I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and his officials Mr. John Lumsdon, Mr. John Weafer and Ms Hillary Dalton. Road safety is an issue of concern to us all and we appreciate the Minister's attendance to discuss the various issues that have an impact on road safety.
Road Safety: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to attend and the committee for providing me with the opportunity to discuss random breath-testing and my future plans and objectives in the context of road safety generally. I will outline the current road safety position and the progress achieved to date in implementing the road safety strategy 2004 to 2006.
The Government's road safety strategy 2004 to 2006 sets a primary target of a 25% reduction in the number of road collision fatalities by the end of 2006 over the average annual number of fatalities in the 1998 to 2003 period. Achievement of the target will result in no more than 300 deaths per annum by the end of the period of the strategy. This is an ambitious target and one which will require the continued commitment to a strategic, integrated approach by all of the road safety agencies. Unfortunately, 2004 saw a greater number of road deaths than the previous year when we experienced the lowest number of road deaths in 40 years — 335. The provisional end of year figures for 2004 showed 374 deaths on our roads. So far this year we have seen an increase in the number of road deaths, with 323 as at 1 November compared to 313 for the same date last year.
It is disturbing that the rate of progress in reducing the number of casualties on our roads has not been maintained at a level at least equal to that experienced in 2003. This year we have seen a number of particularly tragic incidents, in County Meath and, most recently, County Donegal, that resulted in the deaths of children and young adults. All road deaths represent a tragedy but the scale of those incidents serves as a particular reminder of the risk that can be associated with our use of roads. Acknowledging this risk and acting to minimise the potential for tragic incidents in any particular set of circumstances are the immediate responsibility of all road users but especially drivers. However, reducing the general level of risk is the particular challenge of the Government and those agencies tasked with the promotion of road safety and the enforcement and application of traffic laws.
The tragedy of a young life cut short or the inexplicable loss of a parent is not something for reasoned debate. However, as legislators, we are placed in the company of others in positions of responsibility to promote and pursue road safety and we must strive to consider this subject in a dispassionate manner. Since 1998 we have adopted a strategic approach to the development and pursuit of road safety policy. In that context, we have sought to bring a collective focus to road safety initiatives directed at the achievement of specified targets. There has been a clear measurable improvement in road safety. Since 2002 the number of road deaths has never exceeded 400 per annum. As Mr. Eddie Shaw, chairman of the National Safety Council, has repeatedly pointed out, at some stages during that period we have achieved results that match the best in Europe. However, sustaining these levels over long periods has not been realised. This is the challenge we must address.
The strategic approach to road safety works. Experience here since 1998 and in many other states shows that the achievement of overall targets for reductions in the numbers of road casualties on a sustained basis can best be realised through the engagement of all the major contributing agencies in an approach focused on an agreed programme over specified periods. Such programmes and targets must be challenging or they will bring no added value. We may not achieve all that we seek to accomplish but even if there are losses or failures on the way, or if we do not achieve everything within the timeframes we set, achieving measurable progress is better realised where such challenges are set. We have achieved a great deal. I accept that, for a variety of reasons, progress in other areas has not been to my satisfaction or to that of members of this committee.
The main targets set in the first road safety strategy which ran from 1998 to 2002 were achieved and the numbers of road casualties are now at a level significantly reduced from the numbers that predated 1998. The particular challenge related to the current strategy which has a much shorter timeframe was to move forward from the earlier success. Whether the overall target of reducing the number of road deaths to a level not more than 300 per annum by the end of next year is realised is open to question. However, we have made significant progress in certain key areas identified in the strategy.
The establishment of a dedicated traffic corps last year by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, having a distinct management structure under the command of an assistant commissioner, addresses a particular commitment given by the Government. The corps, when fully staffed, will provide the basis for the achievement of the significant gains in road safety that emanate from consistently high levels of traffic law enforcement. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has in recent weeks reiterated his commitment to rolling out the traffic corps and has also announced the deployment of additional Garda resources to County Donegal, given the number of tragic collisions which have occurred in the county in recent months. By the end of 2008 some 1,200 gardaí will be deployed to the traffic corps — over twice the number currently engaged in traffic duties.
The establishment of the dedicated traffic corps will not impact on the capacity of all other members of the Garda to address road safety issues and pursue those who breach traffic laws. However, the growing presence on our roads of a dedicated, highly visible corps of officers will promote a greater level of general deterrence against the behaviour that leads to road collisions.
The programme undertaken to change our speed limits to metric values, carried out earlier this year, was a clear example of what can be achieved by public bodies at both national and local level. This exercise which was pursued over a very short timeframe encompassed a major public information and public relations campaign and the provision of some 58,000 new traffic signs by local authority personnel. The legislative basis for the adoption of metric speed limit values is set out in the Road Traffic Act 2004 which not only addressed metrication but also saw the introduction of significant changes to our overall speed limit structure. In particular, the standard speed limit on rural regional and local roads was reduced by some 16 km/h to 80 km/h, the range of special speed limits that county and city councillors can apply was extended, and special new arrangements for speed limits at road works were introduced. One other significant change introduced was the addition to the consultation process relating to the adoption of special speed limits at local level of direct engagement with the public at large.
When we introduced penalty points in 2002, there was a relatively immediate reaction in terms of a decrease in the number of road deaths. It is a source of disappointment and frustration that we have not been in a position to see the greater application of the scheme to other key road safety offences in addition to speeding, seat-belt wearing, driving without insurance and careless driving. I have been assured that the necessary support framework for a significant extension of the system will be in place by April next year at the latest. I have asked my officials to press their colleagues in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána to advance that date, if at all possible. It is my intention that the application of penalty points will be extended to a number of additional offences. The emphasis will again be on highlighting key safety issues such as dangerous overtaking, failure to obey traffic lights, stop signs and yield signs, and vehicles crossing centre white lines on roads. As the committee can see, I am pursuing the overall roll-out of the system on a phased basis. I would, however, welcome the views of members on this approach. There may be a case for limiting the proposed extension to fewer offences or to proceed with a more expansive approach at this stage.
One of the offences in respect of which penalty points already apply is speeding. Addressing the question of excessive speed remains a central goal of the road safety strategy. It is well recognised that to meet this challenge enforcement measures must be deployed at a very high level on a consistent basis. Speed enforcement is, therefore, eminently suited to the use of cameras and other facilities that do not depend on the immediate presence of members of the Garda. For that reason, the strategy commits the Government to the engagement of private sector interests in the operation of speed cameras. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and I are conscious of the criticisms of the operation of such schemes in other countries. For that reason, we determined that as a first step a working group should be set up with a view to the establishment of a general framework within which the detail of the operation could be pursued. The report of the group provides a clear template for the pursuit of this initiative on the grounds of the promotion of road safety. Its recommendations include the establishment of clear management structures, at strategic and operational levels, under the general supervision of the Garda. In addition, it proposes that the Garda will make the site selection for the placement of cameras with the assistance of the National Roads Authority. The criteria for site selection will be grounded on collision history and the history of speeding incidents. The group has also recommended that there can be no connection between the receipts of fixed charge payments resulting from detections by privately operated cameras and the funding of the operation. I will shortly bring forward legislation to provide an appropriate statutory basis for the pursuit of this proposal, initially through the development of an appropriate tendering process which will be informed by the key recommendations set out in the report of the working group.
The specific issue referred to in my invitation to address the committee is the concept of random breath-testing. Of all the major causes of road collisions and the casualties that result, the most difficult to defend is drink driving. Despite repeated promotional campaigns, major enforcement efforts and significant legal deterrents, some drivers still make the conscious decision to drink and drive. It is an issue that rightly attracts the interest of the public, the media and public representatives and which continues to engage the Government and other decision-makers both here and abroad on an ongoing basis.
Three guiding principles must underpin the debate on drink driving: are the measures employed addressing the situation? Will alternative approaches deliver an improvement? Will such initiatives withstand legal challenge? The road safety strategy provides that random breath-testing measures should be in place before the end of 2006. This represents the first such commitment given by the Government to pursue this policy option. In seeking to meet this commitment I must give careful consideration to certain realities that must be faced.
Random breath-testing has been seen as a significant success in certain states. The authorities in the state of Victoria in Australia place particular emphasis on the contribution it has made to the significant success experienced there in reducing road deaths. Full random breath-testing is also a feature in most EU member states. However, it is not applied in the United Kingdom or the United States. In fact, the arrangements for roadside breath testing in the United Kingdom are the same as those that apply in this country, namely, where a collision has taken place, where an offence has been committed and where a member of the Garda has formed an opinion that an intoxicant has been consumed. This is significant because, as members are aware, the United Kingdom has a road safety record that ranks among the best in Europe and the United States has constitutional protections that are very close to those enjoyed here.
Against that background, I have pursued a detailed examination of the possible approaches that could be adopted here to give the Garda greater powers to impose roadside breath tests. This examination has been informed and supported by the receipt of independent legal opinion and the opinion of the Attorney General. I want to make it clear that I wish to find an approach to extending the scope of roadside breath-testing in a manner which has regard to the legal concerns regarding proportionality and which gives the Garda significant additional scope to demand that motorists submit to roadside breath-testing. May I suggest the Chair, representing the joint committee, as well as all the party spokespersons, join me at the earliest convenient date for a discussion focused solely on this issue? I will be able to elaborate on the legal concerns, as I understand them, and I hope together we will be able to fashion a way forward on this issue to be included in amending legislation, on a basis which crosses party boundaries.
Work on setting up the new road safety authority is well advanced in the Department. Initially, it was intended that the new body would be called the driver testing and standards authority and that it would deliver the driver licensing and driver testing service only. The Government decided in July to assign a range of additional road safety functions to the new body and consequently decided to establish the road safety authority. The authority's objective will be to take a leading role in the whole area of road safety.
Certain road safety related functions within the Department of Transport will be transferred to the new road safety authority and some functions being delivered by agencies of the Department are also being transferred, namely, the research and statistical function carried out by the National Roads Authority and all of the road safety functions being delivered by the National Safety Council. Specific functions currently within the remit of my Department that impact on road safety to be transferred to the road safety authority are those relating to: driver licensing and driver testing; driver hours and rest periods, including matters relating to tachographs; the working time directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector; and bus and lorry driver vocational training. The legislation to establish the authority is about to move to Committee Stage. Amendments are being drafted in the Department at present to provide for the additional functions to be assigned to the authority.
This initiative will deliver on a key aspect of the road safety strategy by establishing an efficient driver testing and licensing system. It will also present a more integrated approach to road safety through the creation of one agency that will be responsible for administering driver testing and licensing, road safety research and road safety advertising and education.
There has been much recent debate among public representatives and other interested parties on the degree of co-ordination among agencies on the subject of road safety policy. As stated, the strategic approach is correct. The delivery of the road safety strategy is overseen by the high level group on road safety, which includes representation from relevant Departments, the Garda Síochána, the National Safety Council and other bodies. It is my view that we need to examine the current model. I will discuss this matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform and other colleagues shortly. Road safety is an important element of public policy and it is the responsibility of the Government to develop, implement and resource that policy. However, the establishment of the new road safety authority gives me an opportunity to examine the entire structure of how we deliver road safety policy. In that context, the new road safety authority will be given a central role in the co-ordination of the delivery of road safety programmes.
The preparation of the next road safety strategy will be a major task. It is my view that a three year strategy does not represent an appropriate timeframe for the implementation of major road safety initiatives and we must examine that planning horizon critically. In that context, I will consult my colleagues on the determination of the optimal planning horizon for the next road safety strategy. As indicated, it is my intention to make early progress on the vital issues of roadside breath-testing and the outsourcing of the operation of speed cameras. I thank members for their attention and look forward to responding to any questions which may arise.
I thank the Minister. The members appreciate the fact that he has taken the time to come before the joint committee to explain his proposed initiatives with regard to road safety. On that point, I raised the question of education for young drivers at a previous meeting. I note that the Minister referred to bus and lorry driver vocational training. Members had hoped training would be included in the curriculum for second level schools. I view road use training to be as important as any other subject. A darkly clothed person walking down a dark country road at night without a luminous jacket is a death waiting to happen at the expense of a motorist. The committee asked for this measure because it believes that, in the long term, education is most important when trying to deal with people's attitude towards road use. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this point. While he will be obliged to consult the Department of Education and Science to ascertain what it perceives to be its role in this regard, in order to do something we must begin with the youngest road users, namely, teenagers.
This is an important point. I continue to have discussions with the Minister for Education and Science on bringing road safety into the classroom and trying to launch a joint approach from both Departments in terms of a campaign to educate young people in schools before they acquire driving licences and get on the road. In itself, that is a step in the right direction. As the Chairman probably knows, there have been discussions previously about including this subject on the school curriculum. It is not necessarily my call. The NCCA recommended that while road safety should be addressed in the context of the social, personal and health education programme, driver education, and specifically driving lessons for pupils aged 17 years, should not become part of the school curriculum. My Department and I are positively disposed to the views expressed by the Chairman. The more the message can be delivered to young people before leaving the school system, the better. In respect of the current discussions, we view a joint approach as being a step in the right direction and would welcome it if others in the education system could be persuaded to take the views expressed by the Chairman on board.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. Mr. Eddie Shaw of the National Safety Council addressed the joint committee two weeks ago and it would be fair to state that either the intensity or the content of his presentation struck a chord with many members in a non-political way. While Mr. Shaw did not criticise any particular Minister or Government, he made the point that there was a complete lack of overall strategic co-ordination in all matters pertaining to road safety. He certainly made a compelling case. Basically, he stated categorically that one arm of the Government barely knew what the other arm was doing. This is not, as such, a criticism of the Minister and we will deal with many aspects of road safety today. However, this criticism came from someone who is an important person in his own right and who represented an organisation whose purpose is to oversee change in road safety.
At the previous meeting, representatives from the Garda Síochána sat where the Minister is sitting, Mr. Shaw was in the centre and representatives from the National Roads Authority were seated on the other side. After Mr. Shaw finished his presentation, I asked whether the Garda and the NRA agreed with him. The Garda representatives were not in a position to comment. It appears road safety measures are administered by several small kingdoms which are important in their own right but which have no access at a strategic level to each other. Does the Minister share this view?
Eddie Shaw is an extremely passionate and committed individual and I would not question his credentials and commitment to road safety. The overview he presented was somewhat overstated, but perhaps he did so deliberately to make a point. I am willing to accept the challenge laid down by Mr. Shaw regarding structures, which I am examining.
We are aware of the members of the high level group on road safety, which could possibly be better constituted or carry out its work more effectively. This often occurs with issues that cut across Departments. This is one such case which involves the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána, on which enforcement relies. All the issues surrounding speed cameras and their operation by private operators lie within the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, I am responsible for introducing the relevant legislation, which appears somewhat strange. There are cross-cutting issues which must be addressed and I accept that the structures are possibly insufficient. If they are, I am happy to examine them on foot of Eddie Shaw's comments. I have spoken to him and am aware that he has addressed this committee on this issue. I do not have a precious attitude to the subject.
The issues we face are not easy to deal with. One would think the key people and bodies which are directly responsible, from the Garda Síochána to the roads authorities, would be found on the high level committee on road safety. Perhaps, the committee could do better or perhaps its mandate or spread of responsibility are insufficient. This is what I am trying to address with the road safety authority in response to questions put to me by members of this committee about who was responsible for the statistics and their correlation. On that occasion, it was said that responsibilities, such as advertising and testing, were scattered. This is why all this will be included in the remit of the road safety authority which I hope will be successful and which I believe will be more effective than the numerous organisations currently operating. Possibly, we need to go further and I have an open mind on this.
Is it possible that all these functions would be administered by a single Minister?
I do not know if it is possible to get to that point. A number of years would have passed by the time one would have reached it. These are very specific functions that concern the Garda Síochána and issues that are appropriate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but that Department is not the Department of Transport. This does not mean that we cannot have a structure to better resolve the issues, which is the point made by both Deputy Connaughton and Eddie Shaw. I have acknowledged this in my contribution and I am happy to address it and have a very open mind on it. I am sure we all have addressed these issues in different ways. We should put them into the melting pot and see if we can come up with a better solution.
Why does it take so long to roll out road safety schemes such as the penalty points system? It is not rocket science.
The Department of Transport does not have a problem regarding the roll-out of road safety programmes.
Where does the problem lie?
I have been assured that the support framework necessary for a significant extension of the system will be in place by April 2006 at the latest. This is all within the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána. I have stated I am ready for the introduction of the new support framework.
The Garda Síochána states it is ready.
It is not. I would happily introduce the measure today. I would not put a factually incorrect statement on the record. I have asked whether the framework could be introduced before April 2006 because I would like the Garda Síochána to advance this date.
The Garda Síochána appeared to be ready when its representatives appeared before this committee last week.
Perhaps the Garda Síochána has issues it wishes to deal with. I do not wish to make it an issue between Departments. Deputy Connaughton asked me a straightforward question to which I have given a straightforward answer. I am putting the facts before this committee, which will not be a surprise to the Garda Síochána or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform because it is their position. We hope they will be ready by 1 April 2006 and I have asked whether the process could be accelerated because I am ready to introduce the framework and have a substantial number of penalty points to roll out. I have given the committee an indication of what these penalty points are and neither my officials nor I have any issue with this.
I find it difficult to understand the Minister's approach to road safety. Recent developments have shown a distinct lack of clarity in the thinking of the Minister and the Department of Transport. Eddie Shaw, an individual with vast experience in the area of road safety who has shown courage in speaking out about it, appeared before this committee last week. He informed the committee that the critical problem is that road safety is the responsibility of the Department of Transport and there is no sense of ownership of or commitment to driving the road safety strategy on a cross-Cabinet basis. Road safety is merely seen as a form of expenditure on the part of the Department of Transport. It is necessary for a number of Departments to take responsibility for road safety and to regard it as an investment programme rather than an expenditure programme.
The various mistakes made as a result of the passing of responsibility for road safety between Departments appear to vindicate Mr. Shaw's argument. The various Departments' track record in tackling road safety in a coherent fashion is abysmal. I am rather surprised that the Minister did not refer to these structural problems when he spoke about road safety.
The Minister published the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004 which was debated on Second Stage in the Dáil some time ago. He then announced that he was rethinking the Bill. He now intends to go back and amend the Bill, apparently as a result of a consultant's report commissioned by him. He intends to amend a Bill to set up one authority in order to set up another, the road safety authority. This amounts to making up policy on the hoof. The idea of an agency as important as the road safety authority being established by way of amendments to a previous Bill that aimed to set up a driver testing authority is evidence of scant coherent thinking or any kind of long-term view of what should be done. The Minister is approaching the issue in a Mickey Mouse fashion. Does he intend to set up a road safety authority by way of amendment to another Bill?
In November 2003, the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, announced that he would introduce full random breath-testing in 2004. We are no nearer introducing random breath-testing at the end of 2005 than we were in 2003 or 1998 when the road safety strategy was published. I told the Minister in the Dáil in recent weeks that he could not blame people for being cynical about the Government's intentions in this regard because it has been talked about for a considerable number of years. We know we have a serious problem with road deaths and serious injuries, yet no concrete steps have been taken towards introducing random breath-testing. It is a bit much for the Minister to suggest that he might get together with the spokespersons from other political parties to discuss the matter after eight years in Government. What action has been taken within the Department or at Cabinet level in this regard? I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children about it a few weeks ago and such an idea appeared to be new to her. She had obviously never given it any consideration. This is not good enough given the scale of Ireland's drink driving problem.
I asked the Minister two weeks ago in the Dáil whether he had legal advice suggesting this would be very difficult, given the Constitution and whether he would make the legal advice available. Random breath-testing should be the starting point and the Minister has been hiding behind legal difficulties for the past year and a half. Will he publish the legal advice? If he wants cross-party support, he should let us know what the Attorney General has told him. I appeal to the Minister to give me a positive response on this matter or we must otherwise suspect that the Government is not serious in its intention to introduce random breath-testing.
The Minister spoke about the need for a strategic approach towards road safety, with which I agree. It was to be the approach taken in the current and previous road safety strategies. It means setting targets and measuring performance on a regular basis but what assessment has been made of the current strategy? An annual assessment is supposed to be carried out and reports provided on whether targets concerning serious injuries were reached but it is impossible to get this information. How has the road safety strategy performed since it began in 2004 and how are we performing in key areas in respect of the set targets?
I am happy to respond to the Deputy. I am attending the committee to deal with these issues in a straightforward and open way. Deputy Shortall has chosen once again to be highly political on this issue, which is her right, but I will make a number of points. First, when the Labour Party was in government, there was no strategy or interest. Prior to our going into government with the Progressive Democrats, the Labour Party and Fine Gael had no road strategy, good, bad or indifferent.
It has been eight years. Something about the Government's performance——
That is all rubbish.
I did not interrupt either Deputy.
It is a political point.
I am responding to the points made by Deputy Shortall and I am entitled to make them.
That is a hollow remark for the people killed every year.
Deputy Connaughton did not make the matter political but Deputy Shortall was very political in the charges she made against the Minister. He has a right to defend himself.
I asked the Minister questions.
I will give the Deputy answers. The second point she made was that there was no strategy or success but she is wrong. The strategy in place from 1998 to 2003 met all of its targets. She should not be dismissive.
Will the Minister answer the question I put to him?
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
I am speaking about the current strategy.
Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to answer.
Deputy Shortall has put what she purports to be facts before this committee. I am pointing out that what she said was incorrect and inaccurate.
Will the Minister respond to the question I asked?
I will respond but I will go through the sequence the Deputy went through.
Begin with the first issue.
I am responding to the Deputy's points as she made them and will deal with all of the issues.
The first point was about legislation.
Will I be allowed to speak?
Will the Minister answer my question?
Will Deputy Shortall allow the Minister to answer without interrupting, please? She knows the rules that apply here.
Yes but the Minister knows the order of questions. Will he answer the question I asked, not one he is making up?
The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit, just as the Deputy had the opportunity to ask it.
It is important from the perspectives the public and media that may be listening to make the point that the first road safety strategy from 1998 to 2003 was successful and met its targets.
We are speaking about the current strategy. It is 2005.
The second timeframe of the current strategy has been running for a short time, since 2004, and will run to the end of 2006. A number of matters that must be met by this strategy have been met. We are not yet at the end of the process. The second point made by the Deputy is that the new road safety authority is a Mickey Mouse one. I came to the House with the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004 and have listened to the Deputy and others make reasonable points about co-ordination and cohesion.
The Minister did not devise a road safety Bill.
Please, Deputy Shortall.
The Minister is inaccurate.
We are trying to do our best for road safety. It behoved me on foot of introducing the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004 and other developments to determine whether we had an opportunity to improve substantially on road safety issues in respect of the National Safety Council, with which we had discussions along with all the other bodies. There was general agreement that this was a golden opportunity to address all the key issues in a single road safety authority. If the Labour Party is opposed to that, it is fair enough but I will bring——
This is twisting the matter. Surely, this area needs its own Bill.
I have outlined to the committee that I propose to do this in response to all the different bodies to improve the situation.
Is the Minister not trying to amend it?
Of course. Is something wrong with that goal? Did the Labour Party never amend a Bill in its entire time in politics? Is the Deputy suggesting amending a Bill is wrong? I have accepted many amendments tabled by the Deputy because they were good ideas but she seems to suggest that, if I want to make an amendment to improve a Bill, it is wrong. It cannot be both ways.
The Minister is setting up a different authority.
If the Labour Party believes in proper parliamentary procedure, of which Committee Stage is a part, and the Opposition is entitled to submit amendments, many of which I accept, why does it tell me that I, as a Minister, am not entitled to make amendments and my approach is a Mickey Mouse one? It cannot have it both ways and I will not allow the Deputy to make such broad statements.
The road safety authority requires a Bill in its own right.
I am taking this opportunity to fit driver safety standards into a road safety authority, which would be proper according to all the independent analyses. Why have two separate authorities? My party, the Deputy's party and others say what we need to do is shrink these bodies where it is appropriate——
I am not disagreeing with the Minister.
——and maximise their focus and efforts. Amalgamating the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill into the road safety authority is a good approach. The Labour Party is entitled to a different view but the Deputy should not say I am doing nothing or suggest it is all a Mickey Mouse approach. It denigrates many people who work day in and day out on the many committees that address the background issues in these areas.
The Government has only decided on the matter in recent months, which does not show that the Government is serious about it.
I have legislation before the House. If the Deputy wishes to object to it, that is her choice.
It is for a different authority.
The argument the Deputy is trying to make does not stand up, which she knows. On random breath-testing, the Deputy is correct. Many have argued her point during the years and I do not have an issue with it. Many countries have introduced it and failed. Our country has a constitution and there are serious issues in the matter.
The Deputy knows that no Minister in any Government can, does or will put advice from the Attorney General's office into the public domain. What I have said at this meeting is fair and direct. I am unsure whether many have done so. I have told the Chairman and the spokespersons specifically that I am willing to go through this issue with them to get an agreement. This matter is beyond party politics and we must come to a conclusion in order that we can move forward. I will explain to the spokespersons the advice concerning the core issue of proportionality against the rights of the individual.
As the Chairman and anyone who has ever served in government knows, no Minister can enter the House with legislation the Attorney General has told him is flawed. It would effectively be breaking the law. We can go through these issues fully, be more open than one can or should be in the public domain and explain them to the spokespersons. They can make their own judgment calls. As a result of this, I hope that we may develop a cohesive approach to address a matter that should not be at a political level. I know the Deputy is passionate about it and has her views, as do I and many others. We should try to resolve it and I came to this meeting to open that door.
The committee would appreciate the opportunity to hear in private the advice received. This will inform us of the reasons and the problems faced.
I welcome the Minister's initiative on random breath-testing and look forward to the outcome of discussions with party spokespersons. I congratulate the Minister on working with the Department of Education and Science on the initiative to introduce road safety in school programmes.
I refer to the issue that led to the series of meetings we have had on road safety and Mr. Shaw's comments when he appeared before the committee. I wish to know if suggestions that arose at the time are under consideration. These suggestions tend to be aired in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy and tend to vanish until the next tragedy. It is important we keep these issues to the forefront and deal with them.
We focus on drink driving but overlook substances in the bloodstream other than drink. Has any progress been made on this? At the meeting at which gardaí were present, an issue arose regarding the confiscation of vehicles after collisions or when an offence has been detected. In Garda stations throughout the country car parks are stacked high with confiscated or impounded vehicles and space is not available. The lack of storage space prevents gardaí from pursuing measures in road traffic legislation. This is an opportunity for co-operation between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and local authorities to provide sufficient space to avail of this legislation.
Some very old foreign registered vehicles, particularly from eastern Europe, are entering the country and availing of the six month rule, whereby registration details remain in the country of origin for this length of time while the owner is resident in another country. A loophole allows the vehicle to be exported temporarily towards the end of the six month period and a new six month period begins when the vehicle re-enters the State. In my constituency there are many elderly vehicles from other countries whose registration and insurance is based in those other countries.
Should consideration be given to mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving? This would be a major step but also a major deterrent.
Is the Deputy referring to mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving?
Mandatory disqualification for conviction of dangerous driving, similar to current mandatory disqualification for driving while under the influence of alcohol. A lesser charge of careless driving carries penalties but in some states in Australia there is mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving.
I refer to reciprocal arrangements between authorities here and the authorities north of the Border. This is a factor in County Donegal and Louth-Meath, the Garda division in which my constituency is located. It is no coincidence these two Garda areas have the highest mortality rate from road traffic accidents. I do not suggest drivers from Northern Ireland are responsible for a proportion of these accidents but there is a lack of respect for road traffic legislation, particularly in Border areas. A high proportion of traffic on roads in these areas emanates from the North and drivers have scant regard for speeding laws. This is the most evident breach of which I am aware and it appears there is little we can do. The reverse may apply north of the Border but we are charged with administering road traffic in the Twenty-six Counties. In Border areas and in the two Garda areas with the highest mortality rates from traffic accidents to which I referred, we must examine how to deal with these problems, especially speeding. It is reasonable to suspect other offences occur.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The emphasis in road safety has been placed by the public and public representatives on detection and policing. Recent comments by Eddie Shaw and an examination of accident location leads to the view that this is no longer solely a policing function. I welcome the introduction of the education function. Some 80% of accidents could be ascribed to driver behaviour.
The figure is 86%.
Some 20% of fatalities are due to drink driving, a figure that surprises me. The public debate has been on drink driving rather than behaviour. I do not expect gardaí to monitor every country road at 3 a.m. as discos close and to ask drivers to slow down in order that they do not kill themselves. We must focus on driver behaviour, which we have not done in the past. During the summer some Members sat a mock driving test which examined driver behaviour and the habits that have developed. How long will we wait before the authority with responsibility will overhaul the system? Many young people achieve a perfect score in their theory test but fail their practical driving test. This brings the education function into focus.
Since responsibility for lowering speed limits was delegated to local authorities in certain locations, such as schools and estates, how successful have they been in responding to this challenge? Is it monitored? I have not read much about it in the Dublin area.
I thank both Deputies for their questions. We are all agreed on some of these difficult areas. On the drugs issue, the medical bureau of road safety continues to analyse blood and urine specimens received under the Road Traffic Acts for the presence of a drug or drugs where the level of alcohol determined is under the legal limit of 80 per 100 millilitres in blood and 107 per 100 millilitres in urine, or when a specific request for drug analysis is received from the Garda when the alcohol result is above the legal limit. The number received to the end of September 2005 was 527, which is 32% higher than the same period in 2004.
We discussed this issue at this committee and elsewhere. This problem is growing as much as alcohol abuse. I fear, as we all do that drug abuse or a driver taking a combination of drugs and alcohol is becoming a serious issue. Consideration of the methodology in dealing with it must be brought to the fore. Random breath testing is a key issue with regard to alcohol, which is a drug. It is a question of how to detect drug use without imposing greatly on a person's individual freedoms and rights. The issue must be faced.
The issue raised regarding spaces for cars and vehicles is relevant and is a matter for the Garda Síochána, not for me. Nevertheless, as it has been raised I will not ignore it. I will take it up with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána as an issue raised by a member of the committee.
The issue was raised as to the validity of the insurance of people coming here from abroad who are insured in their own country who stay here for six months, leave and come back. It is an important point that is being raised frequently now and we must examine and deal with it.
A conviction for dangerous driving leads to mandatory disqualification. Mandatory disqualification also occurs after two convictions for careless driving. We may need to examine the legislation in this area again as it has been on the Statute Book since 1961. Things may have moved on since then but that is the position as I understand it.
I am surprised by that. Does the Judiciary have a habit of suspending sentences of disqualification?
It would seem so but it is not for me to comment.
I accept that.
I acknowledge the issue and it must be examined. I will clarify the position as it affects all of the issues encountered regarding road traffic.
The mutual recognition of penalty points is a major issue and we raised it as such at the second-last European transport council meeting. Many countries have a penalty points system while others do not. It would be preferable if we had one European system. Before we could get to that it would be great if we had mutual penalty points recognition between the United Kingdom and Ireland. The United Kingdom has serious problems of its own, as it has different penalty points systems in Northern Ireland and England, Wales and Scotland. It does not have a unified system within the country. I can imagine the criticism we would get if we had different systems within Ireland. It would be extremely beneficial with regard to road safety in Northern and in the Republic if we could get a mutually compatible penalty points system on the island of Ireland. I mentioned that to the British Minister. Issues such as this should be dealt with on an all-Ireland basis. From our perspective it would be a good first step. However, as Ireland is an extremely open country with many people coming here, I would rather see a European system that all of us can use. It would be good for road safety. I thank Deputy Glennon for raising those points.
When I stated that 86% of accidents were due to driver behaviour, that included drink driving, which is significant, as one of the core issues of driver behaviour relates to the abuse of alcohol or drugs. I would like to move quickly to resolve that issue. As I stated, the United States found itself in the same position and the Attorney General advises me that our constitutional position is similar. In the United States legislation was not successful because the individual's rights won out over the proportionality issue. Some options are available but we must be clear on what we wish to achieve. I would like to discuss it and hear the views of committee members and the Chairman. It would be helpful to progress the issue. The other 14% of accidents are due to other factors.
As committee members know, when I introduced the legislation on metrification I felt that for central government to organise speeding limits outside schools or particular roads in local areas was wrong. I gave to local authorities the power to deal broadly with all roads in an area, and specifically with roads around schools or in exceptional circumstances. Sadly, local councils have not taken up that opportunity and challenge. I feel somewhat annoyed that questions on this are asked of me all of the time. Some political parties are extremely disingenuous about this. The authority and power to deal with this issue lies with local councillors.
Councillors requested me to go further, making the point that if they raised the speed limit in a certain area and an accident occurred, they could be open to blame. In response to that I introduced a section allowing councillors to have a public consultation process with the people living in the area. It is important that a consensus is reached. The authority and power to form that consensus with local people in a directly affected area is with the councillors. We can send an important message from this meeting to councillors to take up their responsibility. The Opposition parties are in a stronger position because on most councils throughout the country they have the majority. They should seize this opportunity to give leadership at local level on this issue.
Regarding speed limits outside schools, I will not mention a particular school but instances have occurred where a rural school is on a road with an 80 km/h speed limit. The limit should be reduced to 50 km/h or lower in order that the junior warden scheme can be put into operation at the school. However, the council and the NRA are very worried that a sharp drop in speed on the approach to those schools could create danger, if drivers have to drop speed quickly from 80 km/h to 50 km/h or 30 km/h. There are major problems surrounding the issue. The picture is not as simple as the Minister has painted.
Another issue of concern which does not impinge directly on the Minister's responsibilities is the sheer inconsistency of sentencing in the courts for road traffic offences often resulting in horrible accidents. For instance, I saw a case reported on the television last night of an assault on an elderly person. Two people were sent to jail for eight and five years, respectively, rightly so. However, in County Roscommon last week, two people were killed on the road and the person responsible was not given a prison sentence. A couple was wiped off the map. That sends out a bad signal and angers those who are going about their business in a law-abiding fashion. It appears that if one is under the influence of drink while driving one is not dealt with severely in court, in comparison with other matters. If a person sits behind the wheel of a vehicle, kills somebody and is proven to be over the limit, he or she should be more than simply disqualified from driving.
There are many different aspects to road safety. I hope the Minister and the Government will take an overall strategic approach to the issue.
What timescale is the Minister working on with respect to the promised legislation to amend the Bill already in place in order to establish the road safety authority? When does the Minister expect to publish those amendments? At the end of the 2004 to 2006 road safety strategy document, 75 measures and targets are set out and responsibility is assigned to various agencies, including the Department of Transport. Given that we are halfway through the relevant period, when can we expect a progress report on the achievement of those targets?
I return to the point I raised about the charge of dangerous driving and the mandatory disqualification. My understanding of the law is that there are three charges in this area. One is for dangerous driving, causing death, another is for dangerous driving and the third is for careless driving. It may well be that there is mandatory disqualification for the first of those offences. However, I have been trying to remember a case of disqualification for a person charged with dangerous driving and I cannot recall one. It is news to me and I would welcome clarification of that point, namely, whether mandatory disqualification is an option for such a charge.
Deputy Connaughton's points on controlling speed limits near schools are exactly the issues about which councils must decide. I do not accept that we cannot introduce proper speed limits and speed reduction measures near schools because forcing drivers to slow down suddenly could cause accidents. I simply do not accept that argument. Drivers have the ability to adjust to road works, to major sign changes and so forth and it should be possible to put in place adequate warning signs on the approaches to schools. Councils can alert drivers to the fact that a change in the speed limit is imminent. School signs should also be highly visible. Local authorities, working with schools, could do much more, as is done on the Continent. European traffic management around schools is more than just signage. The roads are configured in such a way that drivers must slow down. I would like to see the local authorities being more imaginative in that regard. They have sufficient powers to be so. I do not accept that problems cannot be resolved, notwithstanding the legitimacy of the point made by the Deputy. Councils should get on with resolving such problems.
The Deputy spoke at some length about judicial decisions, on which I will not comment. I understand the Deputy's point but it is not within my realm to comment on decisions made by the Judiciary.
Deputy Shortall inquired about the Bill and the amendments that will be ready in the next few weeks. I will circulate them to Members well before I bring them before the House. I will also arrange a full briefing for party spokespersons in order that they will have the details in good time to allow them to study them and assess their potential impact. As I appreciate that people need time to do this, I will make the necessary arrangements.
I also asked about the targets and measures in the strategy document.
It was agreed that there would not be a progress report because the timeframe was so short. The strategy document does not contain any commitment to a report on progress. However, the Deputy has made a fair point and while it is not possible to produce a full report, given the short timeframe, I will choose a suitable occasion and give an outline of the overall progress on the strategy targets before the end of this year. A progress report was never formally agreed to because of the timeframe.
In reply to Deputy Glennon's question, section 53 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, allows that if a person is tried and convicted on indictment, he or she will receive a two year disqualification. Under the same section, if a person is tried and summarily convicted, the penalty is one year's disqualification. We all know that other issues arise around this, but the Deputy has raised a valid point.
It is worth highlighting that those remedies and sanctions are available to the Judiciary.
Not only are they available, they are the minimum penalties. They should be the starting point. They are not included in the Act as the end game in terms of punishment. The penalties can be far more severe than one or two year's disqualification from driving.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today. This committee will continue to take an interest in road safety. I especially welcome the fact that party spokespersons and I will have an opportunity to deal with the issue of random breath-testing and hope the proposed meeting can take place very soon.
When does the Minister think that meeting might be held?
I hope to have it within a fortnight, as I am away next week.
Could the meeting be held before the end of this month?
Certainly. I am almost in a position to talk this through immediately.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 November, 2005.