulation to be that no alcohol is acceptable for a person who is driving. That will not happen until the limit is reduced to as low as possible. People above the 50 milligram per 100 millilitres blood alcohol limit should not drive. I support the amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the legal thresholds of the amount of alcohol a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle may consume before he or she is committing an offence. It would introduce a reduced blood alcohol level for drivers on provisional licences. For the sake of clarification I point out there is an offence relating to drink driving that does not refer to any particular level of alcohol having been consumed. That is often forgotten.
Road safety policy is pursued within the framework of the road safety strategy adopted by the Government. The current strategy does not promote a reduction in current alcohol levels. The focus of the strategy is on compliance with the current thresholds, which were established in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That is the immediate focus of this Bill.
This is the correct approach at this stage. I would not rule out a move to change the overall approach to alcohol levels at some stage. However, such a move should await the implementation and enforcement of other provisions being promoted in this Bill and the achievement of compliance with the current legal framework for drink driving.
I agree with the thrust of Deputy Shortall's comments, and the intent of the Bill centres on enforcement. The clear and significant level of enforcement is a key component of the Bill. Points have been made about some countries which have tried to enforce a zero alcohol limit for new, learner or young drivers, and that seems to be working well. I indicated that this was a good idea worth considering. People have contacted me from the equality sector, regarding discriminatory behaviour etc. who have argued that it would be appalling to enforce such a limit on younger or inexperienced drivers.
Let them do so.
I am just letting the Deputy know the mixed views we are getting on the issue, that it would be all wrong and grossly unfair to young people to do this to them.
This is about leading rather than following.
I have no problem leading. This Bill has been described as the most radical move in road safety policy for a long time. It contains provisions for random alcohol testing, which nobody ever believed would be introduced in this country.
It remains to be seen how radical it will be.
We will see. We have done and are doing a good job on the legislation and I expect to see the results carried through to practical application.
Deputies Cowley and Shortall have correctly made the point that young people are drinking excessively and wrapping their cars around trees. If these people ignore the 80 milligram per 100 millilitre blood alcohol limit, they will not pay much attention to the 50 milligram per 100 millilitre blood alcohol limit. The level of the limit does not affect those people. They are simply abusing the law. They have no consideration for themselves or their passengers, as we have seen in some recent accidents. They do not have any consideration for other road users either.
I am not ruling the move out, and there is a body of work to be done on the issue. The blood alcohol limits in the UK, which has one of the best road safety records in the world, are the same as ours. It is not necessarily about blood alcohol limits.
The pubs close at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m.
My personal view, and I believe that of the Deputy, is that the issue concerns enforcement and the belief that one may be caught. It will clearly involve a culture change. People will need to see that it is no longer acceptable in Irish society to go out on the road half out of one's mind with drink, risking one's own life among others. We must get that message through, as we have in other areas of Irish society which have seen total change in fixed positions on a range of social policy over the years. Mindsets have definitively been changed, and I hope we change our mindset in our attitude to drink driving and speeding.
The Minister stated that he would not rule out a move to addressing blood alcohol limits in the long term. How long must we wait before that particular topic is addressed? The Minister spoke of people contacting him regarding discriminatory behaviour, ageism etc. Why is it not possible to introduce zero blood alcohol limits for all drivers? Why pick on the younger drivers?
It is a matter for consideration.
I ask the question because it seems that with regard to overall alcohol policy, this Government exercises a "softly softly" approach. It does not want to disturb the alcohol industry too much. We have seen this before with the Minister for Health and Children's proposed introduction of the alcohol products Bill, which was mysteriously shelved.
Will the Minister take a tough line on the issue of alcohol? What has been stated today is very like what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children have said with regard to the alcohol products Bill. The system is more or less self-regulation, and the alcohol industry would police itself. That will clearly not work. The Minister has stated that he will consider the issue at some stage in the future. How long will it be left before it is considered? How long must we wait?
I spoke on this at length on Committee Stage and I consulted the Road Safety Authority, which is drafting the new road safety strategy that comes into being next year. It is doing that with some urgency as a new strategy has to be in place when the current strategy ends at the end of this year. That is the timeframe and work is already being done on it.
Will we get legislation relating to zero blood alcohol limits?
I will wait for the recommendations. I will not ask the authority to do a job and then do it myself. It would be wrong to pre-empt the authority, ask them to do something and then decide what it is, irrespective of what the authority believes. It will come back with a strategy which I hope we will all discuss. All or part of it may require legislation, and we will provide that.
I have the latest relevant statistics. Some 84.6% of people tested through blood and urine samples were over the legal limit. What is more interesting is that 53.6% of people were over twice the legal limit.
That is an absolute disgrace.
I agree with the Deputy. There is no disagreement between Deputies on any side of the House on this issue. It is astonishing that 53.6% of people who gave blood and urine samples in this area were over twice the legal limit. It is criminal beyond belief. Unfortunately, we see the results on our roads.
The Minister read out those figures and stated they were interesting. That is quite an understatement. Those figures are a national disgrace and an indictment of the Government's ability to tackle this problem.
We all accept that there is a serious cultural problem with alcohol in this country and it is a problem on which all agencies and interests must work together to overcome. The Minister has an opportunity in this legislation. I would go so far as to say he has a serious responsibility to change that culture and one does that by changing the law and ensuring the law is enforced. Those figures show that most people ignore the fact that there is a limit in place at present. It is the Minister's responsibility to ensure a proper enforcement regime is in place.
I ask the Minister not to continue doing this. Any time we ask him about enforcement, Garda numbers, Garda activity or such like, he states that these are matters over which he does not have control and which are for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That kind of buck passing is no longer good enough or acceptable from the Minister. A few months ago he set up this supposedly high level Cabinet sub-committee to deal with road safety so the Minister should stop making excuses. The Government is supposed to be dealing with this issue collectively and giving it priority attention. He should do so and stop stating that is someone else's responsibility. It is the Minister's responsibility as the person who has responsibility for the road safety strategy.
My party is stating here that it is time to show leadership on the matter and send out a strong clear message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. One does that by bringing our limits into line with those of the rest of Europe and by ensuring, first, that the Garda gets a clear message from Government that it wants this matter tackled. At present, there is widespread ambivalence about alcohol and drink driving.
We know what has happened previously when attempts were made to reduce the limits. These Houses were overrun for a day by the vintners when they came in here. There was a significant backlash. We know what happened last year when there was talk of introducing café bars. The Minister should not play games on this. There is a massive vested interest in the drinks industry. It is his responsibility to stand up to these people because that kind of ambivalence is leading to the loss of life on a weekly basis in this country.
I urge the Minister to bring us into line with Europe and ensure that a clear message goes out to develop a new culture of respect for alcohol, at least when it comes to driving. There are many other matters. The Minister has flunked on the question of advertising by introducing a voluntary code. That is nonsense. He is doing the equivalent on the issue under discussion with some kind of voluntary self-regulation. He is stating people have personal responsibility. The Minister has responsibility for the law and for enforcement and he should take action on that. I am disappointed that he has not used this opportunity. All last year, any time we raised this we heard from the Minister that he was looking at it. This year the line has changed and it is the Road Safety Authority which is looking at it. How long more must we wait?
I am not prepared to accept the Minister's further long-fingering on this. I am pressing this amendment.
Briefly——
Deputy Shortall has replied to the debate.
——the Minister has given figures here which are a national disgrace.
We cannot have a Committee Stage debate.
The Minister spoke of a culture. He must change that culture. At all levels there must be an interdepartmental approach to this. I have spoken at length about this at the Joint Committee on Health and Children. People are dying on our roads. We speak of personal irresponsibility, but the buck stops with the Minister.
The Chair must put the amendment.
I urge the Minister to send out the strongest possible signal here today that he means business. If he does not accept the amendment——
I ask Deputy Gormley to resume his seat.
The figures given here today are truly astonishing.
Deputy Gormley should not ignore the Chair.
The Minister cannot put his head in the sand any longer. He must act.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
The Minister has spoken twice on this.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 76.
Tá
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gormley, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—Where a person applies to renew a learner permit but has not taken the driving test since the previous occasion on which the person was granted a permit, the licensing authority shall refuse the application if it is satisfied that the person has failed to take reasonable steps to obtain and fulfil an appointment to take the driving test.".
This amendment relates to my suggestion that people are required to take a driving test. That is not too much to expect. In recent years the Government has failed to tackle serious problems we have with provisional drivers. We have an intolerable situation whereby approximately 500,000 unqualified people drive various types of vehicles. There is no question but that is a factor in the poor accident rate in the country.
For a long time the Minister has spoken about what he will do in respect of the driving test system. However, the initiative of 45,000 additional tests is quite disappointing as it represents a drop in the ocean of what is actually required to tackle the problem and bring waiting lists down to an acceptable level of six to ten weeks within a reasonable time. The initiative states that waiting lists will be at 26 weeks within five years and will continue to deteriorate after that unless immediate action is taken.
An issue which came to my attention when I examined the situation is that people play the system. They drive on a provisional licence for two years and then apply for their next licence. All that is required is evidence that a person has applied to do a driving test and he or she does not need to actually do the test. The person then cancels the test and continues to drive on the new provisional driving licence he or she just received. That is done on a widespread basis.
Last year 23,000 tests were cancelled. If the Minister is serious about tackling this matter and bringing about sense or reason, it is obvious he must move to close that loophole. People are using the system. It represents an extraordinary waste of the tight resources in this area. We need all the test slots we can get. However, last year 23,000 were completely wasted at considerable expense to the taxpayer. It happens on an annual basis.
The Minister and his predecessor signalled they would bring an end to the practice of provisional licence holders driving unaccompanied which makes no sense whatsoever and does not happen anywhere else. It is a scandal and should be finished as quickly as possible. The Minister keeps stating it will be done as soon as the waiting lists are brought under control. However, that is a chicken and egg situation because the Minister must put in place a testing regime to ensure the system can cope with existing demand and he is not doing so. Sooner or later he must end that practice.
The Minister should move immediately to introduce a system whereby people are obliged to take a test before they can renew their licence. Surely, it is not too onerous or too much to expect that people sit a driving test. The Minister can do so at the stroke of a pen by agreeing to this amendment. A system can be in place within a year as most test centres have waiting lists reduced to less than a year. New provisional licences could be time-limited to one year and if holders wish to renew them they would have to show evidence they sat a test. It is a basic requirement.
I strongly support this amendment. When I first came to this brief, the fact I found absolutely unbelievable, as do many members of the public, was not only was there such a long waiting list for driving tests but 400,000 drivers did not have to pass a test. Once people sit the driving test a certain number of times, they never have to do so again and people made a life choice based on this. It makes a nonsense of having this huge bureaucracy to pretend we have a testing system to which one must apply. That bureaucracy is based in Ballina and is hugely costly, possibly inefficient and completely underresourced.
However, the rules are in place and we do not implement them. People sit the test but do not have to pass it, and after a certain point they do not even have to bother sitting it. It makes absolute nonsense of road safety aspirations and strategies and the crocodile tears we cry when we hear of further road accidents and road deaths. Licensing, testing and instruction systems are fundamental and must happen before anything else does. The system allows indifference to prosper.
Deputy Shortall's amendment is only a beginning, and represents a sensible place to start. If we do not require retesting, people can either continue as they are and never bother take a test at all, apply for the test and not show up because it is not that important to them or show up without having made any preparation and fail yet again. They further reinforce the failure of the system by turning up again and again.
If the Minister does not show he is serious about changing the testing system, he will not receive co-operation from the public. The public thinks it is a laugh that we tolerate such an incredibly inefficient system which would not be tolerated in any banana republic. I support the amendment.
I have sympathy with Deputy Shortall's amendment and I agree that many people refuse to take the test. However, I feel consideration for older people should be entered into the equation. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of people over 65 years of age who are on provisional licences, and the reply was a couple of thousand.
Many of them have been driving for years and have never been involved in an accident. Many of them do not drink. They live alone in isolated rural areas and use the car as an essential lifeline. A restricted category should be created whereby an older person would still be allowed to go to the church or shop. This could be confined to daylight hours or a certain radius of, perhaps, five to ten miles.
I have been approached by many such people who have driven on provisional licences without incident for more than 20 years. They travel only limited distances. Perhaps they could have got a licence in the past but did not do so. They feel they would be unfairly discriminated against if they had to take a test because when they receive an invitation to take a test they feel threatened. They want a concession equivalent to one for younger people who are waiting for a driving test but who, in the future, may have to undergo mandatory training and spend an interval before they can apply for a licence.
Otherwise, these people in their mid-60s and mid-70s who live in remote areas will not be able to go to shops or to church on Sundays. They do not drink. They may be unable to take the test because it is too complicated. It is not that they do not want to do what is right, of course they do. However, at the same time they do not want to be stranded. They would settle for a limited test or a compulsory training programme if necessary.
I rest my case.
Deputy Cowley is putting the kibosh on it now.
I am putting the kibosh on it because I must speak for my constituents——
The Deputy does not have to do so.
——and my older constituents in particular who deserve consideration.
What about the young men killed on the roads?
I am talking about areas with no public transport. Those people deserve special consideration and I ask the Minister to take that into account.
Everyone accepts there must be a requirement for people to sit the test. I sympathise with the amendment but I have difficulty with the words "failed to take reasonable steps". Deputy Shortall might expand on that. My experience is the opposite in terms of the people with whom I deal. Many young people want to take the test but cannot because of the backlog. As a public representative those are the cases I hear about.
The 23,000 cancellations every year is a substantial number and I do not understand how they can be justified. I would understand if people were not in the country when called to do the test, but 23,000 appears to be a very high figure. I am concerned that if we insert the words "failed to take reasonable steps" in the Bill, there would be increased bureaucracy at local authority level over what is a reasonable step. In other words, it may create a form of bureaucracy that will be difficult to resolve. Some sort of guarantee should be given that people will get the opportunity to sit the test in the period of their licence. That is not unreasonable. As I said, my experience is that people want to sit the test.
I spoke previously about the fact that some Members who are spokespersons did a mock test for one of the radio stations and we all failed. During the test I experienced the palpitations and so on that I felt when doing the original test. That was a wake-up call for me in terms of upskilling and not taking it for granted that I can sit even a mock test without first doing a pre-test course. That is my difficulty with the amendment and I would like Deputy Shortall to explain what "failed to take reasonable steps" means. My experience as a public representative is of young people contacting me to ask if I can do anything to get an earlier date for the test because they need it for a specific job and so on.
Another problem, and I raised it with the Minister, is the difficulty experienced by many young people along Border areas to get employment and so on. I have asked the Minister to examine the possibility of facilitating people sitting tests, especially those in areas of high unemployment, who have no alternative in terms of public transport. We must provide facilities to help such young people, and possibly older people, living in those areas.
I am not sure whether I or Deputy Shortall should endeavour to answer the questions raised. We are on section 4, which deals with mandatory alcohol testing. This is more appropriately a matter for section 10 but I will deal with it now. It is not necessary to stipulate the conditions under which learner permits have effect in the Act. Those are dealt with in regulation. I appreciate the point Deputy Shortall is seeking to provide for, but detailed requirements concerning conditions to be met regarding eligibility for a learner permit and any renewal thereof should be set out in regulation rather than in the Act which should deal with the enabling provisions.
Deputies have spent the past 45 minutes attacking me for not doing anything and putting matters off. I am happy that what I have achieved in road safety in the 18 months since I came into office has been to the point and that I have fulfilled much of what people sought for many years. The record in that regard will speak for itself.
This different arguments surrounding the issue of learner permits and who should have what, where and when must be teased out. I have had more suggestions and ideas from people on this issue than on any other and continue to get them daily, verbally or otherwise, from those who visited other countries. That is their right. On its appointment, the Road Safety Authority identified this issue as one of the key ones it wants to resolve and on which it wants to move forward.
Irrespective of whatever happened with different Ministers, I have set out to tackle the backlog which I agree is unacceptable. People driving on their own on provisional licences is unacceptable. It is wrong that someone can drive into a test centre, do a test, fail it, get back in their car and drive on the road again. That is beyond debate. It is wrong and we will have to change it but I do not want to change it in a way that discredits the whole process. There is little point in changing the system if we cannot implement the change we legally bring about. Issues must be resolved before we do that.
It is wrong to say we are dealing with only 40,000 tests. Of more than 100,000 tests — the backlog is approximately 130,000 — 40,000 as a proportion were outsourced but with the additional contracted workers we have brought in, the bonus scheme we put in place and our own driver testers, the majority of that proportion will be dealt with under the scheme. That sets us fair to change the learner driver approach radically.
I have sympathy with what Deputy Cowley said but I do not see any way we could have an amnesty for people driving on our roads, irrespective of who they are, without having done a test. There was an amnesty many years ago and I do not intend going down that road for any particular group. A number of people approached me on this issue. One lady who was driving on a provisional licence for 35 years told me that she presumed she would not be included in any future developments and that she would have to sit a test. She said she was an excellent driver and could not understand why she would have to take a test. I was trying to establish why she never took the test but I did not get an answer to the question. This woman was young, in her mid-40s. Now that I am a bit older I consider people that age to be young.
It is. We agree.
I continually tell my children that I am still young.
The Minister's children will never think so.
In spite of our best efforts. I agree with the Deputy. Any fair assessment would conclude that we are making major progress in this area. I will resolve it but there is no point in my approaching it in a piecemeal fashion. Many different elements must be put in place. There are different interpretations of what is meant by a learner permit and a graduated licence. It is a combination of a starting point but with a graduated system leading to a full licence. It should not be easy to get a licence. It should be easy to apply to do the test and know that one can do it in a reasonably short timeframe, but the process of getting a licence should not necessarily be easy. It should be difficult enough and therefore appreciated when one gets it, with the assurance that one has reached a serious level of competence. For the reasons we have discussed on numerous occasions, I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister said any fair assessment would show progress is being made. The only valid way of assessing road safety is by examining the figures, and the figures are going in the wrong direction. The numbers of fatalities and serious injuries are increasing. That is the only yardstick we can use. More lives are being lost, therefore, and the performance across a range of areas is not acceptable and is inadequate. That is why we need a new system in place.
Regarding the Minister's proposal on learner drivers, I have said from the outset that his projections are way off the mark. The additional 45,000 tests will do little to solve the problem. The Minister talked about the backlog of 130,000. There is a current waiting list of 130,000. In addition there is a backlog of 270,000 people driving around with provisional licences, who do not apply for a test. This is the true figure. The Minister will not make serious inroads with the meagre resources he has provided. The Minister rightly stated that all the complaints about the backlog come from people who want to get their tests completed as quickly as possible. It is for their sakes that we should end the system whereby a driver need never take a test. Some people apply for a test for the sake of renewing a provisional licence and then cancel.
I need the people in place to do it.
They may defer the test and then cancel it later in the year and do so every year. As the IT system is such a shambles, that driving test slot is simply lost. Those slots should be filled by people genuinely trying to pass a test and get their full licence as quickly as possible. This loophole means that provisional licence holders need never take a driving test and can drive legally for the rest of their lives. My amendment refers to "reasonable steps". Obviously some people will occasionally need to cancel for genuine reasons such as being sick. However, I am referring to the people who cancel twice a year or every year. That practice must be brought to an end. Unless the Minister agrees to the amendment, he is saying it is acceptable to have a system in which a provisional licence holder need never take a driving test in their lives.
I am not saying that as the Deputy knows.
The Minister should move to close off the loophole and this is the opportunity to do so.
Other countries provide for restricted categories and define when and where certain people can drive. I do not see why we cannot be innovative. Surely the system is supposed to suit the people. If a category needs consideration, at least we should hold an investigation to determine whether such a proposal is possible.
I do not believe any system exists anywhere that provides for people to get a licence to drive without any test.
We were the first country in Europe to introduce a smoking ban, on which I compliment the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. Just because something is not done elsewhere does not mean we should not consider it here. Older people need every consideration because we will be old ourselves sometime.
A person can grow old waiting for a driving test in this country.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—Where a person who holds a full driver's licence is convicted by a court of an offence under section 49 or 50 of the Principal Act or an offence of driving without due care and attention or careless or dangerous driving or dangerous driving causing death, the person shall (upon the expiry of such, if any, period of disqualification as the court may impose) be required to surrender his or her driving licence to a licensing authority and shall if otherwise eligible and be entitled to apply for a learner permit, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006, the person may drive unaccompanied only during the first year in which he or she holds such a learner permit, unless by the expiry of that year he or she has taken or re-taken as the case may be such driving test and passed such test.”.
The purpose of this amendment is to send a clear message in respect of road traffic offences. It was a very good idea first floated by the Minister and discussed on a number of occasions. Unfortunately we did not get the follow through, which seems to be a hallmark of his.
In all fairness——
He releases the press statement and fails to follow through. The amendment provides for a system whereby a person who is found guilty of a serious traffic offence, as part of the penalty in addition to paying a fine or serving a prison sentence, he or she would need to resit the driving test. In the case of very serious traffic offences it is justified. I urge the Minister to support the amendment.
The Deputy knows my general position on the matter. I do not disagree with her. The Deputy knows I have asked the road safety authority to consider this area. I reiterate that the courts have the power to require a person disqualified under a consequential order to obtain a certificate of competency by successfully undergoing the driving test as a prerequisite to having the driving licence restored. I am not sure they exercise that power very often. The conditions attached to a learner permit, including when a learner has become disqualified, are also set out in the regulation. I accept what the Deputy says. In general much of this is not enforced, which is unacceptable. We need a new regime that will meet the requirements of competency, efficiency and delivery of good standard in good time when people want it. I will not accept the Deputy's amendment, which is premature.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—Where a person has been convicted of an offence under section 49 or 50 of the Principal Act, the court sentencing that person may direct that following the expiry of the period of disqualification imposed on the person, the person may not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle for such further period, not exceeding 5 years, as may be specified, unless the vehicle is fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock which measures alcohol concentration in the breath prior to ignition.".
An alcohol ignition interlock is a device fitted to a car. If a court orders a person to have such a device fitted, the person must blow into it before being able to turn on the ignition. This is new technology, which has been tried in many countries, such as Australia and some European countries. While it is at an early stage the indications of the device's potential to tackle the problem of drink driving are very encouraging. As the Minister said earlier, those who are caught tend not to be just over the limit; large numbers are significantly over the limit. Similarly those who are caught tend to continue to reoffend. We need such a system to prevent those hardened lawbreakers from starting the car unless they can pass the breathalyser test.
When I spoke about this on Committee Stage the Minister indicated that this technology was all very new and might have an application. As the indications are that it will be an important tool, we should legislate for such devices in the Bill. If the RSA later decides to implement the recommendation it would not be necessary to draft new legislation. Today a spokesperson from the Road Safety Authority indicated that it very much favoured alcolocks. Let us get ahead of the posse by putting the legislation in place so that we can introduce them when the need arises.
The Deputy is right that I am waiting for confirmation from the Road Safety Authority on the matter, which has been raised by a number of bodies. It is interesting technology. If a person needed to blow into an alcolock and if he or she were over the limit it would end many problems. There are difficulties with some of these systems regarding who maintains and monitors them. That issue remains to be resolved. It is also an issue at European level as I recounted earlier. The courts can also impose this condition. Close monitoring of offenders is also required under the system. Apart from the narrow issue, I want these wider issues considered to determine how it could be introduced here.
There may also be issues regarding the EU Single Market, which I mentioned earlier. I do not want to pretend that inability to take action in this area is because Ireland is a member of the European Union. Obviously inasmuch as it is possible we want to move forward in harmony. I would be interested in the totality of a system that might be devised here involving the courts etc. The Road Safety Authority is very interested in the idea and I will wait until it comes back to me. I know one of the younger members of the authority has some very positive views on the matter.
I accept what the Minister has said and will withdraw the amendment on the basis that there is an undertaking to include it in the next step.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—Section 106 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph (d):
"(e) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is present at the scene of an accident, resulting in the death or serious personal injury, he or she shall require where possible the driver(s) of the involved vehicle(s) to—
(i) provide (by exhaling into an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath) a specimen of his or her breath, and
(ii) accompany him or her or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place (including a vehicle) at or in the vicinity of the scene of the accident and there to provide a specimen of blood or urine for examination for the presence of drugs including illegal drugs and alcohol, and to provide a specimen of his or her breath by exhaling into a special apparatus (if not already provided).".".
I am amazed that there is no provision for the automatic testing of a person involved in a road accident. A driver who kills somebody in a road accident can walk away without being tested for alcohol or other drugs which could have interfered with his or her ability to drive safely. The Minister has claimed that, with the introduction of mandatory breath testing for drink driving, the Government's safety strategy will start to yield benefits but the terrible reality is that the Bill leaves it to an individual garda to decide whether to administer a test in the aftermath of an accident. I am aware of tragic cases in which people were killed but the driver was not tested for alcohol or drugs.
The European Transport Safety Council's report, which was published on 9 May 2006, criticised Ireland for having the second lowest rate of alcohol testing within the EU and for the fact that only one fifth of gardaí are trained to use breathalysers. We all accept the need for public responsibility but a minimum level of legislative provision is also necessary if we are to ensure that somebody who commits a crime is brought to justice. Given that so few gardaí are able to use breathalysers, it is no wonder that people get away with drink driving.
The law as it stands provides that somebody may be required to submit to a preliminary test, which leaves the decision to the discretion of an individual garda. I propose to amend the legislation to require that all drivers at the scene of an accident shall be required to submit to a test. Requiring everybody to be tested may give rise to resource problems because there are insufficient gardaí but there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that all drivers involved in serious or fatal accidents are breathalysed. If it is not practical to administer a test at the scene of the accident, it should be administered at the earliest possible opportunity. The Bill will be a complete farce if it is enacted without a provision for alcohol and drug testing.
Alcohol is the most commonly abused drug. This year alone, more than 200 people have died in road traffic accidents. I was glad to have assisted Public Against Road Carnage in devising a petition, which collected more than 20,000 signatures in County Donegal, to demand that the provision I propose form part of the Bill. People were appalled that this lacuna exists.
My amendment also provides that a person can be tested for drugs because a major problem exists in that regard. Yesterday, the Irish Independent reported that young people use cannabis as a drug of choice. Cannabis has a detrimental effect on young people and drivers and these drugs are commonly abused in secondary schools.
The drug problem is a result of the withdrawal of gardaí from rural areas. Young people aged between 20 and 25 who regularly drive while under the influence of drugs are a serious danger on our roads but they have little chance of being caught because of the lack of random drug testing. If a garda does not smell alcohol or discover drugs, he or she has no reason to arrest a person.
Ecstasy tablets, which cost €5, are widely used. They are reputed to give a high equivalent to the consumption of five to eight pints of beer. I have never taken ecstasy but young people on provisional licences who pay high insurance premia are happier to take this drug than to drink alcohol. With no alcohol in their blood, they have nothing to fear from breathalysers. Mandatory random drug testing, as well as additional gardaí, would help in increasing detection rates. Large areas of the country have been left without gardaí. If people think they can get away with drink driving, they will attempt to do so.
Over the past ten years, alcohol consumption has increased by 41%. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms Nuala O'Loan, has stated that the use of breathalysers in situations where injuries occur is consistent with human rights law. It is important, however, that gardaí are trained in the use of breathalysers.
Is amendment No. 28 also being taken at this stage?
No, we are dealing with amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30.
My amendment No. 28 addresses the same issue as Deputy Cowley's amendment but I am happy to discuss it later.
I resubmitted amendments Nos. 29 and 30 because they provide for mandatory drug testing. Drugs have been implicated in a number of accidents. The drugs in question were for the most part prescribed. The Minister outlined the difficulties involved in devising a foolproof comprehensive test and noted that nine different testing systems had been tried in Europe but none worked. I accept that difficulties exist but they can be overcome. All I ask is that provision is made in the Bill to enable the Minister to introduce regulations when a suitable test is developed.
I do not wish to pursue people who are on prescribed drugs but want to emphasise the need for hard information as a basis for policy. Everybody has an idea with regard to improving road safety but the danger arises that, by attempting too much, we lose our focus on the real causes of accidents. That is why it is important that information is gathered at the scene of accidents. Amendment No. 29 is necessary if the other amendment is accepted. I will come back to amendment No. 28 if it will not be accepted now.
Amendment No. 27 proposes that section 106 of the principal Act be amended so that where a member of the Garda Síochána is present at the scene of a collision where death or serious injury has occurred, he or she shall require the driver to provide a breath sample to establish the presence of alcohol. The driver may accompany a garda or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place, including a vehicle,to provide a blood or urine specimen for examination for the presence of drugs or alcohol. In the first instance, section 106 of the principal Act relates to the offence of leaving the scene of a collision or a hit and run. There would be little point in applying this amendment to hit and run cases because there is no driver to test.
There is no roadside test available for drugs, a matter about which all countries are exercised. Some nine systems have been tested recently and all have failed. There is no available method for taking a test. When such a test is put in place, many of the matters raised in other areas will come to the fore again. Significant research is being pursued by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which is involved in the international forum that deals with the issue. Should a garda form the opinion that drugs have been consumed, he or she can use section 14 of the 1994 Road Traffic Act to require the person to accompany him or her to a station to take a blood or urine sample.
Amendment No. 29 proposes that a member of the Garda Síochána can request a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle to accompany him or her to a station if the garda is of the opinion that the person is under the influence of drugs and has been involved in a road traffic accident. A roadside breath sample can be requested to indicate the presence of alcohol from any driver involved in a collision. My difficulty with this amendment is that the detection of a driver under the influence must, until a robust method for preliminary drug testing is found, be based on the determination by a garda on the incapacity of the driver to control the vehicle. Certainty was brought to mandatory alcohol testing and I do not want these amendments to allow any opportunity for people to challenge measures in this. I appreciate the Deputy's intent but we must keep the legislation as tight as possible.
Amendment No. 30 proposes to introduce mandatory testing for substances other than alcohol. Given that the amendment proposes a link to the mandatory alcohol test system proposed in section 4, I presume it refers to drugs. A system for testing for the presence of drugs is not available. Once that system is in place, we will have to define procedures in legislation and I cannot stab at these in the dark.
There is a case to be made for it. Deputy Olivia Mitchell has an amendment that refers to alcohol testing without drug testing and, on that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Subsections 2 to 7 of the new section proposed by amendment No. 28 introduce a matter comprehended but not discussed previously. I ask that Deputy Mitchell take this into consideration.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"5.—(1) A member of the Garda Síochána, present at the scene of a road traffic accident, shall require any person who was in charge of vehicle that was involved in the road traffic accident to—
(a) (i) provide (by exhaling into an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath) a specimen of his or her breath, or
(ii) accompany him or her or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place (including a vehicle) at or in the vicinity of the checkpoint and there to provide, by exhaling into such an apparatus, a specimen of his or her breath,
or
(b) (i) leave the vehicle at the place where it has been stopped, or
(ii) move it to a safe place in the vicinity of the road traffic accident, and keep or leave it there until the person has complied with a requirement made of him or her under paragraph (a).
(2) A member of the Garda Síochána, for the purposes of making a requirement of a person under subsection (1) may indicate the manner in which the person must comply with the requirement.
(3) A person who—
(a) refuses or fails to comply forthwith with a requirement under subsection (1)(a) or (b)(i) or such a requirement in a manner indicated by a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (2), or
(b) without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to comply immediately with a requirement under subsection (1)(b)(ii) or such a requirement in a manner indicated by a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (5), is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction—
(i) to a fine not exceeding €5,000,
(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,
(iii) to disqualification from driving for a period not exceeding 2 years, or
(iv) to any combination of (i), (ii) and (iii) of this subsection.
(4) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits, is committing or has committed an offence under this section.
(5) In a prosecution for an offence under—
(a) this section,
(b) section 49 or section 50 of the Principal Act, or
(c) Part III of the Act of 1994,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that an apparatus provided by a member of the Garda Síochána for the purpose of enabling a person to provide a specimen of breath pursuant to this section is an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be used to delay in any way, the provision of any medical assistance to a person injured in a road traffic accident.
(7) A person who does not comply with a requirement under subsection (1) by availing of protection under subsection (6), shall continue to be obliged to comply with such requirement as soon as may be medically practicable.”.
The amendment is self-explanatory. It requires the Garda Síochána to test anyone involved in a road traffic accident for alcohol. It provides for a fine in the case of those who do not comply. The circumstances to which the Minister referred, where drivers may be unconscious, are catered for but the obligation is not removed. Whenever it is medically practicable, the test will be done.
The Minister stated that it would be unfair if one driver were conscious and the other unconscious but it is not a question of fairness. We are introducing mandatory alcohol testing for people who may be perfectly innocent. One may be stopped and tested on the way home. It would be strange if we could do that, on the one hand, but could not test someone at the scene of a road traffic accident on the basis that it would not be fair unless we stopped everyone else.
I did not mean it that way. It would be challenged in court and we would lose.
Testing is carried out in many cases for the purposes of prosecution, but I seek testing for the purposes of information on which to base policy. People think accidents are caused by drink driving and speeding. Perhaps this is true, but we should seek to ascertain to what extent this is the case. I would like this amendment to be accepted. It seems nonsensical that we can stop and test innocent people but those involved in an accident may not be tested.
I support this amendment for the same reason I proposed the previous amendment. It is farcical that many are killed on our roads with no one held responsible. We are about to pass a Bill that will allow a driver to drink and drive, kill several people and walk away from the accident without being tested for alcohol. This amendment would redress the situation.
The Minister cannot ignore 20,000 signatures collected recently and handed in to his office yesterday. People want the Minister to address the situation. Tragedies have occurred, with people killed, and the driver walked away without being tested. Alcohol is perhaps the most common drug of abuse. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not address the situation.
I was tempted to state that there is not a pub in Ireland where people do not drink and drive. We have all heard the urban legend of those who are over the limit and feign injury after an accident. When the garda comes to take the alcohol test the person claims to have had a drink to settle their nerves in the hospital, house or wherever. There is a difficulty then because, supposedly, they cannot be charged with being over the limit. There is also a difficulty where the fire brigade is called because the firemen will not give a breathalyser test.
I agree with the sentiments in this amendment. Such action needs to be taken. Everybody wants to get rid of these lunatics on the roads but people will use all sorts of ploys to avoid being tested. The Minister must examine this issue. I do not know if this is the way forward but one hears on the grapevine that this is happening more often so it must be addressed.
I do not have any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, to suggest that people involved in serious accidents who are out of their minds with drink are not being tested for alcohol or drugs consumption. The Road Traffic Acts provide that a member of the Garda Síochána may require a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle to provide a preliminary breath specimen where the vehicle is involved in a road collision. Garda discretion with regard to the use of preliminary roadside tests in such circumstances is necessary having regard to possible injuries sustained and I do not propose to alter that.
If we make it mandatory and somebody, for whatever reason, cannot be breathalysed on the road, the case will be thrown out of court and the person will walk away because procedures were not followed. We cannot make it mandatory because it will simply open a Pandora's box of escape routes for everybody. If somebody is unconscious on the side of the road, they patently cannot be given a breath test and if it is a mandatory procedure, the case will be thrown out of court because the procedure set out in law was not properly followed. That might seem bizarre but that is the situation.
The gardaí must have flexibility to deal with this. The power of the gardaí to require a person to provide a breath sample where a collision has taken place already exists and the gardaí certainly exercise it. Given that and the need to maintain Garda discretion in this matter, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment. I remind Deputies that the Road Traffic Acts also place an obligation on a person to provide a blood or urine sample in a hospital. This applies where an event occurs involving a vehicle which results in persons being injured or a person claiming or appearing to have been injured whether the person is admitted to or attends a hospital and a member of the Garda is of the opinion that at the time of the event the person had consumed an intoxicant. An intoxicant includes alcohol and drugs or any combination of alcohol and drugs.
There must be that discretionary base when going into a court case.
I withdraw the amendment.
I wish to speak on the amendment.
The amendment has been withdrawn.
I should have spoken before that. I was on my feet before it was withdrawn.
The amendment is withdrawn.
I accept what the Minister has said but it is terrible that there are people who will be over the legal limit and will not go to a hospital but who will walk away from an accident and not be breathalysed. It is a farce that it is not included in the legislation.
The Deputy's observation will be recorded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 54 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 9, line 42, to delete "section 138(3)(a)” and substitute “section 138(3)”.
This is a drafting amendment recommended by the parliamentary counsel. It corrects the existing text.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 is related to amendment No. 36. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 9, line 44, to delete "4" and substitute "5".
The purpose of these amendments is to increase the disqualification periods for the most serious offences as well as dangerous driving. I hope the Minister will accept them.
I second the amendment.
The advent of the new administrative disqualification and fixed charge system for certain drink driving offences placed the spotlight on the range of mandatory disqualifications currently applied under the Road Traffic Acts. The immediate consequence of a decision to apply an administrative disqualification of six months to a specific group of drink driving offences means that the periods for minimum disqualification that apply following convictions for drink driving offences generally required review.
That review established that there was a need to look critically at the overall range of minimum disqualifications that are currently applied in respect of the more serious offences created under the Road Traffic Acts. The disqualifications in question are known as consequential disqualifications as they are applied as a consequence of conviction of an offence. The range of offences to which they apply was set out in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That Act, with an amendment promoted through the Road Traffic Act 1995 in respect of certain drink driving offences, also established the minimum periods for such disqualifications.
Given the much higher profile that applies to road safety now and accepting that there is a broad consensus on the need for more consistent deterrents that reflect the seriousness with which society views breaches of traffic law, it is timely that the system for consequential disqualification should be reviewed. The section therefore provides that the minimum period of disqualification for the most serious offences, which include dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and the most serious drink driving offences, will be increased from two years to four years in respect of a first offence and from four years to six years for a second or subsequent offence. The new offence of striking a railway or other bridge which gave rise to death or serious injury has been added to the list.
The Deputy proposes that the periods be increased from two years to five years for the first offence and from four years to ten years for a second or subsequent offence. These proposed increases are disproportionate, having regard to the disqualifications generally. The periods in the Bill are a significant increase on the current position and it is still open to the courts to apply longer periods if it is deemed appropriate to do so. I recall when dealing with other issues similar to this it was pointed out to me that if one includes disproportionate provisions in the Bill, the courts will just do something different. The court will look at the proportionality of the provision and the range of years involved but it is open to the court to impose a longer period and a more severe penalty.
The Minister said I am seeking that the period be changed from two years to five years, but I am not. The Bill as drafted provides for a period of disqualification that is not less than four years for a first offence and six years for a second offence. I suggest that instead of four and six years, it should be five and ten years.
There is not a great deal between us. The current period is two years and I am increasing it to four years. The Deputy is proposing that it be five years. I prefer to leave the Bill as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 11, line 39, to delete "said".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"8.—The speed limit on any non-national road in respect of which a local authority has not specified any alternative limit, whether before or after the commencement of this section, is 60 kilometres per hour.".
I feel strongly that the default speed limit on our roads is too high at 80 km/h. Given that there are many more country roads and lanes than there are decent roads, it makes more sense to have a lower default speed limit that applies everywhere and on those roads that can take a higher speed, it should be up to a local authority to designate the speed limit. The default speed limit being so high leads to ridiculous situations on dangerous, narrow roads. It is not practical to talk about putting in place lower speed limit signs on these minor roads so it is logical, therefore, to put the signs on the better roads.
The Oireachtas has only recently reduced the overall speed limits and the default limit. I have given strong powers to local authorities to look at this. I do not agree, however, that it is impractical for local authorities to look at signs on these roads. A person going out over a few weeks would resolve the ludicrous situation of roads which are clearly unfit for 100 km/h speed limits. It is possible to come off a dual carriageway with a 60 km/h speed limit on to a country road with a limit of 100 km/h.
At national level, the Oireachtas has done everything possible to overcome this. It is only recently that we set the default limit at 80 km/h. Deputy Shortall wants to reduce the limit to 60 km/h but I am not minded to go down that road yet. I would rather have full implementation of the powers the local authorities have in this issue, one they have failed to address. There has been sloppiness at local authority level and I have urged councillors to get the managers to get the issue on the agenda and resolve it for once and for all. That would be a better approach.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"8.—(1) Where road works are being carried out by any person including a local authority, the person shall erect and maintain such signs as comply with requirements prescribed by the Minister for Transport, and such further or other road work signs if any as are required to obviate any danger to the public.
(2) A person (including a director, member, officer or employee of a body corporate whose default contributes to the non-compliance) who fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to imprisonment for 12 months or to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or both.".
Again, I feel strongly about this. Since I met the father of the late Aisling Gallagher, I have been exercised by this issue. He spent a lot of time explaining the circumstances in the untimely death of his young daughter and brought home to me how lax the current regime is in regulating road works.
It was only when I tried to investigate some of the issues he raised that I realised we have a system where the National Roads Authority sets down regulations covering the management of road works carried out by a contractor. If there is a temporary surface on the road, the speed limit must be reduced in a corresponding fashion and clearly marked with safety alerts. That is how it should be. However, I was amazed to discover that the same requirement does not exist when local authorities are involved in road works.
As a result of that absence of regulation, a situation arose where Aisling Gallagher's father alleges she was driving along a familiar road on what appeared to be a brand new surface but which was not flagged as temporary and which had markings on it. When she had to brake, she had no grip because the surface was only temporary and, sadly, she went off the road. There have been allegations that similar conditions have pertained to other fatal accidents and it was through meeting him and hearing his story that I discovered there is no proper regulatory regime covering local authorities.
This is an appropriate place to close that gap because this Bill is primarily about road safety. We should introduce a new system whereby local authorities would be legally obliged to comply with the guidelines set down just as any other contractor is and failure to comply would attract penalties including a fine of up to €5,000 or 12 months imprisonment.
I strongly support this amendment and congratulate Deputy Shortall for bringing it forward. I tabled a similar amendment but it was ruled out of order because of a potential charge on the Exchequer. The amendment allowed for an annual audit of fatal and serious road accidents to establish their causes. Current statistics are the tip of the iceberg on the number of accidents caused by road conditions. I also called for a special road traffic accident unit to be set up which would co-ordinate a full investigation of all serious and fatal accidents and make recommendations to ensure the prevention of such accidents in future.
Since the start of the year, 203 people have been killed in road accidents and we must learn the lessons. The numbers are not going down and we must find out the causes of these accidents. If we do not know the causes, we cannot prevent further accidents. A certain percentage are due to road conditions and we can do something about this. Aisling Gallagher's case makes it clear there are people who are not doing their jobs, such as local authorities involved in road works, and who are not following basic recommendations laid down by law by the NRA. As a result, people are being killed.
Aisling Gallagher's case was tragic. She was a young girl about to go to America with her whole life in front of her but she was killed around Christmas last year. She was doing nothing wrong, her car was in perfect working order, she had tax, insurance and her licence and she was driving at the proper speed. There were no drugs or alcohol in her blood but she died because someone did not do his job. The surface was temporary and markings were put down on it.
The HSA said it would not investigate because the lines were put on a temporary surface improperly. That was the excuse. Thanks to the persistence of Mr. Gallagher and myself, the case is now being investigated by the Health and Safety Authority. I was shocked to the core by the haphazard nature of the system of investigating serious and fatal accidents. For instance, I met the NRA, together with Mr. Tommy Gallagher, on 10 March 2005. The authority's representatives said it was not the NRA's responsibility to ensure that its directives, specifications, standards or guidelines were being implemented at any one site. They were not obliged to visit work sites or inspect work. They were not responsible or accountable for the competence or otherwise of the staff employed by any local authority on projects that had been funded by the NRA. We were informed that when the NRA funds a project, the local authority is not in any way answerable to the NRA regarding safety, work methods, work programmes, engaging in good work practices, risk assessments, contingency plans, health and safety regulations or correctly following the NRA directives. We were told in no uncertain terms that the only people any local authority was answerable to were the elected representatives.
I wish to advise the Deputy that his contribution is outside the terms of the amendment.
With respect, Sir, it is not. This is all within the terms of the amendment, including the case of Sinéad McDaid who was killed on loose chippings because there was one sign up which was hidden by grass. I do not believe that is outside the terms of the amendment either. We are talking about rural conditions and people being responsible while others are fined. At present, however, nobody will take responsibility for national secondary roads. Somebody must be made responsible for them, otherwise we will not get to the bottom of it.
I also wish to refer to the case of a man who was paralysed in Wexford because he skidded on loose chippings, which were swept up the next day. Another girl was killed in Edenderry, County Offaly, as a result of loose chippings that were swept up the following day. Such chippings are supposed to be swept up when the job is done.
I wish to advise the Deputy that his contribution is outside the terms of the amendment. He is giving what I would describe as a general Second Stage speech. He should confine himself to the amendment.
With respect, Sir, I have to say that——
The guillotine is at 7 o'clock.
The Deputy is using up everybody's time.
He is indeed.
Everybody's time. What about Sinéad McDaid's time? How about Aisling Gallagher's time?
That is a cheap shot.
It is not a cheap shot.
If the Deputy will not conclude, I will ask an tAire to respond.
Somebody must be responsible for investigating these cases.
Why did the Deputy not turn up on Committee Stage?
Fan go fóill. I am asking the Deputy — I am telling him — to confine himself to the amendment. He is going outside the bounds of the amendment. He should please confine his remarks to the amendment and then I will call an tAire.
With respect, Sir, I disagree that I am talking outside the terms of the amendment. I challenge that.
I am advising the Deputy that he is.
I will not make an issue out of it. I strongly support this amendment. The NRA, the HSA and the Garda Síochána are not in a position to co-ordinate post-accident investigations properly. Somebody must be responsible for doing so. What is the point of making regulations if they are not implemented?
I wish to reply to Deputy Shortall's question by giving her some up-to-date and, hopefully, relevant information. As she knows, the 1996 traffic signs manual deals with this issue. I will try to foreshorten my reply because there is not a lot of time available. I examined the issue regarding local authorities, which seems to be central to what Deputy Shortall is saying. The overall manual is currently the subject of a comprehensive review. The immediate focus of that review is the presentation of a new chapter 8 relating to road work signage. A draft of the chapter has been circulated to local authorities for their views. It is my intention to publish the chapter as soon as the review has been completed, probably later this year when the consultation process is over. With its publication, the signs described in the new chapter 8 will provide the only reference point for the provision of road signs at road works. The chapter will represent a direction to local authorities from the Minister and, accordingly, they will be required to comply with the provisions that are set out in it. The Deputy is correct and the process to deal with the matter is already well under way.
I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That had to happen because of the death of Aisling Gallagher.
The Deputy should stop grandstanding.
This is true, Minister, and I hope it will be enforced now.
All of us in this House are equally concerned with those matters.
I wonder.
The Deputy should not grandstand in here.
It takes so much to get action.
The Deputy should not do that.
I can give the Minister more names if he wants.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 12, line 36, after "learner" to insert "and exempted older persons".
I am referring again to older people who deserve some consideration. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of mandatory retraining or some type of limited test for older people who have been driving for years. Older people do not want to evade their responsibilities but to do the right thing. In years gone by, however, they could have bought a driving licence without sitting a test, but did not do so. The Minister should examine the situation and try to provide some special restricted category for them. I recognise, as the Minister says, that it does not happen elsewhere but we introduced the smoking ban and other countries are following. The system should assist older people who deserve our support. I ask the Minister to examine that matter.
I have some sympathy with the last speaker concerning the position in which many older people find themselves, especially as we have allowed a regime to continue where one never has to take a test. It is essential for everybody to sit a certain test to establish a minimum level of driving competency. After that, however, there is the potential for a graduated licensing system. We have been promised that but there has been no move on it yet. Other jurisdictions issue restricted licences whereby drivers cannot drive at certain times or beyond certain speeds and must adhere to horsepower limits. We need to consider such a system.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with older people who may not have any experience of using technology. I ask the Minister to look at the manner in which the theory test is administered. It is simple for most people. Young people like it because they can press the buttons without difficulty but it is terrifying for many older people. The Minister should consider introducing the option of a written theory test in a limited number of centres. Many drivers are put off by the theory test but they might be eased into the testing regime if the Minister could re-examine the written test option. The whole idea of having a graduated licensing system also has merit.
This issue was raised earlier. I understand where the Deputy is coming from and as a result of this debate I will feed this idea back into what is going on with regard to the permit issue. We must be clear on two fronts, however. First, we are not suggesting that any category of people can go on to our roads without meeting any standards whatsoever, including medical standards. That would not be acceptable. Second, we have an EU-wide recognition of driving licences. In other words, there is an equalisation of the standard across Europe whereby driving licences are recognised. If we contemplated going some way down that road, we would have to bear in mind that it would not impact on our ability to have Irish driving licences recognised for people going on holidays and renting cars in an EU-wide scenario. Notwithstanding the Deputy's position, which has been well articulated, I am not in a position to accept the amendment at this point, but I will feed it back into the review that is currently under way.
I thank the Minister for that commitment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I thank Deputies for their support and co-operation and the discussion that took place on the Bill. I appreciate the effort by all parties to have the Bill passed. I also thank my officials.
I thank the Minister, his officials and staff for the major effort that went into the Bill. If there was criticism, it was borne out of frustration to be able to do more in the Bill. I hope the Minister will follow through with some of the commitments he gave because we all want the same thing, an improvement in road safety.
I wish to echo those comments and thank all the officials for their hard work.
As it is now 7 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Transport and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.