Road Traffic Bill 2013: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

There is a particular heartbreak to the family that is awoken by a late night knock on the door to inform them a family member was the victim of a hit-and-run incident. The flashing blue lights on a dark road lighting up the carnage of a collision are a grim sight for any loved one to bear. The shock and horror of such fatal road accidents have haunted innumerable families across Ireland. After the media reports disappear and funerals fade away, they are left with the searing memory of abrupt loss.

This type of tragedy is rendered all the more devastating by the knowledge that perhaps their loved one could have been saved or that they spent their last moments alone. There is a unique grief wrought by the fact that a son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father was the victim of a hit-and-run incident where, regardless of the fault involved, the driver compounded one mistake with an even worse response.

The Road Traffic Bill 2013, published last May, aims to build on the work done so far to make roads safer over the past 15 years. It specifically enhances the deterrent measures available to the judicial system to send out a clear and unambiguous message that leaving the scene of an accident is completely and utterly unacceptable, is a serious crime and will receive the appropriate punishment on conviction. In conjunction with this, the Bill also strengthens the capacity of the Garda to test for alcohol or drug abuse over an expanded 24-hour period to ensure individuals suspected of being involved with a hit-and-run accident do not evade justice. The Bill's overarching aim is to tackle hit-and-run incidents directly and make the roads safer for all users.

Significant progress has already been achieved in this aim since successive Governments, with all-party consensus, first began vigorously to pursue a strategic approach to road safety in 1998. Between 1997 and 2012, roads deaths are down by 65.7%. Ireland is now the fifth safest country in the European Union for road collision fatalities per million of population. This achievement may be set against an increase of 66% in the number of cars on the road over that same timeframe. Steps forward in the area are a testament to the vastly improved legal sanctions, alcohol testing and the commitment of the Garda and the Road Safety Authority under the auspices of government policy targeting the area.

However, the creeping rise in road deaths this year, even before we move into the Christmas period which is fraught with danger, is a stark reminder of the persistent menace on routes across Ireland. We have already seen a greater number of road deaths than last year, marking a reversal in the consistent decline in fatalities over the past several years. It is too early at this stage to read anything fundamental into those statistics. It informs us, however, that we must keep up our efforts in reviewing road safety legislation and strategy, keeping it at the forefront of the public’s mind. There is also a necessity to ensure the appropriate level of Garda surveillance and resources to ensure this progress is not allowed to deteriorate.

This Bill is a measure to help restore momentum in challenging the traumatic impact that road accidents inflict on grieving families and to ensure the vital arteries that connect the nation are as safe as possible. It is designed to help ensure those families who have had their loved ones cruelly taken from them, can draw some comfort in the knowledge that steps are being taken to ensure other families do not have to share that deep sense of loss. In particular, I pay tribute to the O'Farrell family from County Monaghan who have worked towards legislative provisions to draw a line under hit-and-run incidents. The tragic story of Shane O'Farrell, a talented young law student who died in a hit-and-run incident, shines a sharp spotlight on the need to tighten the legal framework in the area. I hope after their sad experience, as well as that of other families affected, they can take some comfort in knowing that something positive may come from their collective loss.

The first Part ensures this offence will carry a punishment of up to ten years imprisonment and-or a fine of up to €5,000. That is up from the current maximum jail sentence of six months. These measures are drawn from similar provisions in Canadian and Australian legislation. Removing this offence from being considered a summary offence is an important part in setting the tone on this matter.

The second Part deals with the powers of the Garda to test suspected offenders for drink and drugs. The Garda only has three hours to find the alleged offenders and test them for drugs and alcohol. This Bill extends that period to 24 hours, giving the Garda far more scope to track down those involved, test for intoxicating substances and ensure the appropriate charges are brought forward.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the Government's decision signalled at Cabinet this week to accept the first Part. It is a victory for constructive politics and we look forward to working with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, on strengthening the legislation. I understand the Government will put forward section 2 as an amendment to the Road Traffic Amendment Bill (No. 2) on Committee Stage in the coming months and we can co-operate on strengthening it at that point.

This section deals with making leaving the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, a hit-and-run, an indictable offence. An indictable offence is a more serious legal issue than a summary offence. Indictable offences are those which may or must be tried on indictment before a judge and jury, namely in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court. It proposes to amend section 106 of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 and 2006. Under current legislation, there is a six-month maximum sentence for individuals who leave the scene of an accident and it is considered to be only a summary offence. In light of the devastating repercussions it can have on victims of such incidents, it is absolutely critical that strong deterrent measures are put in place to underline the gravity of these crimes. The lives of innocent people are at stake.

The Bill imposes enhanced punishments on those offenders who leave the scene of an accident where somebody has been injured. Instead of the miniscule six-month sentence, we advocate a ten-year maximum sentence in the case of accidents causing death and a seven-year sentence in cases of serious injury. The ten-year sentence for leaving the scene of an accident where a death has occurred would, of course, be in addition to the current maximum ten-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death as applicable.

The Bill recognises the devastating impact that such accidents have on the families affected and sends out a clear, unambiguous message to drivers that they are obliged to stay at the scene of an accident. The current law also incentivises people who may be inebriated or abusing substances to leave the scene to avoid the harsher consequences of drunk or drug driving. These measures change that by heightening the punishment.

Accidents happen and there may be no intoxicant present. Sadly, because of the way the law is framed, people often feel it is better to leave the scene with no regard to the individual who is left to die on the roadside. It is important we address this without delay.

These provisions are based on international best practice as exhibited in Canada. It is primarily drawn from the even more stringent section 252 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Our Bill is adjusted in light of the demands of Irish law. The Canadian Criminal Code states that a person who fails to stop at the scene of accident involving bodily harm is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. In the case of failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving bodily harm or death, a person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Clearly, the Canadians take this issue far more seriously than many of our European colleagues and we can learn a lot from the way in which Canada has developed its legislative code. The provisions are also drawn from the Crimes Amendment (Roads Accidents) Act 2005 in Australia, which is also known as "Brendan's law". This legislation introduces a similar ten year maximum sentence for hit and run incidents causing death and a seven year sentence for hit and run incidents causing serious injury.

The second part of the Bill which I understand has not been accepted by the Government based on what we have read would expand the amount of time available to the Garda to test suspects for alcohol and drug use from three hours to 24 after an accident. This part of the Bill seeks to amends section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 and section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2011. This significant expansion of the ability of the Garda to test suspects would further discourage drivers from leaving the scene of an accident. By allowing the test results to be submitted as admissible evidence, it would enable the jury to decide whether the substance had been taken before or after the accident in the context of the trial. Currently, drivers can simply drive away from the scene of an accident and evade testing after just three hours. This allows serious offences to be avoided by reckless drivers. In the state of Illinois, for example, this period is significantly longer, with an 12 hour testing period. The Bill aims to expand it to 24 hours and allow the test results as admissible evidence in court. This would enable the judge and jury to decide on whether the evidence was justifiable on the balance of probabilities. This would involve weighing up the likely rate of alcohol processing by the individual based on weight, metabolism, etc. This measure would only be applicable in serious cases where a hit and run accident had occurred rather than other road offences. I trust the Minister will view this aspect of the Bill in the same co-operative spirit with which he has approached the first half of the legislation.

The Bill is ultimately about giving the victims of hit and run incidents a fighting chance for survival by sending a clear message that a motorist cannot leave the scene of an accident. It underlines that hit and run incidents are serious crimes and sends that message to all motorists. I trust that it would offer some hope to families who have endured grievous loss and help to ensure other families are spared the same unfortunate experience in the future. I hope we can all come together in this House on this legislation and that it will be accepted in its entirety by the Government in a manner that seeks to address fatalities on the roads. It would be another significant step towards ensuring this country will ultimately be recognised as the safest country in Europe in which to drive. We still have some work to do and if we continue with the same level of co-operation, effort and work between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; the Road Safety Authority and the Garda, we can achieve these targets ahead of the strategy dates set out in the work programme. I appeal to all Members of the House to consider supporting this legislation and look forward to hearing what the Minister and other Members have to say about it.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

I welcome the opportunity to address this Bill and thank Deputy Timmy Dooley for raising some very important issues through this proposed legislation. The area of road safety is one in which there has been always cross-party support and there is no disagreement on our overall objectives, as the Deputy stated. Collisions on the roads lead to unnecessary deaths and serious and sometimes life-changing injuries which have an impact well beyond the victims or their families, friends and colleagues. Any proposal to reduce the casualty rate on the roads should be given serious consideration.

For many reasons, there has been a welcome decline in the number of road deaths in Ireland, even as the number of vehicles on the roads has been growing. The decade from 2002 to 2012 saw a reduction in the number of road fatalities annually from 376 to 162, which represents a drop of almost 60%. There was similar success in reducing the number of serious injuries in that period from 1,009 in 2003 to 487 in 2012. This represents the impact of a wide range of factors. We have better roads, better standards for vehicles and better maintenance standards through the NCT and commercial vehicle testing. There are tougher laws on drink driving, with mandatory alcohol testing check points. The introduction of the penalty points system was also a major step forward and has both a deterrent and an educational role. In addition, the driver licensing regime has become more rigorous and will be further strengthened by legislation which I have already placed before the House. The creation of the Road Safety Authority, RSA, also played a crucial role, bringing together and co-ordinating many activities designed to promote road safety. The RSA has ensured joined-up thinking across a range of areas, from vehicle standards to driver training and testing to road safety education.

We should also bear in mind that there has been a shift in driving culture. Ultimately, road safety can never be ensured by legislation or enforcement alone. Individual drivers are responsible for their behaviour behind the wheel and reading the road ahead of them. For safety to increase, it is essential that drivers are responsible and behave in a safe manner, with due regard for other road users. We have seen a particular cultural shift in the area of drink driving which is no longer socially acceptable. Continued progress in road safety will involve a number of elements from legislation to enforcement and education, but none of this can work without the help of members of the public, be they drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

It is a matter of concern to see, for the first time in many years, that we are certain to have a higher number of fatalities on the roads this year than in the previous year. The reasons for this increase, like the reasons for the decrease in the past decade, are manifold. The solutions, therefore, must come from many angles. Interestingly, the number of serious injuries this year to the end of October was 394, down 20 on the same period last year. Early this year I launched the road safety strategy 2013-20. This new strategy sets ambitious targets. We aim to reduce the number of fatalities from 162 in 2012 to 124 or fewer in 2020. In addition and for the first time in a road safety strategy, we are extending our focus from fatalities to include serious injuries which we aim to reduce by 30% over the lifetime of the strategy. We have set out 144 actions through which we aim to achieve these targets. The sheer number of actions is testament to the complexity of this issue and the interconnectedness of so many measures to increase safety on the roads. The actions fall into the broad categories of education; engineering; enforcement; and evaluation, data and research. Actions in each area, backed up, where appropriate, by legislation, will help to keep up the pressure and momentum to improve safety across the board on the roads.

The Bill before us proposes actions in an area of particular concern on the roads, namely hit and run incidents. These cases, regardless of whether they involve death or injury, are doubly traumatic for those affected. Not only is a loved one, friend or colleague killed or injured but the perpetrator has fled the scene. I know that Deputy Timmy Dooley has been approached by people who have suffered owing to hit and run incidents, in particular the family of Shane O'Farrell, a young man from Monaghan who was tragically killed in 2011 in a hit and run case. I know his family has highlighted the issue ever since. I am deeply aware of the profound impact which tragedies such as these have on families and friends. In this case, not only was a young life ended unnecessarily, worse still, the driver fled the scene and no custodial sentence was imposed on the individual responsible. There have also been other hit and run incidents in recent months, including one in County Donegal of which I am aware which also led to a fatality.

The Bill starts from the premise that there is a gap in current legislation on hit and run incidents and proposes to remedy this gap by new measures to provide for serious sentences for hit and run incidents involving death or serious injury. We must first consider what the law provides for. Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 sets out the duties of drivers when a collision occurs involving injury. These duties include stopping the vehicle, remaining at the scene and giving appropriate information to a garda or appropriate other person. This section applies to all vehicles involved in the incident, not exclusively to the vehicle which caused the injury. The maximum penalty for breach of this provision is a fine of €2,000 and-or six months in prison. Evidently, this is an important provision in itself and there are sound reasons for keeping it, but it has not been sufficient in addressing hit and run incidents where death or serious injury has been caused. I understand the common practice in the prosecution of hit and run cases where death or serious injury is caused is to use section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. This section deals with dangerous driving. Where the dangerous driving leads to death or serious bodily harm, the penalty under the section is a maximum fine of €20,000 and-or ten years imprisonment.

The difficulty is that it is often not possible to demonstrate that a person was actually driving dangerously, within the terms of section 53. This means that an individual who causes death or serious injury and flees the scene can often only be charged under section 106 and is therefore liable to no more than a €2,000 fine and on conviction, a six month prison sentence at most. I agree this is utterly inappropriate and inadequate for an offence which has caused death or serious injury and is compounded and aggravated by the perpetrator leaving the scene. As the law stands, the deterrent against leaving the scene is not sufficient. I therefore agree with Deputy Dooley that there is a need for amending legislation in this area and I am happy to endorse the broad principle of the Bill in addressing this issue.

I have asked my officials to examine the specific measures proposed to deal with hit-and-run offences in the current Bill. They have consulted on this matter with the Office of the Attorney General. While there is no question that we should and will address this significant gap in legislation, I am advised that there may be difficulties with the way in which this Bill proposes to deal with the matter. In particular, I am advised that great care is needed in framing an amendment which will not unintentionally undermine the working of section 106 and so that it will be workable. As politicians and law-makers we must always consider the law of unintended consequences and take care not to do harm in our efforts only to do good. Deputies will know that last month I introduced the Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill in the House. I have asked my officials to discuss with the Office of the Attorney General the possibility of introducing an amendment to that Bill which would address the hit-and-run issues that Deputy Dooley has raised. Work is well advanced on this and I expect to be in a position to introduce an amendment on Committee or Report Stage which will address the issues raised. My officials have already discussed this matter with Deputy Dooley and they will contact him when the amendment has been finalised.

The Bill we are discussing today also proposes an important change to the law on testing for intoxicants. Currently, the law provides for testing of drivers for intoxicants, either through breath tests or through the taking of blood or urine specimens. This Bill is proposing that in cases where an offence under section 106 of the Act applies - in cases where the driver has fled the scene - breath tests should be allowed for up to 24 hours after the incident. I appreciate the intention behind this proposal. Normally, if a person remains at the scene he or she undergoes a breath test or to provide a specimen of blood or urine at a Garda station. The idea behind the proposal in this Bill is that people who have fled the scene and are later detained could still be tested for intoxicants. However, there are some problems with this provision. The law as it stands states that specimens to be measured for intoxicants must be taken within three hours of an incident. This applies whether the specimen is of breath, blood or urine. The reason for the three-hour limit is that it is not possible, as a matter of science, to use test results from specimens taken a significant period after an incident, to calculate back to what the level of alcohol would have been at the time of the incident. Inevitably, the value of the indication given by the testing is reduced the later the specimen is taken. As a rule, it would be unlikely to detect alcohol, even serious alcohol ingestion, more than 12 hours after that ingestion, due to the half-life of the substance.

I have looked into this issue and I note that in some other jurisdictions, specimens of blood and urine can be taken later than is the case in this jurisdiction. For example, Canadian law allows for the taking of specimens as soon as practicable after an incident. In practice this has proven difficult from an evidentiary point of view, with drivers in hit-and-run cases often turning themselves in 24 hours after an incident when no meaningful test for measuring their level of intoxication at the time of the incident can be undertaken. Their defence attorneys use that negative test as part of the defence. Since it is not possible to calculate back from the level of intoxication when a late specimen is taken to the level of intoxication at the time of the incident, the Canadian law works on the principle that if someone is actually over the limit when the late specimen is taken then he or she must have been over the limit at the time of the incident, unless it can be proved otherwise. In practice this is not an easy measure to operate. If we say that a person intoxicated 24 hours after an incident must have been intoxicated at the time of the incident, it would be easy for him or her to claim that they had taken a drink in between. In fact, if someone were trying to evade responsibility, this is probably the first thing that they would do.

In the UK, there is provision to take specimens of breath, blood or urine for up to 18 hours after an incident. The norm, however, is to take them much sooner. This provision does not relate to cases of hit-and-run but rather to circumstances where a driver is incapacitated and incapable of giving consent to provide a specimen for testing.

I have consulted on this issue with the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which is responsible for the testing of specimens of blood and urine for intoxicants. The MBRS informs me it is possible to analyse a blood, urine or breath alcohol specimen and determine the alcohol concentration at the time the specimen is provided. However, the scientist would be unable to provide an exact alcohol concentration for the time of the incident due to the complex nature of alcohol metabolism and inter-individual variation. The further away in time from the incident that the specimen is taken, the greater the complexity and the wider the range of possible levels giving rise to arguments on calculation and interpretation of the approximated result.

In a hit-and-run situation there is the additional complication that the driver is not observed for a period of time and may or may not take alcohol and or drugs during this period. If this provision was in place, this almost certainly what would happen. Similarly, the MBRS can analyse a blood or urine specimen for the presence of a drug or drugs and determine the presence of a drug or drugs in the specimen at the time the specimen was provided.

Where a drug is detected it would indicate that a person, at some time prior to the provision of the specimen, consumed that drug. However, it is not scientifically possible to determine when the drug was ingested or consumed. In other words, it would not be possible to tell whether the drug was ingested before or after the incident. I listened to Deputy Dooley's contribution in which he expressed the view that the information should still be given to the judge or jury so that they could decide, on the balance of probability, as to whether the person was intoxicated. As we know in this jurisdiction and in most democracies, when it comes to a criminal case the test is not on the balance of probability but it is a test of beyond reasonable doubt. If a person was tested positive for alcohol or drugs in their system two or three days after an incident, it would not be possible to say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that during those two or three days, the person did not take alcohol or ingest drugs. The probable effect would be to create a whole new line of defence for a person suspected of an offence rather than what is intended. By the same token, the absence of alcohol or drugs several hours after the incident does not allow a scientist to conclude that no alcohol or drug was present at the time of the incident. Allowing for testing to take place a long period after the incident could inadvertently provide a defence for the person suspected of the offence.

In summary, the advice of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is that it is possible to conduct an analysis of a specimen taken at any time but the difficulty is in correlating the result to the time of driving if there is a significant time gap before the sample is taken. There are simply too many variables for it to be possible to calculate back to what would have been the level of intoxication at the time of the incident and this is the information that matters. In light of the advice from the MBRS, it would not be advisable to extend the time for taking specimens to test for intoxication. The current law does not actually prevent breath-testing 24 hours after an incident, but the results would be of little value. This is the reason it is not done. If the individual was under the limit at the time of testing, it would not be possible to calculate back to his or her alcohol level at the time of the incident, even if we could prove that they had not consumed any alcohol in the interim. If the person was over the limit at the time of the test, this would likewise not be proof that he or she was over the limit at the time of the incident.

Extending the question from breath to blood and urine, it is clear that the late taking of specimens is not scientifically reliable. I would be among the first to be pleased if it could be done but it is clear that it would not work, and would lead to a degree of disrespect for the law if cases proved impossible to take or had to be abandoned.

In conclusion, I am in agreement with Deputy Dooley that there is a serious gap in the law with regard to hit-and-run incidents. I thank him once again for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House. Unfortunately, I cannot support the proposal that we should abandon the idea of late testing for intoxicants, due to the expert advice furnished by the MBRS but I agree with the Deputy on the principle of reforming the road traffic legislation to provide proper penalties for hit-and-run cases but care must be taken in how this is achieved. For this reason and following legal advice, I believe we can achieve what is proposed in this Bill by more effective means. My officials and I will work with Deputy Dooley to introduce an amendment on Committee or Report Stage of the Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and I look forward to discussing these issues further with him when dealing with the Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill. For the reasons I have stated, the Government will not be opposing the Bill.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I thank the Acting Chairman for giving me the opportunity to contribute on this Bill. I commend my colleague, Deputy Timmy Dooley, for introducing it. I thank the Minister for his response, as this is a question of citizens' safety, protecting their rights and ensuring they have justice. It should not be a political issue. We all have a vested interest in road safety. We know what problems there are, but the Deputy's legislation zooms in on a major issue that needs to be addressed comprehensively.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a red line issue for me. It is not acceptable for anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs to leave someone dead or injured on the side of the road. It is welcome that this legislation strengthens the Garda's capacity. Hit-and-run accidents are too commonplace around the world and we know of the horrific tragedies suffered by families. I welcome the legislation and its provision of a sentence of imprisonment of up to ten years. Some of its measures are derived from examples of good practice in countries such as Canada and Australia, but in the event of someone dying as a result of a hit-and-run incident, I would go further and opt for the Canadian model, in which the driver is sentenced to life in prison.

An important point has not yet been mentioned. Many citizens believe the justice system is letting them down in these issues. I am annoyed when I see people being given sentences of three, four or five years in cases where intoxicants and the death or injury of others are involved, as people also end up in jail for petty, non-violent crimes. We should have a specific category to deal with the former offences. As they used to say years ago, if one does the crime, one does the time. People should stop whinging about it. I welcome this element of the Bill.

It is welcome that the Minister is present to debate the issue. Many people have stories. A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting one such person, Ms Lucia O'Farrell from Magheraboy, Carrickmacross, County Monaghan. She came to Dublin to meet me to talk about her beautiful son, Shane, who had been killed on 2 August 2011. A young college student in Dublin, he was killed in a hit-and-run incident by a driver who was out on bail. She had written to the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice and Equality to make her case. I raised it in the Dáil. Essentially, everyone claimed that nothing could be done about it. I am referring to this case because it is relevant. The family believes it has been let down by the justice system, as a number of incidents occurred prior to Shane's death in what Ms O'Farrell described clearly as a hit-and-run murder. One hour before he was killed, the occupants of the car had been pulled up at a Garda checkpoint and the driver had taken no alcohol. In her letter Ms O'Farrell's letter writes:

The driver was asked to switch, as he was also uninsured. This implied that an hour later he was alcohol free when he murdered Shane. This was not a Garda Checkpoint, this was an unmarked drug squad car sitting in the ditch, and pulled up this car as the registration was flagged on their system. No breathalyzer was used, No drug test on the road side. They were asked to switch drivers and they were searched. They were waved on. Our family wanted to stand up and tell the truth, but we knew that was not allowed, unfortunately; we are law abiding people, and we expected the State to do what they are expected to do, their job.

There are serious questions to answer in this case. It is appropriate that I read from another part of her letter, which reads: "Shane would frequently say, "You are guilty of all the wrong you do, but you are guilty of all the good you don't do as well." How right he was. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport should examine the Shane O'Farrell case of 2 August 2011 and determine what happened. I will contact the Minister for Justice and Equality again. What about Shane's human and constitutional rights? This case should have been about Shane, not about hiding the truth in order that people would not get into trouble. The individual in this case got off scot free. It is important that we raise these issues, as families and victims are hurting. Justice is not the Minister, Deputy Varadkar's brief, but I urge him to examine the Shane O'Farrell case closely.

When we address the broader issue of road safety, we must ask hard questions of the Minister. Are the campaigns working? Sometimes I believe they are going well when, all of a sudden, there are a number of deaths or injuries and the average statistics go out the window. Law-abiding citizens get caught in these campaigns. Regularly, constituents complain to me about getting two penalty points for being a few miles over the limit in a safe area. They take the hit and pay the €80 fine, but they see rich and powerful people walking away from penalty points. That is unacceptable. There seems to be one law for the rich and powerful and another for the average law-abiding citizen. These are the issues being brought to me as a backbencher and I will raise them in the House. People believe they are being scapegoated. We hear a great deal about the squeezed middle. Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people go down to the shops and get two penalty points for driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone or so on. Something else happens to them then and they regularly make massive contributions. However, they see hit-and-run drivers and others getting away with only four or five years in prison for shooting or stabbing someone. "Hold on," they say, and they wonder whether there is any balance in the justice system. We need to link this debate on hit-and-run drivers and road safety with the issue of equality in the justice system. These are important points.

The bottom line in addressing the issue of intoxicated driving is not drinking in the first place. It was a part of the culture years ago when people used to have two or three pints. Many Deputies and members of the older generation used to do it. Now, however, if there is any doubt, do not drink at all.

I welcome Deputy Timmy Dooley's legislation. I commend him on introducing it, as it is an important part of the debate. Road safety is important, but so is justice for the victims of hit-and-run incidents. Law-abiding citizens are fed up being scapegoated in many of the campaigns. They want reform and quality in the justice system.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I thank Deputy Dooley for bringing this Bill before the House and commend the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, on his acceptance in principle of the Bill. I hope it will proceed at an early stage to Committee Stage and that it, like future legislation introduced on Fridays by Opposition or Government backbenchers, will become law. While it is the wish of Members who avail of the Friday sittings to introduce Bills that this be the case, there has been little progress in this regard.

The Minister is correct that road safety is not an issue that should divide us. I was not aware until I read the Bill of this gap in the law, which the Minister articulated well in his contribution. I had always assumed that a person should not leave the scene of an accident, particularly an accident in which someone is injured, and that we were fully covered in this regard in terms of law. We would all agree it is important we do not provide in legislation for things that would cause problems in the future. The last thing we want to do is create loopholes in legislation, particularly in the area of intoxication, which will leave it open to challenges in the courts. In this regard, any proposed amendments will be important.

As has been said, the enactment of laws in this area is not sufficient. We need also to address issues such as culture, Garda resources and enforcement. We need to get this package right if we are to deal with the issue in a comprehensive manner. Some months ago, the Road Safety Authority was critical of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, with regard to Garda strength and, in particular, the strength of the traffic corps. There is a valid criticism there about the level below which Garda numbers cannot be allowed to fall. There is no point in our making good laws if the resources are not available to enforce them.

The phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" is often used. In areas where there is a low ratio of gardaí per head of population the number of recorded incidents that require detection on site - including, for example, road traffic offences - will be low. If we do not have sufficient gardaí, checkpoints cannot be put in place, resulting in lower crime statistics than would otherwise be the case. The number and positioning of gardaí is critically important if we are to maintain the significant improvement in road safety in Ireland. In 2012, road deaths in Ireland decreased by 12%, which compares well with the EU average of 9%.

Road conditions also play a part in road safety. The initiative taken earlier this week in regard to proposed changes in road speed limits, particularly on rural roads, is to be welcomed. I was a member of a town council when the decision was made to introduce speed limit signs nationally, at which time many members were questioning the decision to erect 80 km/h speed limit signs on rural roads because they believed drivers would assume that was the speed at which they were required to drive. This issue was raised in every council chamber around the country at that time. Ordinary people who are not experts, councillors or politicians are not always wrong. It is ridiculous to see an 80 km/h speed limit sign displayed on little boreens and the same speed limit sign displayed on larger roads such as that between the Red Cow roundabout and Kildare county boundary. I have reviewed the statistics for one year with regard to the roads on which people were caught speeding and acquired penalty points. The road on which one is most likely to be detected driving above the speed limit and acquire penalty points is that between the Red Cow roundabout and Kildare county boundary, which is the widest road in the country. The lower speed limit applies on this road because it is not a motorway. We need to question some of the decisions that may result in a reversal of improvements made in the area of road safety. However, I welcome the fact that a more sensible approach to the setting of speed limits is to be taken.

Accidents on our roads that result in fatalities destroy families. Where a person who is injured is left at the scene without regard for his or her well-being, this inflicts great injury on the family. There are also significant costs in this regard in monetary terms. The agency responsible for road safety prior to the Road Safety Authority carried out a cost-benefit analysis with regard to fatalities, because there was a need to put a monetary cost on this to enable the value of different road safety initiatives to be measured. The monetary value of each fatality was estimated in the late 1990s to be €1 million. Many people involved in accidents sustain life-changing injuries in respect of which they often require rehabilitation.

There are a suite of things that we need to get right in this area, including better laws, enforcement of penalty points, and road conditions, including signage. We must also ensure we address accident black spots. In this regard, the mapping of accidents in particular areas, as carried out by the Road Safety Authority, is useful.

I welcome the Bill and the approach being taken to it. I look forward to the enactment of this legislation, which is being introduced during a Friday sitting.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I welcome the Bill and congratulate Deputy Dooley on his efforts in drafting it. I also welcome many of the measures contained in the Bill and note the Minister's intention to transpose elements of it into Government legislation, which is a good demonstration of the benefits of reforms introduced in this House, including the Friday sitting. That Ministers such as the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, are willing to engage in a positive way, take on board proposals and incorporate them into Government legislation is to be welcomed. However, we need to ensure that Bills introduced during Friday sittings in this House that are not accepted by the Minister are allowed to progress to Committee Stage; otherwise, there is no point in Government backbenchers such as myself or members of the Opposition such as Deputies Dooley or Catherine Murphy drafting them and bringing them forward for debate. We need to look at how many Bills introduced during Friday sittings are progressing to Committee Stage and, where this is not happening, the reason why.

The Minister referred in his contribution to the reduction in road fatalities and serious injuries over the past decade, which is to be welcomed. Equally, it is worrying that the number of road fatalities has increased this year.

As the Minister stated, there are several reasons for this and therefore we need to approach the area from several angles, but it is a concerning trend and one we need to pay attention to because we have been going in the right direction in this area for so long and it would be a bad thing if we were to take a step back for whatever reason.

Deputy Catherine Murphy made some interesting points in this area, including a reference to the presence of gardaí on our roads at the moment. It is noticeable, particularly in Dublin. Another point Deputy Murphy made related to the condition of roads. Again, this is noticeable in Dublin. I realise the Minister has been fighting his own battles to retain funding in his budgets for the maintenance and upgrade of roads. There is not enough money to spend at the moment and that is something we need to examine because it is a cause, in certain instances, of fatalities on our roads. Certainly, this has been the case in some serious incidents. We have seen this in incidents involving cyclists when the carriageway beside the footpath or the median is not being maintained. Potholes can develop and, as a result, the cyclist can find himself in a dangerous situation. He may swerve out of the way, then the car must swerve, in turn, and in certain instances this has resulted in an accident. This is something we need to examine in a joined-up manner, as Deputy Murphy adverted to, and we should try to figure out the actual cost. If it is a question of spending €50 million on maintaining our roads, improving them and working on health and safety to save €100 million or €200 million when it comes to the health aspect, including the money spent after an injury or an accident, then it is something we should consider in terms of how we invest our money prudently in the infrastructure in the State.

Another issue Deputy Dooley referred to relates to hit-and-run incidents, which are serious. A separate road safety issue is not as serious but it is relevant and since the Minister is in the Chamber I am keen to raise it. This relates to the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists who break traffic laws, especially cyclists involved in hit-and-run events. This is becoming more of a menace on Dublin's city streets and pavements. It is time we started to consider seriously introducing on-the-spot fines for cyclists or pedestrians who are in breach of road traffic laws. It happens in other countries. In other countries, if a cyclist is cycling the wrong way down a one-way street, breaks a red light or is found on the footpath, a police officer or traffic warden is able to stop the person and fine him on the spot. If that person does not have the money on him, he is walked to the nearest automatic teller machine. It happened to me when I was in Prague some years ago. I was caught on the subway without a ticket and I was walked to an ATM and had to take money out. There is no reason we cannot do it here. We should start to do it because the incidence of cyclist deaths is small in the city and has reduced, but the incidence of cyclists cycling in a dangerous manner, especially on footpaths or through parks where they should dismount, is rising and is causing injury to people.

We want to increase the number of cyclists on our road because it is a good thing. One way to make cycling safe is to have more people cycling. However, we want to ensure people are cycling in a responsible manner. We have a great educational programme for children of a young age. We see children wearing helmets and high-visibility vests but we see adults cycling on footpaths and that is dangerous. If we want to stop that behaviour we have to do it through fines because a simple warning or the actions of another pedestrian shouting at such a person to get off the footpath will not change behaviour. Cyclists will continue to break the lights if no one stops them, calls them on it and fines them for their behaviour. Since he is in the Chamber I call on the Minister to consider these measures.

Naturally, we need to look at how people are driving on the roads as well. That is essential because the car is the most dangerous vehicle on the road from the point of view of safety, but we should look at the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists too, because they are part of the cohort who share the road and in certain circumstances they have been part of the cause of accidents that have occurred in terms of fatalities and serious injuries.

To come back to the measures contained in the Bill, I note the concerns the Minister has in respect of certain elements of the Bill and I support him in this regard. Furthermore, I welcome the efforts the Minister is making to take the other elements of Deputy Dooley's Bill in respect of hit-and-run cases into his own legislation. I congratulate Deputy Dooley on the measures and on bringing them forward in legislation.

Deputy Brian Stanley

We support the overall intent of the Bill, which is to discourage drivers involved in accidents from leaving the scene for fear of stiff penalties. Ireland is a country where people are very concerned about road safety. We have made great strides in the past two decades to deal with road fatalities and to make life far safer for motorists and pedestrians.

I concur with what the previous speaker said in respect of cyclists. Something needs to be done about cyclists going up one-way streets, breaking traffic lights and so on.

Last year was the seventh year in a row that the number of people killed on the roads fell. The State is the fifth safest in the European Union in which to drive. Road deaths have fallen year-on-year but, unfortunately, the trend has been undermined by cutbacks. The chairman of the Road Safety Authority, Gay Byrne, said that the fall in Garda numbers and the cuts have resulted in a sea-change in attitudes among motorists, who are no longer afraid of being caught, because they know they are less likely to be caught. We can all see it, especially those who of us who drive a good deal. Rural Deputies who do a good deal of driving know about it.

There are far fewer gardaí on the road. Gay Byrne said it was frustrating to realise that having come down to 161 deaths on the roads in 2012, we are now looking at reaching over 200 deaths this year. A Road Safety Authority survey has shown that 70% of the motoring public believe enforcement has dropped. Garda cuts have led to a drop of more than 50% in the detection of some of the most dangerous driving offences. Fewer people have been caught drink driving, driving dangerously, not wearing seat belts, speeding or driving while using mobile telephones in 2013.

I put it to the Minister that there is a major problem with people texting and driving. It is something the Minister and his officials should consider. I witness it every day and what we are looking at is horrific. It is a miracle that there have not been more accidents. Some action must be taken on this - I say as much in a genuine way.

As of October fewer than 330,000 breath tests have been carried out on the roadside whereas 470,000 were carried out in the same period last year. If the trend continues approximately 30,000 fewer tests will be conducted in 2013 compared with 2012 and that is clearly hampering efforts. The Garda needs resources to stop road deaths and gardaí need to be seen on the roads throughout the State. I realise they cannot be everywhere but there is a noticeable lack of visibility and there has been a reduction in visibility in the past three years. The Garda traffic corps has been reduced to approximately 800 officers from 1,250. The Garda is doing a good job and has done a good job implementing a positive road safety policy but the force needs the resources to hold the line. It is not something on which we can slacken off. Unfortunately, austerity is undermining the ability of the Garda to do this. While hit-and-run perpetrators should face stiffer penalties I wonder whether the Garda has the resources necessary to implement the changes outlined in the Bill. Are we simply fighting to hold on to the progress made so far? Of course, that does not mean we should not deal with the issue now.

The act of leaving the scene of an accident which could possibly cause a life-threatening injury is a gross act of irresponsibility and a maximum sentence of six months for this is not enough. One could argue that this is likely to be imposed on top of other sentences, including, possibly, manslaughter, dangerous driving or drunk driving, but that will not always be the case. A person could be involved in an accident in which he was not at fault but still leave the scene of the crime and this is also a serious offence.

Judges need to be allowed to use discretion to ensure proper sentences are given in each case, taking all circumstances and issues into account as well as the specific details of what happened and why. This is why Sinn Féin remains a strong opponent of mandatory minimum sentences, which takes away discretion from judges. In recent times, several scandalous cases have come up in which judges have handed down incredibly lenient sentences for serious crimes, including rape. This is unacceptable and I am pleased that in some of these cases there have been appeals and the sentences have been found to be insufficient. We have a system for dealing with the matter but it should be remembered that when a conviction is secured, for the most part, judges use their wealth of experience and legal knowledge and give appropriate sentences. Anyway, we should not tie their hands when it comes to making a decision that fits each case and crime. We should give judges a guide in how certain crimes should be sentenced.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a serious matter. The maximum sentence limits imposed on the Bill are adequate and fair, giving the judge sufficient room to punish adequately the full range of potential offenders in hit-and-run cases.

I wish to take this opportunity to raise the issue of sentencing guidelines.

This is very important because the public must have confidence in the courts' ability to do their job and to uphold justice. This is especially important for victims, particularly in respect of crimes that have low levels of reporting. Guidelines could help to deal with this matter while also addressing the issue of unnecessary imprisonment for minor misdemeanours and unpaid bills. According to the probation services and the Irish Prison Service, there was a 30% increase in the prison population in Ireland between 2006 and 2010, which has placed a massive strain on resources and on the ability of the Prison Service to accommodate prisoners in a humane way. This is not due to a significant increase in the number of cases that attract prison sentences but because the average length of sentences handed down has increased.

The Minister for Justice and Equality must consider how a reform of prison sentencing policy can be implemented to reduce the prison population. Sinn Féin recognises the critical role of sentencing in the justice system and in my party's view, sentencing and penal policy objectives should have a focus on community protection and rehabilitation. Sinn Féin understands that custody does not always make a meaningful contribution to the justice system or represent a lasting solution unless it is underpinned by an effective regime that serves crime prevention and offender reintegration objectives. The Minister for Justice and Equality must introduce these guidelines on sentencing to ensure a level of consistency, supported by proper training for the Judiciary and a sentencing guidelines council to provide monitoring in this area, as part of a broad range of measures to address prison overcrowding, as well as to protect people's confidence in the ability of the courts to deal with serious criminals.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I wish to put on record my support for this initiative by my constituency colleague, Deputy Dooley, which is an important and serious initiative to make the roads safer. There is a degree of public cynicism, to which I will return, regarding some of the initiatives that have been taken by successive Governments in the name of road safety. However, I believe the proposal in Deputy Dooley's Bill would be supported by the great majority and I am glad to note the Minister has accepted some of the proposals Deputy Dooley has brought to the House this morning, particularly that of increasing the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident. No one can really state that leaving the scene of an accident is not a serious offence, and it must be treated as such in the Statute Book. As the current penalties in place for leaving the scene of an accident are insufficient, I thank Deputy Dooley for highlighting that and I support him in this regard.

There is an increasing amount of public cynicism, particularly with regard to speed cameras and their location. I accept that they may have been rolled out in the name of making roads safer but there is a public perception that the increased number of locations at which such speed cameras have been placed has more to do with raising revenue for the State in times of economic need than with making roads safe. While this may not be the case, the Minister should take the opportunity to dispel such cynicism that is afforded by the upcoming road traffic Bill to which he alluded earlier. When the Bill is debated in this House, he should, for each site in which speed cameras have been placed, outline the basis for their installation - that is, that such sites have been the location of accidents in the past. I must state anecdotally that in looking at some of the places where such speed cameras have been installed, one can see they are not necessarily all places where one would imagine accidents would readily happen. There is a degree of shooting fish in a barrel if one goes out with a speed gun on the Naas Road, as perhaps the only achievement of the Celtic tiger was the establishment of the motorway system leading out of Dublin, and people who travel on it are sometimes being subjected to speed cameras. While I also welcome the Minister's review of speed limits on rural roads, I question whether that might not also be extended to some of the arterial routes out of Dublin and the speed limits that apply thereon, even between the city centre and the airport.

However, I reiterate my support for Deputy Dooley and his proposals. I greatly welcome the Minister's acceptance of these proposals in the spirit in which they were made, namely, as a non-partisan effort to increase road safety and to tackle what are real issues, because sometimes one can get lost on the peripheral issues and fail to tackle the more important issues. This proposal by Deputy Dooley very much tackles the real issues.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

First, I commend Deputy Dooley on his introduction of this Bill. It is very welcome and I commend him on his work. I certainly look forward to the forthcoming proposals from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport on the Bill and some amendments thereto. I listened to the sister of a hit-and-run victim who appeared on radio this morning. Obviously, she and her family are heartbroken by the events. There is a definite need to tighten up this area of law. Consequently, I look forward to the proposals to be introduced from the aforementioned Department.

A matter that Members must also consider is that of historic hit-and-run events that never have been solved. There are hundreds and possibly thousands of families nationwide whose loved ones have been victims of hit-and-run incidents over the years and who still do not know who was responsible. Much has been heard about historic cases in the context of Northern Ireland and the victims of the Troubles, particularly recently, and there has been much discussion of how historic cases should be dealt with. However, consideration also must be given to this matter, as there are cases in which people were killed by drivers who failed to stop at the scene perhaps 30 or 40 years ago. I have spoken to one such family and all they now seek is closure. They simply want to know what happened and who was responsible. This is a discussion Members must have and about which they must think.

I am greatly concerned by the rising number of road fatalities in 2013. It is a terrible tragedy and a major effort must be made to address it. However, it is interesting to put the current figures into context. I recently availed of the fine facilities of the National Library next door to print off the front page of a newspaper from 1973 for someone's 40th birthday. On the front page of the relevant edition of the newspaper was a headline with a photograph, unfortunately, of a fatal road traffic collision. However, it was reported that the fatality figures for 1973 were expected to exceed 600, which is an astounding figure. By the 1990s, the number of fatalities had fallen to more than 400 - I believe it was approximately 470 in 1997. While it almost sounds crass to be dishing out such statistics and numbers, as they were all people with families, that is the position from which we have come. The point that got me thinking was that in the 1970s, Irish society accepted that these were the road fatality figures at which one would arrive each year. In the 1990s, society accepted that 400-plus would be the annual fatality rate each year, these figures of course do not include the huge number of serious injuries. In a way, we must ask ourselves what level of road fatalities does society accept today. Clearly, as a society, we make a choice to permit or to accept a certain number, because were we 100% serious about reducing the number of road fatalities to the absolute minimum, we would implement what would be perceived by the wider public as draconian measures. A debate in this regard is needed and consideration must be given to what more can be done, even if it is extreme, to tackle this problem. It is a huge problem, as is anything that causes the deaths of hundreds of Irish people every year as well as thousands of other serious injuries.

Perhaps we are not embracing technology enough. There is technology available that would definitely help to reduce the number of road fatalities. For example, speed limiters could easily be fitted to vehicles. Why do we have a speed limit of 120 km/h on motorways when some cars can travel at twice that speed? That does not make sense. We need to think about this issue. Why can one have on Irish roads a 2.5 litre engine in a sports car that can travel at more than 200 km/h?

Vehicle immobilisation technology for testing breath alcohol levels is used in some countries. Perhaps we need to consider using it. It means that a person who has alcohol in his or her system and is intoxicated in terms of driving a motor vehicle would have his or her car immobilised.

Tachographs are used in trucks. Why not use them in other vehicles? A father with whom I spoke recently and whose son is 16 years of age is hugely worried about him being on the road next year. He is worried that no matter how much he speaks to him and tries to educate him, sometime he will get the urge to drive at speed. He wants to know, when he is not watching, what his son is up to. Perhaps a tachograph in a car would act as a deterrent to speeding. I am not speaking only about young motorists. If and when a motorist is pulled in, the garda could look at the tachograph to see what speeds the motorist has been doing and measure his or her behaviour on the road.

The issue of cameras has been mentioned. From time to time we have sitting duck scenarios as cameras are located in areas in which there are no massive risks and many motorists are caught as soft targets. One of the problems with the system of fines is that it is not progressive. A person travelling at 62 km/h in a 60 km/h zone will be fined €80, while a person travelling at 96 km/h in the same zone will also be fined €80. If there was a €5 fine for every kilometre a person exceeded the limit, a person travelling at 65 km/h in a 60 km/h area would be fined €25, while the person exceeding the speed limit by 50 would be fined €250. I am sure there would be revenue implications, but it would be a fairer system.

I welcome the announcement made yesterday by the speed limit review body. It is very positive and contains some very practical proposals. It is welcome that on some rural roads the 80 km/h speed limit signs will be removed. It is important that local authorities have the ability to change speed limits on a one-off basis. I have had people in my constituency ask if the speed limit at a certain location would be reduced. I would then ask the local authority to reduce the speed limit from, say, 80 km/h to 60 km/h because there had recently been three, four or five accidents. The response I receive is that it can only be done as part of a county-wide speed limit review. We need to look at streamlining the process involved in reducing speed limits at individual locations in order that local authorities could do so on a one-off basis without having to undertake the huge amount of administrative work currently involved. I ask the Minister to examine this issue in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. That would be a practical step. There are locations at which there are glaringly inappropriate speed limits, but we are powerless to do anything about them until a county-wide speed limit review takes place, which is an expensive process.

I am sorry to deviate from Deputy Timmy Dooley's Bill, but I am sure the Minister will welcome the overall discussion on road safety and the number of road fatalities. In regard to Garda vehicles, we need to create a specific offence in the case of those who deliberately ram such vehicles. We have had cases of fatalities where Garda vehicles were rammed and many recent cases of gardaí being injured while driving or being a passenger in a Garda vehicle. We need to come down hard on people who do this. Gardaí are the people who uphold and enforce the law. That their vehicles should be rammed and their lives put in danger is utterly unacceptable. We need serious custodial sentences for those who do this. This is an area on which I am working in terms of preparing a Bill to deal with the issue. It is one we need to discuss because Garda vehicles are being rammed more frequently than we like to think.

I commend Deputy Timmy Dooley for his work in this area.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

This has been a very interesting debate and it has been interesting to hear what Deputies have had to say. Deputy Finian McGrath mentioned the specific case of Shane O'Farrell. I do not want to go into too much detail because I am very conscious of the separation of powers between the Legislature and the courts and the fact that the courts have to hear all of the evidence and all of the legal arguments in the case before they make their decision. That is not to say the courts do not get it wrong; they do sometimes, but we cannot overturn what they decide. Also people get off on points of law and technicalities, even when, perhaps, they should not. That is based on our philosophy that when it comes to criminal law, at least in Ireland, one is innocent until proved guilty and that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted. Sometimes I find that philosophy hard to stomach, but that is the basis on which our system works.

Deputy Finian McGrath also asked if the road safety campaigns were working. The evidence shows that they are, as 2012 was the safest year on the roads since records began, although 2013 will see an increase in the number of road fatalities. I hope it will still be the second safest year, although that, probably, will not be the case based on the way the numbers are going. There has been a decrease in the number of serious injuries on the roads this year as compared to last year. It is important, however, not to read too much into any one statistic in any one quarter or year or category. We often see this in economics also. Let us see if a trend is emerging before we assume there is one.

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to the speed limit review, as a result of which a number of changes are occurring. The process of removing unnecessary signs such as approaching a bend or a roundabout is under way. Probably around summertime on boreens and narrow rural roads the 80 km/h speed limits signs will disappear in favour of the new rural road sign. For the first time, individuals will be allowed to complain to a local authority about a speed limit and have the complaint answered. They will be able to appeal to a national body if they are not happy with the outcome. I will have to check for Deputy Brendan Griffin whether a county council can review a speed limit or introduce a special speed limit on a one-off basis or whether it has to be done as part of a county-wide review. I was not aware that it had to be done as part of a county-wide review and will have to check to see if that is the case.

The speed limit review will cover all roads - national roads and motorways, roads in Dublin, as well as all over the country. There will have to be a review of all speed limits every five years, with the first taking place within the first two years. Sometimes things may not necessarily be as they appear when it comes to speed limits. On a number of occasions I have queried speed limits. Being the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport I tend to notice these things. When I received the explanation as to the why things were the way they were, it actually made sense. Sometimes it is due to the camber or design of the road and at other times the speed limit on a wide road may be low because there is concealed access. Perhaps, if one was not keeping to the speed limit, one might not have noticed that there was concealed access. Even though speed limits sometimes appear absurd, sometimes they are not.

Deputy Catherine Murphy raised the issue of Friday sittings.

I agree with what she said about the approach to Friday sittings. When I was in opposition, I was very frustrated that the Government had too much control over the House, which I think it still does. I have not always been a Minister, nor do I think I always will be one, so it is important that we are, as much as possible, open-minded about backbenchers and Front Bench spokespersons and the contributions they can make to legislation. If we want Deputies to be legislators and to change politics in this country, we must treat them like legislators and respect them as such.

I really hope the first part of this Bill can be incorporated into an amendment. I would be very happy to see that amendment introduced in Deputy Dooley's name on Committee Stage, if he were agreeable, so that the record shows it was his initiative that brought this about. Deputy Eoghan Murphy has a separate Private Members' Bill on other matters, which I hope to bring into law through statutory instrument. I am examining a proposal from Deputy Lawlor to make it a specific offence to clock cars. If possible, I would like to include an amendment on that in the Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill.

In regard to the amendment we hope to frame on foot of this Bill, a particular language is used in the Canadian legislation which states that the law applies to hit-and-runs where it is the intent of the person to escape civil or criminal liability. We would need to work that into it. One could conceive a situation in which somebody knocks a cyclist off his or her bike but he or she gets back on and the person drives on thinking the cyclist is fine. However, the cyclist may have a delayed head injury which only appears two days later. There may be circumstances in which we do not want to fall foul of the law of unintended consequences. The Canadian model is a good one which applies where it is the intent of the person to escape civil or criminal liability.

In regard to testing for intoxicants, I have probably made my case on that. I really have to go with the advice of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. If it gave me different scientific advice perhaps I might look at it again, but I have to go with its advice.

The comments Deputy Eoghan Murphy made on the maintenance of roads were well made. When road accidents are investigated, very few are found to be down to road conditions, although some are. While I am always arguing for money for, and calling on local authorities to allocate money for, road maintenance, there are huge costs associated with that. However, we also need to bear in mind the huge cost of injuries and accidents on the road. If somebody dies in a road traffic accident, some RSA figures put the cost of that life at over €1 million through lost earnings, lost taxation and so on. That is a huge amount of money, and it is something we need to bear in mind when we look for money for road maintenance.

Over the past few weeks, there have for the first time been a number of prosecutions of cyclists for dangerous cycling, and in one case for drink cycling, which I think was in County Clare. That is the first time we have seen prosecutions of cyclists in the courts, which is very welcome. It is intended to bring in a fixed charge notice system and on-the-spot fines for cyclists as part of the current road safety strategy, although it might be a year or two years before that happens. I do not know whether we will be able to get gardaí to walk people to ATMs. From my discussions with gardaí, I know they are uncomfortable about handling cash and are not willing to go down that route at the moment, although it is done in other countries.

Deputy Stanley mentioned texting and driving, which is extremely dangerous. We will make that tighter in the Bill by making it an offence to even handle or operate a telephone in a car, but the difficulty in prosecuting that offence is that it will have to be witnessed. A garda will probably have to see the person doing it, and that is why enforcement is very difficult.

I would like to see more enforcement, but the gardaí are doing a very good job with the resources they have; they are doing a robust job in enforcement. Deputy Stanley mentioned that there is a perception that enforcement is down. That is a problem in itself because the most effective way to ensure people comply with the law is for them to believe they will be caught if they do not. The perception that enforcement is down, which research shows, worries me.

Deputy McNamara asked about the location of speed cameras. They are decided on by the gardaí. I have been told they are in accident black spots, but people have told me that is not always the case. It is probably worth inquiring directly with the gardaí about the accident record in that spot to see if they are warranted. Speed cameras are definitely not revenue-making, as the Garda loses approximately €1 million or €2 million per year on them. It may make money from some and not from others but, on the whole, it is not a money-spinner or a revenue generator. The Garda actually loses on them.

Deputy Griffin, in his interesting contribution, asked a philosophical question about the acceptable level of deaths on our roads. The only way to get to zero is to abolish vehicles altogether but, obviously, we will not do that. We have to ask ourselves what measures we can bring in to further reduce the number of fatalities, collisions and injuries on the roads.

Deputy Griffin mentioned speed limiters on cars. That technology exists. We will trial something different as part of the speed limit review. I think in 20 years' time the satellite navigation system in one's car will give one the speed limit and start to beep if one goes over it. Although it might be a bit Big Brother-ish, in time the satnav will probably be able to tell the Garda that one is driving over the speed limit. Perhaps that is where we will be in 20 years' time.

Deputy Griffin also mentioned alco-locks. Interestingly enough, some of the private bus operators have already introduced alco-locks on their buses. The driver has to blow into it to ensure he is not intoxicated before he can drive the bus. Perhaps that will spread to other areas. I would not like to impose those things on everyone in society, but as part of the current strategy we will allow the courts to do so. If somebody has been convicted of dangerous driving or has been taken off the road for a period of time, the courts could, as a sanction, state that person must have his or her car governed or must have an alco-lock installed. At the other end of the spectrum, people would be able to go on a safe driving course rather than take penalty points, which is done in the UK and other places and seems to be very successful, particularly for younger drivers and those with a first conviction.

I have probably covered the contributions made and I thank Deputies for a very interesting and welcome debate.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the Minister for his response and general acceptance of the first part of the Bill. I look forward to taking up his offer of continuing the work with his officials on putting together a comprehensive amendment to his Bill. I will certainly commit to working with the Minister. I recognise the points he made, particularly with regard to the potential for unintended consequences. Having reviewed the Canadian legislation, I note the further elements the Minister identified which could assist us in ensuring we do not have a situation in which somebody is found guilty of an offence even though at the time of the accident he or she sought to do all he or she could. I think we can find some common ground and a compromise in that regard.

In regard to the second part of the Bill, on the basis of what the Minister said about the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, I will not pursue that by way of an amendment. If we can make the provisions in the first part of the Bill on leaving the scene of an accident robust enough, the ideas I had with regard to the intoxication element of the Bill become somewhat redundant. I never saw the second part of the Bill as replacing the current law as it relates to random breath-testing or testing for an intoxicant, but only to add to the evidence before a jury to assist it in making a decision on what the intent of the individual concerned was. If we look at some of the provisions in the Canadian legislation and at other examples, we will be able to make an amendment robust enough to achieve what I think everybody in this House wishes to achieve.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the discussion for their support and the points they raised.

I hope we can secure cross-party input on an amendment that will seek to ensure there is a change of culture in this country such that somebody involved in an accident will not believe, for whatever reason, that leaving the scene will afford them a get out of jail card. We cannot allow such a situation to continue. If we have an amendment to the legislation that is sufficiently robust to stand up to the best minds in the courts, we will have done a considerable job of work in memory of Shane O'Farrell. I was taken by the comments of other speakers about that case. There is no doubt that our motivation on this side of the House was in response to it and I hope, in the spirit the Minister has shown, this amendment will ultimately become known as "Shane's law" because we will have done something for the family and the families of many other citizens who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances. While it will not in any way deal with the loss of the individual families concerned, it will set a foundation on which we can continue to build on the body of law in place to help to protect citizens as they travel on the roads.

Specific issues were raised by Deputy Finian McGrath about the management of the case in the courts. The Minister has rightly identified that that is not something in which we can indulge here, but if we are to take anything from the decision, it is that we must ensure there will be no other similar outcomes. In doing our work and coming forward with a compromise legislative measure that will meet the needs of all concerned we can do something in honour of Shane O'Farrell and ensure his life which was lost in such tragic circumstances will not have been wasted, that it will have left an indelible mark on the Statute Book and that his death will not have been in vain. I hope his family and wide circle of friends will be able to take some comfort from the fact that as he was studying law, his death will have added to the body of law on the Statute Book in a manner that I hope will protect and preserve other lives.

I thank all those who contributed to and assisted with the debate. I look forward to the work we are all committed to doing with the Minister and his officials in drafting an appropriate amendment. I hope that legislation which will contain other important provisions to do with road safety can be expedited through the House as quickly as possible and that Shane's law can become an Act of Parliament at the earliest possible time.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Nov 2013