I welcome the members of PARC Road Safety Group. I will stay for as much of the presentation as I can but unfortunately I must then leave to go to Galway for the funeral of a close friend. Deputy Connaughton will take the chair for the next part of the meeting.
Deputy Paul Connaughton took the Chair.
The next item on the agenda is a discussion with PARC Road Safety Group.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
I welcome Ms Susan Gray, Ms Ann Fogarty and Ms Donna Price. We will hear a short presentation from PARC Road Safety Group which will be followed by a question and answer session.
We are delighted with the opportunity afforded to us to address the committee and thank it most sincerely for it. The Minister for Transport is to be complimented on bringing forward this legislation and we acknowledge the trojan work of Department of Transport officials in drawing up the Road Traffic Bill 2009. We appreciate that very much. However, the section on mandatory testing at collision scenes falls far short of what is required. This section is about saving lives and if done properly, it will be the greatest deterrent to drink driving.
Since its inception in 2006, PARC Road Safety Group has campaigned for the introduction of legislation for the compulsory testing of all drivers at collision scenes, whether killed or surviving. The statistical proof that little testing was being done, especially the testing of surviving drivers, was only produced at the end of 2009.
The Role of Alcohol in Fatal Collisions in Ireland 2003-2005 by Bedford et al showed that only 8% of surviving drivers involved in fatal collisions were tested but that 65% of dead drivers were tested. Many surviving drivers are escaping detection and walking from the scene of fatal collisions, although uninjured. The dead drivers are tested under coroner’s legislation and it is not unreasonable to suggest that the 35% of dead drivers who are not tested for alcohol survive for some time after the collision, in which case they come under the Road Traffic Act and the required testing for alcohol and drugs is not being carried out on their arrival at accident and emergency where the hospital procedure should take place. The road traffic law is letting us all down.
Dr. Bedford's study made no reference to the drivers who survived those fatal collisions and who, in some cases at least, must have been responsible for the fatalities. Dr. Bedford reviewed the files again and further research showed that 92% of surviving drivers were not tested for alcohol. Clearly, the current Road Traffic Act does not ensure that all the forensics are gathered in regard to drink driving and as a result we do not have a true picture of the role of alcohol in serious collisions in Ireland. What we have is a gross underestimate.
Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 2002, which amended section 12(1) of the 1994 Act, gave the Garda three distinct and separate powers. A garda could test a driver who was involved in a collision or who in his or her opinion had consumed intoxicating liquor or who had committed an offence under the Road Traffic Act. These powers were differentiated by the little word "or" and were very clear. In section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2003, which amended section 12(1) of the 1994 Act, the little word "or" was dropped. This disempowered the Garda in such a way that it was now a prerequisite for a member of the force to form an opinion before any testing for alcohol could be done even where a fatal collision occurred.
We have proof of this in many cases, one of which occurred in 2004. In this collision a pedestrian was killed. The deceased was tested for alcohol and drugs and his toxicology report was clear. The driver responsible for his death, although uninjured, was not tested for alcohol or drugs. A garda statement in the case revealed that he did not test because he formed the opinion that the driver was not under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle. Therefore, a garda is asked to form an opinion that a driver has consumed alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of proper control of a vehicle even where there is serious injury and fatalities. This, we are informed by senior officers, is done by observation. How in God's name can a garda tell if a person is over the present legal limit of 80mg, much less the new legal limits of 50mg or 20mg, by observation alone? I suggest that even a sniffer dog could not do that. This is a ridiculous and unworkable requirement, not only in the case of lower legal BACs but where a driver is unconscious, in shock, hysterical, etc. Unless the driver is plastered, it is impossible for a member of the Garda Síochána to form such an opinion by observation alone.
This unnecessary burden placed on the Garda Síochána has led to the most unsatisfactory legal outcomes personally experienced by PARC members, where the surviving driver involved in the fatal collision which killed their loved one was allowed to walk away from the crash scene uninjured and untested for alcohol and drugs.
Present and past legislation has failed PARC members with even more hurt heaped upon them. What we find in this Bill is more of the same. The vital little word "or" is again missing and the ineffectual, burdensome "forming an opinion" is again included.
The word "may" is used throughout the section. The use of this word "may" reduces any power to a discretionary power, which has no place in mandatory testing. Where the word "shall" is used to test an uninjured driver involved in a serious collision, there is an opt-out clause so that he or she too can slip the net.
The final nail in the coffin of mandatory testing is found in section 8(2), which states, "A member of the Garda Síochána shall not make a requirement of a person under subsection (1)(b) where, in the opinion of the member, the person is incapable of complying with the requirement as a consequence of the person’s involvement in the event.” This last statement is ambiguous, is open to many interpretations and is another discretionary power.
This Bill, as it stands, will not achieve what it sets out to do, namely, the mandatory testing of drivers involved in road traffic collisions where injury occurs. On the contrary, it will ensure that mandatory testing is made impossible for gardaí.
The vital little word "or", to which Ms Fogarty referred, is again missing and the farcical "forming an opinion", which is a hindrance to the Garda, is again included. Ironically, the section is peppered with discretionary powers, which have no place in mandatory testing. Finally, to guarantee that we will still have 92% of surviving drivers and 35% of dead drivers evading testing, there is an opt-out clause.
The then Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Mr. Noel Conroy, in his address to this committee in November 2006, stated:
Before the introduction of the new system [MAT testing], the people who were arrested recently would have got away with driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that they might not have had full control of the vehicle. If we had continued with the system whereby a garda had to form an opinion before undertaking a breath test, a certain proportion of the people who were arrested recently would have slipped the net.
Despite these views of then Commissioner Conroy which are on the public record since 2006, in a letter to PARC, dated November 2007, when asked by us why gardaí need this discretion at the scene of an accident, the Garda Commissioner laid the blame at the door of the legislators whom he stated did not deem it appropriate to make it mandatory on members of the Garda Síochána by using the word "may" instead of "shall". Though MAT testing, which is carried out without having to form an opinion, is a terrific weapon in the fight against drink driving, it is simply not acceptable that the Garda Síochána is denied this mandatory power where serious injury and deaths have occurred.
PARC members are determined that other families will not have to experience such inadequacies in our laws that have deprived us of justice and fairness. We must place the right to health and life above the right to drink and drive. We must not place unnecessary burdens on gardaí, but instead we must give them clear and precise powers to test all drivers involved in collisions where a person is killed or injured or at the scene of a collision where a garda is called. All drivers involved in such collisions must be tested, subject only to overriding medical considerations, which must be signed off by a senior medic and a reason given.
Our research leads us to believe that gardaí do not have sufficient roadside breathalysers. We call on Government to ensure that the Garda Síochána is properly resourced so that there are sufficient numbers of roadside breathalysers to meet the further demand of this new life-saving legislation. We must not have a situation developing where a garda does not have a properly functioning calibrated device at hand when he or she arrives at a collision and that this is an excuse for not testing.
Any garda who fails to ensure a test is carried out and who cannot produce a medical evaluation certificate must be subject to a disciplinary inquiry. This must be legislated for in this Bill, if necessary.
I will hand over to Ms Susan Gray, our founding member and chairperson of PARC.
At a meeting we had yesterday with the Garda Commissioner, Fachtna Murphy, and his team, we put it to them that the phrase "forming an opinion" must go. We were encouraged by his response. While he emphasised that members of the Garda Síochána enforced the law but were not legislators, he stated they did have an input into legislation. The part of the Bill dealing with mandatory testing at the scene of a collision was re-examined. As a result, some amendments have been introduced. If passed, they will mean forming an opinion at the scene of a collision will no longer be a requirement.
We appeal to members to ensure the Road Traffic Bill 2009 wil be fit for purpose and result in mandatory testing of all drivers involved in collisions at which gardaí attend. As the Garda Commissioner stated yesterday, the legislators call the final shots. The opportunity to enact this life-saving legislation, provide a strong deterrent in respect of drink driving and introduce, for the first time, justice and fairness to a legal process that has failed so many is now in the hands of the legislators. Law-abiding citizens want this legislation to be enacted. They are depending on the legislators to ensure this eventuality will come to pass.
We request that the committee inform us of the changes it is proposed to make to the Bill. When this happens, we would like to have an opportunity to consider them before Committee Stage is completed.
I thank our guests for their presentations. They have made their position clear. I recall putting the case — more or less in the way our guests have put it — to the Garda Commissioner at a previous meeting. He agreed with me that there should not be discretion in this regard. I presume our guests received the same message from him when they spoke to him yesterday.
Yes, we met him yesterday. He stated discussions were ongoing and that many changes had been introduced but that the legislation had yet to pass Committee Stage.
This is an extremely important issue. However, we are somewhat constrained in the time available for discussion. In such circumstances, I ask members to be circumspect in their remarks.
I welcome our guests and acknowledge the personal sacrifices they have made in order to fight this battle. It was obviously not easy for them to come before the committee today. As the Vice Chairman stated, we appreciate their commitment and the integrity of the arguments they have made.
This issue is above party politics. Everyone should sign off on what our guests have stated. Fine Gael will be supporting the suggested amendments on Committee Stage. I hope the committee will not divide on them because all our guests are seeking is that tragedies similar to those they have experienced will not befall anyone else. One of the key issues is the need to banish drink driving from our society, particularly as this behaviour has resulted in appalling tragedies. As stated, my party will support the proposed amendments and I hope all other parties will do likewise.
I welcome our guests and congratulate them on the fantastic work they have done on the issue of road safety in recent years. Their efforts have stirred us to take action. They met Deputy McEntee and me on a number of occasions to discuss a number of the issues invovled. As Deputy O'Dowd stated, road safety is, as used to be the case with Northern Ireland, beyond politics. On behalf of the Labour Party, I have submitted draft amendments which our guests might have seen which try to meet the requirement for mandatory testing. My party is strongly in favour of such testing and of the view that it should be catered for in the legislation.
Our guests have made a powerful case in respect of drink driving and highlighted the astonishing statistic provided by Dr. Bedford that 92% of surviving drivers are not tested for alcohol following collisions resulting in a death. With the enactment of the Bill, this should never be the case again.
As our guests stated, the provision contained in section 8(1) drives a coach and four through the concept of mandatory testing. They have asked us to consider the formula used in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom which allows for testing where an officer of the law has reason to suspect someone has imbibed alcohol. Does this formula go far enough? Should it not be the case that where injury is caused as a result of a serious collision, anyone who was driving should be tested?
Our guests stated that, in the context of section 8(2), people could use the excuse of being injured as a reason not to be tested. It is obvious that there will be injuries to varying degrees among those involved in a collision and the section, as it stands, places the onus on a garda attending at the scene of an accident to make the decision on someone's injuries. It is clear that section 8(2) must be altered in order that gardaí will be required to test persons involved in collisions.
In tabling amendments I tried to meet the concerns of our guests in the best way possible. I applaud PARC for the work it has done. I propose that the committee should unanimously accept its argument in favour of mandatory testing and that it should impress upon the Minister the need to accept the suggested amendments. Perhaps our guests will comment on the key points I have made. They sent us a great deal of briefing material on HGVs, speed limits and other issues that has proved to be of great assistance.
Mandatory testing is the key in order to ensure the suffering our guests and many tens of thousands of families have endured as a result of drink driving and the poor implementation of road safety legislation will not be visited on others. I applaud our guests for the work they are doing and ask that they elaborate on the reasons they are seeking to have the two formulae to which I refer included in section 8.
I welcome our guests and congratulate them for their campaign and the way in which they have presented their case to the committee. They are speaking to the converted in respect of road safety. I previously worked in insurance when I witnessed the devastation road accidents cause as a result of deaths and serious injuries. Drink and drug driving are the cause of many unnecessary accidents that place extreme pressure on hospital services. As well as the devastation caused, there is also an economic cost involved.
I have no doubt that the proposals our guests have made make sense. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, has been extremely proactive in bringing forward the legislation and suggesting the blood alcohol limit be reduced further. The latter should have been done previously, but I hope it will be done in the near future. Our guests have my full support in pursuing the ideals to which they refer. For every life we save, there is less grief for families, as the experience of the delegates shows. These suggestions make sense from the economic perspective and, equally, from the hospital and health perspective. They make sense and I hope the change comes about quickly.
I join other members in welcoming the PARC delegation. The Minister and the Department have made clear that what PARC wants with regard to mandatory testing at the scene of an accident is part of the Bill. I have not seen the amendments suggested and am only aware of the references the Minister made to them today, but on Second Stage he seemed quite confident that subject to the overriding medical conditions at the time, what the delegation is looking for is in the Bill. No Bill is perfect and if we can strengthen the wording we should do so. The delegation has mentioned the case where there is injury, but I think that is covered. The Minister also seems to think it is covered, but if we can make it stronger, let us do so.
Does the delegation wish to comment?
Deputy Broughan asked what we want. What we want is that when a garda is called out and attends the scene of a collision, all the drivers involved in the collision should be tested. The requirement in the Bill should be "shall" rather than "may". The fact of being called to the scene of a collision should be adequate reason for the garda in question to suspect alcohol might be a contributory power, so that he or she must test. It should not be necessary that gardaí form an opinion, because forming an opinion that somebody is over the limit is impossible for gardaí. We have been told by gardaí that unless somebody shows visible signs of being over the limit, such as when they are plastered — with slurred speech, staggering and bloodshot eyes — they cannot form an opinion. However, we all know that many people could be well over the limit without showing any of those signs, because they can hold their drink well. This leads us to believe — and this is proven by the fact that 92% are not tested — that unless somebody is plastered, many drivers between the stage of being plastered and just over the limit, slip through the net. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Ms Gray makes that point well. We will send her recommendation directly to the Minister. We will make the proposal to do that shortly. Can Ms Gray return to the situation where there is a serious accident and a driver is seriously injured?
Where there is a collision and someone is seriously injured and the garda cannot test that person at the scene of the collision because it would be prejudicial to the individual's health, that person will be taken to the hospital. The legislation provides that the garda "may" request a doctor or nurse to take a sample. Therefore, this is again a discretionary power for the garda. However, gardaí want the legislation to require they "shall" request the doctor or nurse to do a test. We want to ensure that the only time this will not be done at the hospital is when a senior doctor signs off that in his or her opinion such a test would be prejudicial to the person's health. We know there will be a few cases where the test cannot be carried out. We are not asking for 100% and know this does not happen in the real world. However, it is a disgrace that 92% of surviving drivers are not tested. We want a reversal of this. It should only be in a limited number of cases that a test would be prejudicial to the patient's health and that a doctor could not carry out a test and a senior doctor would have to sign off to that effect.
When discussing the earlier part of section 8, the formula Ms Gray suggested we adopt, which is similar to the Northern Ireland or UK formula, used the phrase "reasonable grounds to suspect". Is she saying now that she would prefer that this be abandoned and that gardaí be required to test, through using the phrase "shall"?
Yes, we would prefer "he shall, when he attends the scene".
To be clear, we are discussing section 8, and section 13 which concerns arrival at the hospital. Therefore, all of section 8 concerning when a member of the Garda Síochána is of the opinion that a person in charge of a vehicle in a public place and so on should be removed.
We are talking about when they attend the scene of a collision. The fact a collision has taken place should be just reason for gardaí to test all the drivers.
PARC has submitted some good work to us on this. The phrase "is of the opinion" is very vague and the phrase "has reasonable grounds to suspect" is more precise, but PARC would like the Oireachtas to go beyond that, like France. The delegates advised me and my colleague to look at French law on this, which basically says that on arrival at the scene of a collision where people are hurt, the police "shall" test.
A test should be carried out even if there is not an injury. People only become aware of some injuries later, for example, back injuries. We believe the test should be carried out even if it is not apparent at the time there has been an injury. If the person has been drink driving, he or she should be taken off the road before killing or seriously injuring somebody. It is too late then. It is a preventive measure.
Therefore, the test should be carried out at any collision to which the Garda is called.
Yes. This would be a massive deterrent to drink driving. Currently, the Bill proposes that gardaí do not have to test at the scene of the collision if, in their opinion, an individual is incapable of complying with the requirement as a consequence of involvement in the event. This is very vague. Gardaí could interpret this in different ways, such as whether the person is in shock. We would prefer the wording to ensure that the only reason gardaí would not test at the scene would be where it would be "prejudicial to the individual's health". We would prefer that gardaí be guided by medical staff in that regard, because gardaí are not doctors.
I apologise for not being here earlier, but I will read through the debate later. I understand what PARC seeks and am aware that over the past four or five years road deaths have reduced due to its efforts and the pressure it has kept on us. The Garda takes a no-nonsense approach to drink driving and it should not be a problem for it to accept that when there is an accident, the drivers involved should be tested. People realise now that drink driving has been the cause of many deaths. The number of road deaths in 1979 came to 700, but the number of deaths has reduced significantly since. We are all aware many of those deaths were caused by drink driving. If we are to put an end to drink driving, we must comply with PARC's proposals.
We are grateful to the PARC delegates for their attendance and for their well researched proposal. I suggest now that the details of this document be sent to the Minister on behalf of the committee. Is it agreed unanimously that this is what we want?
We require that he will amend the relevant sections, section 8 and section 13.
Exactly. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the delegation sincerely for its attendance. It is always a pleasure to have them. Keep up the good work.
Committee Stage will be taken on the afternoon of Thursday, 3 June. The Minister will attend and we will go through the Bill in detail. Perhaps the delegation might like to attend on that day.
