Road Safety: Motion.

Mr. Quinn:

I move:

That Seanad Éireann recommends the immediate introduction of random breath testing by the Garda as a response to the continuing unacceptable high level of slaughter on our roads.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me an opportunity to speak. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. I am pleased he is here as I know he is committed to this topic. I was quite excited when I saw the Government amendment to my motion, as I briefly thought it condemns the Government before I realised it calls on Seanad Éireann to commend the Government. For a few moments, I was interested to see that the Government side was supporting me to an extent. I am not here to condemn anyone, however, but to draw attention to the carnage on our roads.

I wish to explain why I am testing the patience of this House by putting down yet another motion on road safety. I am in no doubt as to Members' feelings on the topic, as we have discussed it on countless occasions on the Order of Business and during formal debates. The Minister of State has been here on a number of occasions and I know his heart is in the right place. I have learnt from previous discussions that everyone in the House is appalled by the continuing slaughter on our roads. Members are disappointed and angry at the lack of progress that has been made in addressing the problem. None of us believes that enough is being done to promote road safety, or that measures are being put in place quickly enough. The Minister's attention is needed as my comments apply to his area of responsibility. His heart is in the right place, but nobody believes that we are sufficiently combating the carnage on our roads.

What is the point in raising this matter tonight? I simply wish to highlight the need for clear and simple action to show the people that the Government is committed to road safety. Three separate issues indicate that such a need exists. The first of these is the long delay in giving teeth to the national road safety strategy by passing the necessary supporting legislation. The public has been given the impression that road safety is low on the Government's list of priorities. The Minister of State will tell me that measures will be taken tomorrow, but I will return to that.

The introduction of a penalty points system, under which a driving licence can be taken away if a driver exceeds a set number of points, is a central plank of the national strategy, which was published in 1997. Two things are needed if the points system is to be put in place: legislation to underpin the scheme and a new computer system to make it work. Four years after the publication of the strategy, the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, will receive its first reading in the Dáil tomorrow. It will not matter if the Bill passes speedily through the Oireachtas, however, as I understand the computer system to operate the points scheme is not yet in place, which has given rise to further delays. I am not sure if the computer system has even gone to tender yet. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that the penalty points scheme will be in place before the five year term of the national road safety strategy has expired. The points scheme is a central plank of the safety strategy. The regrettable delays in passing legislation and establishing a computer system are reasons people are unconvinced that the Government is serious about this matter.

A second factor which demonstrates the need for clear action and which is even more regrettable is the continuing carnage on the roads. In the first two years of the national road safety strategy, we saw a significant and highly welcome reduction in the number of road deaths. The reduction coincided with the arrival into office of the Minister. We were led to hope that the target of a 20% reduction in road deaths from the 1997 level might be achieved over the five year period of the strategy. Some people thought the target was ambitious, but others felt it did not go far enough, given that our road death level is twice that in the United Kingdom. At least we had set a target and in the first two years of the road safety strategy it seemed progress was being made. The progress stopped, however, and the number of deaths increased last year. It was a small increase and I would not like to make too much of it, but the real point is that the reduction of the previous two years did not continue.

It looks unlikely that this year's road death figures will show a reduction, as there have been 360 deaths so far, even before we encounter the most dangerous period of the year. The possibility of finishing the year below last year's level of 415 deaths now seems tragically remote. We have to ask ourselves why progress stopped. There are, no doubt, many reasons, but I suggest that one of them is that people have stopped believing in the 1997 road safety strategy. There has been a lack of strong national leadership on the issue. Those who have become cynical about the Government's seriousness regarding road safety have good reason for their cynicism.

The third reason a single clear and simple gesture is needed is, paradoxically, because road safety is quite a complex subject. The problem does not respond quickly to a single dramatic gesture. A couple of years ago, I proposed that a weekend be devoted to increasing public awareness of the problem. The National Safety Council made a valiant effort, but there was no suggestion that such a weekend would solve the problem. It is a problem which needs to be attacked on many fronts and sustained over a long period. In other words, it needs to be tackled in precisely the way outlined in the national road safety strategy.

It is now clear, however, that this approach lacks one vital ingredient – an element which will catch the imagination of the public. It lacks the ability to mobilise the public and unite them in a conviction that this problem can be solved if we really put our mind to it nationally. The strategy, because of its nature and because it is being held back by foot dragging on the part of the Government, has become a dead issue with most of the people of Ireland. I am inclined to believe that if one went out into the streets tomorrow and asked a sample of people about the national road safety strategy, the vast majority would not even know what one was talking about. That is a dreadful situation, one which bodes badly for an improvement in it. While it is true that some elements of the national road safety strategy such as the provision of better, safer roads will take effect regardless of whether the public knows about it, the reality is that the ultimate success of the strategy depends overwhelmingly on the people getting behind it and making it work. At the end of the day, it is people who one must change.

Safer roads can make a difference, safer cars can make a difference but ultimately only safer driving will make a real difference. It is only by changing people's attitudes and changing their behaviour that we can ever hope to get the level of road deaths down to the level in Britain – and in Britain they think they have a problem. Because people are disillusioned, disappointed and even cynical about the issue, the problem must be addressed.

Above and beyond all the complex and worthy elements of the national road safety strategy, there is a pressing need at this time to send a clear message to the public. We need to say, first, that we are serious about tackling the problem and, second, that the people themselves must start taking the problem much more seriously too. Third, we need to say that as a nation we must face up to the fact that alcohol is perhaps the biggest single factor in fatal road accidents. It is for this reason that I suggest the best way we can send a clear signal to the public is by the introduction of random breath testing.

The reason we need random breath testing is very simple. It is to increase the chance of being caught if one drives when over the breath test limit. At present the reality is that one's chances of getting away with drinking and driving are very high indeed. That is exactly my point. The deterrent effect of the consequence of being caught is diluted precisely by the chances against getting caught at all.

Under the current system the chances of being caught are very low indeed. One need only look at the situation in Scandinavia to see the truth of this. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will be aware of the situation in Scandinavia. The likelihood of getting caught there is very high and the consequences are swift, certain and drastic. The result is that people in Scandinavia do not drink and drive – it is as simple as that.

Of course I am not arguing that just by introducing random breath testing one can change overnight the attitudes or, even more importantly, the behaviour of a nation. Such a change involves a shift in culture and that would take some time to achieve, but random breath testing would be a step in the right direction and, I believe, a highly useful step.

Many Members will remember that in a sense we have actually been here before. A few years ago there was a major pre-Christmas crackdown on drink driving. It was well publicised in advance and it was very instructive to see how people reacted. We all remember it well. People gen uinely felt they would get caught if they drank and drove and that year they changed their behaviour, but only until they realised that the chances of being caught had not really changed much at all. While the chances had increased, it was not by so much as to create a high likelihood that the offenders would be caught. As soon as people realised that, they began slipping back into their old ways.

I want to make two further points in favour of the motion before commending it to the House. The first is about the argument that the real offenders where drink driving is concerned will not be affected by any changes of this kind. That, I am sure, is the first argument which will be made. The people who get killed are not a broad cross section of the population but they are a sub-section of it. To a large extent, they are young and inexperienced drivers and if we want to reduce road deaths, we should target those people directly, not the whole population. Whether or not it is a problem restricted to a small segment of the population, to young people – and particularly younger males – it is the entire population who must change it. The young people who recklessly drink and drive do not do so in a vacuum. They do so in a society which is scandalously tolerant of that kind of behaviour. The young people behave that way because they are part of a society which tolerates such behaviour. If society as whole changes, so will the behaviour of young people.

The second issue I want to address is what I would call the civil liberty argument. This is the contention that random breath testing would be a serious and unacceptable invasion of our personal rights and personal freedoms. It is a contention which is often made, not in its own right but as a cover for the vested interests such as the interests of the alcoholic drink industry itself. This is my response to that argument. First, any diminution of our liberties involved in random breath testing is far outweighed by the benefits the community would derive from it in lives saved, injuries avoided and costs which would not have to be borne. Second, random breath testing is accepted in many other countries where it does not seem to have significantly diluted the general level of personal freedom. Third, and perhaps most pointedly, how is it that we do not seem to have any problem with the Garda carrying out entirely random checks of road tax and insurance documents and of driving licences? I am regularly stopped to see if I have got insurance. While driving without proper road tax or insurance or without a valid driving licences are offences under the law, such offences, compared to drinking and driving, are far less likely to cause an accident. How is it that random checks are acceptable in the case of relatively trivial offences such as those to which I referred but suddenly become unacceptable when it is a matter of life and death?

I really believe this is the opportunity the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, can grasp which will make an impact on the nation as a whole and draw the attention of people to the horrific figures we see week after week – I will not touch on any particular case but there have been one or two accidents recently which were just so horrific. It will draw our attention to it and make us say that we must do something. Here is the dramatic step we can take which will actually be a step in that direction. I commend this motion to the House.

Dr. Henry:

While asking for the introduction of random breath testing may not increase one's popularity as a politician a great deal with the electorate, naturally as a doctor I must support Senator Quinn's call to introduce random breath testing and second his motion. However, it would be most important that the Department ensures whatever type of apparatus it decides to use for breath testing in future will be both legal and accurate. As the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will be well aware, when changes were made to make it possible for gardaí to carry out breath tests on the spot on people suspected of driving in a manner which would indicate they had alcohol in excess consumed, there were problems in the courts regarding the validity of these tests. It was a great improvement on the system of having to find a doctor in a rural area to carry out blood alcohol or urine tests and, therefore, it is a great pity that sufficient effort was not put into ensuring that the equipment used was of the right standard. I gather that many cases before the courts at present may be dismissed because the equipment was found not to be of a sufficiently high calibre – I see the Minister of State shaking his head and perhaps he will tell us the position in his reply.

I said that as a doctor I must support this motion. I base what I am saying on a report produced by my colleague, Dr. Anthony Staines of the Department of Public Health Medicine and Epidemiology at University College Dublin. He and his colleagues surveyed injury in Ireland and of course discovered that one of the main causes of unintentional injuries in Ireland was road traffic accidents and that the deaths concerned were really quite dreadful. They made a series of recommendations about what should be done to reduce road traffic deaths and injuries. In their report, they specifically urged: strict driving restrictions on provisional licence holders; random breath testing; an effective penalty points system with a significant increase in Garda resources to enforce it; a reduction in the permissible level of blood alcohol to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood; and a review of the national road safety strategy. Apart from the reduction of the permissible level of blood alcohol to 50 mg per 100 ml, where have I heard those words before? One hears these suggestions made over and over again. Senator Quinn is quite right in saying that we address this subject with monotonous regularity and always fail to achieve anything.

One of the worst things about deaths caused by road traffic accidents is that a very large number of the victims are young. The vast majority are in the 15 to 35 age group, with a peak in the 20 to 24 age group. Most of the victims are male, with about four times as many male victims as there are female victims. There is a very specific audience to target. This should be one of the most important things we do in dealing with the dreadful loss of life, in terms of years lost, that is taking place. Television advertisements urge people, especially young people, not to drink and drive. One of the most telling is accompanied by the constant sound like a heartbeat which, at the end, is seen to be a young man in a wheelchair bouncing a ball. The acquiring of disability through road accidents is quite dreadful. Anyone who has visited the National Rehabilitation Centre in Rochestown Avenue has been truly shocked by what is found there. That institute could be filled ten times over with people who do not get the specialised treatment they require because of lack of accommodation.

Unintentional injury accounts for 8.5% of hospital admissions, the vast majority due to road traffic accidents. The group most affected are aged 15 to 30. Imagine what this does to waiting lists. People on waiting lists must give way to those who are brought in from casualty departments. A huge amount of time is consumed in casualty departments dealing with road traffic accidents. When people complain about the delay in casualty departments I often wonder whether they look to see why, suddenly, all systems go on alert. They have to be held to one side for some time as half a dozen people are brought in from a road traffic accident, some of them dead perhaps, with people making desperate efforts to resuscitate the victims who can be saved. Others are extraordinarily seriously injured.

We have very little knowledge about what happens to those injured people. There is a deficit of information about the amount of disability which is due to these injuries. The organisation Headway is concerned with those who have head injuries resulting from car crashes, motorbike and bicycle accidents and having been knocked down, but all they can tell us is that a large number of victims become unemployable for years and some for the rest of their lives. There are huge economic costs, not only due to the amount of health service time and resources taken up with road traffic accidents, but also due to time taken off work or to people who are injured and unable ever to return to work. The largest awards in cases concerned with road traffic accidents are given to young people who will perhaps be immobile and unable to work for the rest of their lives. The economic implications from the point of view of insurance are also very important. We do not have much idea of the economic costs of people with lesser injuries who do not attend casualty departments but go to their general practitioners.

An effort is needed to find out more about the accidents which happen. There have been some dreadful accidents involving articulated trucks in the last few days but it is impossible to obtain figures for accidents involving these trucks. Even the hospital in-patient inquiry does not tell us how many patients were injured but only each episode that involved a road traffic accident. We cannot find out how many times a certain person may have had to attend hospital after an incident, or how long he/she will be out of work. A huge effort must be made to obtain better figures.

Unfortunately the involvement of alcohol in road traffic accidents was not addressed in this report. However, taking into consideration that the consumption of alcohol in the age groups referred to is particularly high, as is the incidence of binge drinking, and that so many of these accidents happen in the period from 11 p.m. to 3 a.m., alcohol must be an important factor. Car occupants account for almost half the deaths in road traffic accidents. Pedestrians and cyclists are also important, but to start with the testing of drivers on a random basis would be getting somewhere. It is important that we look at the issue not just in terms of death but also in terms of morbidity. People's lives are destroyed by the fact that they were injured in accidents.

I applaud the safety campaign which has emphasised the dangers of drinking and driving, particularly for young drivers. Indeed, these young people are often driving on provisional licences as well as having consumed alcohol. The Minister has a very big job ahead of him and I am very sorry that the Government has put down this amendment.

Mr. Walsh:

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann commends the Government for its continued prioritising of the problem of drink driving, notes the need to enhance existing enforcement measures in a structured and targeted manner and against that background, further commends the Government for the proposals contained in the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, to extend road side breath testing.".

I reserve the right to speak on it later.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

I call the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, and welcome him to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy):

I expected to have more time than I have been allocated and I ask the House to grant me more time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Molloy:

I thank Senator Quinn for putting down this motion. I appreciate the opportunity it gives me to speak here. It was intended to deal with the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, tomorrow but due to happenings in the Dáil and arrangements about the Order of Business it may be delayed until next week.

Road safety is now the focus of greatly increased public, media and political concern and the Government welcomes this development. Indeed, we have been proactive in encouraging it. This Government is the first one to have adopted a national road safety strategy. We accept that we are accountable for this and we will answer for it. Adopting this systematic and focused approach to road safety planning and management has allowed us to pursue a policy that has proved to be successful in many other states. It is particularly noticeable that this type of strategy has supported and enhanced road safety in many of our fellow EU member states, which have seen major advances in reducing road casualties. Recognising that drink driving is a major contributing factor to road accidents is common in these strategies. However, it is also clear that these national strategies do not promote identical approaches to addressing the problem.

The Government road safety strategy has a five-year term and sets as its primary target the reduction of Irish road fatalities by a minimum of 20%, relative to the 1997 figure, by 2002. A similar minimum reduction is targeted for serious road accident injuries. We estimate that this primary target should save at least 172 lives annually from 2002, compared to continuing on the present basis. We accept that this is an ambitious and demanding target. We also accept, as do the governments of many other states, that drink driving is one of the greatest single factors in traffic accidents.

The Government road safety strategy acknowledges drink driving as one of four key areas. Similar priority has been afforded to this issue in strategies adopted in most other countries. One of the key supporting targets set out in the strategy is to reduce by 25% the number of fatal road accidents, commonly drink-related, occurring during the hours of darkness. Other supporting targets of the strategy are to reduce by 2002 the incidence of excess speeding by at least 50% from present levels – this was subsequently revised to reduce the number of vehicles exceeding the 60 m.p.h. speed limit on single carriageway national primary routes from 51% to 40% by 2002; to increase the wearing rate for front and rear seat belts to at least 85%; and to implement specific accident reduction measures at more than 400 additional national road locations. These targets are to be achieved by the application of certain new policies and actions and by enhancing and intensifying existing road safety measures.

International experience shows that reductions in road accidents can be most quickly achieved by targeting human behaviour, in particular the three key areas of speeding, alcohol use and the wearing of seat belts. The challenge which we currently face can be seen from the fact that at present half of Irish cars and heavy goods vehicles drive in breach of the principal speed limits, our rate of seat belt wearing is well behind international best practice and despite a welcome change in social attitudes, alcohol is still a major factor in road accidents. It is logical that the strategy should prioritise three areas calculated to deliver 72% of the total life savings which we are targeting.

We are now approaching the final year of the Government strategy for road safety 1998-2002. The interim targets fixed by the strategy have been fully met. These were, by end 2000 to reduce Ireland's rate of road fatalities per million inhabitants to a figure not exceeding 116 and to complete specific accident reduction measures at 240 locations on the national road network. By end 2000, Ireland's road fatality rate per million inhabitants stood at 110. Some 268 accident reduction schemes were completed and a further 88 have been approved.

Real and worthwhile gains are being made in road safety within the framework of the Government strategy. The level of road deaths reduced by 12.1 % between 1997 and 2000 and serious injuries decreased in the 1997-2000 period by almost 25%, relative to a similar reduction target of 20% by end 2002. Early indications are that these positive trends have been maintained in 2001. We are not here to debate the road safety strategy but I wanted to make those introductory remarks. We are debating random breath testing and drink driving.

The Road Traffic Acts provide that it is an offence to drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle –"intoxicant" includes alcohol and drugs and any combination of drugs or of drugs and alcohol. The sanction for committing a drink-drug driving offence is disqualification from holding a driving licence for a minimum period ranging from three months to four years depending on the alcohol level and a fine to a maximum of £1,000, or €1,269.74. In addition, a court may order that the convicted person be imprisoned for up to six months.

The laws in relation to drink driving were comprehensively reviewed in the Road Traffic Act, 1994. That Act provided for the reduction of the blood alcohol level to its present level of 0.8 and empowered the Minister to amend it further by way of regulations made following the agreement of the Oireachtas. In addition to that innovation and the restatement of the relevant laws generally, the 1994 Act provided for the introduction of evidential breath testing.

The roll-out of the evidential breath testing system throughout the country has been pursued as a priority target of the Government's Road Safety Strategy, 1998-2002. EBT was operational in four Garda stations by end 1999 and in 25 stations by end 2000. The EBT system is being extended to more stations across the country dur ing 2001 and it is intended to bring the total in operation to 40 by the end of 2001. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is responsible for the forensic analysis and integrity of this programme through supply, ongoing maintenance and testing of the instruments and the provision of training. Approximately 460 Garda operators were trained in 2000.

I refute Senator Henry's comments about the effectiveness and efficiency of the machine that is in use and her reference to some law cases. There have been three cases to date, one of which is the Mayo case which was defeated in the courts and not appealed. There are two cases at present before the High Court. The Garda Síochána, the Department and the medical bureau have every confidence in the efficiency and integrity of this machine.

Mr. Norris:

I applaud the Minister. He should sock it to her.

Mr. Molloy:

I wanted to correct Senator Henry because there is an impression that it may not even be used. It is being used and we are happy with its integrity. It has been very successful.

The position of the Government in relation to drink driving policy is set out in a comprehensive manner in the Road Safety Strategy, 1998-2002. This recognises the relatively recent introduction of the 80 milligram blood alcohol limit in Ireland. Our priority is to improve compliance with this requirement rather than move to new limits. We apply an 80 milligram limit with very strict application of driving disqualification. Lower blood alcohol limits operating in some countries do not necessarily attract such strict penalties. The strategy also states that the Government would follow the progress of developments internationally, as well as progress towards relevant national road safety targets, in considering the adequacy of the present 80 milligram limit in Ireland.

A recent EU Commission recommendation on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content for drivers was debated at Council. The primary focus of the document is to outline the benefits of moving to a standard BAC level of 0.5 throughout the EU for car drivers. A lower level of 0.2 was recommended for certain special categories of drivers. The text accepted, however, that legal competence in relation to this matter rests with the member states.

At present there are three states in the EU in addition to Ireland that have a blood alcohol level of 0.8. These are the UK, Italy and Luxembourg. The Government takes the drink driving issue very seriously. The measures which I have outlined above in relation to the introduction of evidential breath testing are proof of this. The strategy also provided that consideration should be given to some change in the present legal requirement for a member of the Garda Síochána to have formed the opinion that a person has consumed alcohol before requesting a roadside breathalyser test. At that time it was stated that the Government did not envisage the unqualified application of random breath testing within the lifetime of the strategy but that an extension of the circumstances under which a breath test can take place may be warranted.

I will now outline the new measures which are being proposed in the Road Traffic Bill. These concern the circumstances under which a member of the Garda Síochána can require a breath test. Section 10 of the Road Traffic Bill, which will be debated in the other House later this week, extends the grounds on which a member of the Garda Síochána may require a driver to provide a preliminary breath specimen. The section provides that where a driver is involved in a road accident or where a Garda considers that a road traffic offence has been committed, he or she may require that the driver provide the specimen. This is in addition to the present grounds where the Garda has formed an opinion that a driver has consumed alcohol.

The road safety strategy refers to the fact that international research indicates that alcohol is a factor in up to 40% of road accidents and estimates in Ireland suggest that the problem is of similar proportions in this country. The NRA road accident facts indicate that alcohol is a factor in 25% of all accidents and 33% of fatal accidents. Based on those figures, even though they are only suggestive in relation to the data for this State, there is a clear case for the creation of a direct association between accidents and any enhancement of the application and enforcement of drink driving legislation. In that context, there is a case for the direct association of random breath testing with accidents involving mechanically propelled vehicles.

A similar argument can be put forward in respect of driver involvement in road traffic offences. The fact that the commission of traffic offences increases the potential for the occurrence of accidents justifies the empowerment of the Garda to breath test drivers considered to have committed such offences. Limiting the extension of the application of breath testing to instances where accidents occur and where offences are committed would clearly not create such an excessive strain on Garda resources in that the Garda is already called to accidents on a general basis and is engaged in the detection of traffic offences. However, it can be argued that notwithstanding any other consideration, the Garda should be empowered to establish whether drink driving was a factor in causing an accident or contributed to a traffic infringement.

A number of benefits are immediately evident from the pursuit of the policy promulgated in the Bill. There would be an immediate deterrent value from the realisation that any involvement by a driver in an accident or a breach of the traffic laws would automatically give rise to the taking of a breath test. It would be possible to establish for the first time in this State a direct link between accidents and alcohol. The policy would not be discriminatory in that it would be applied to all drivers irrespective of their age, level of experience or licence status.

Breath testing on the more selective basis provided for in the Bill is the most effective and targeted manner in which we can use the resources available to us and equates to standard practice in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Random breath testing involves the stopping and testing of all drivers, or a certain proportion of drivers, passing a certain point over a given period. It can be argued that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by subjecting drivers to a public breath test where there is no suspicion of drink having been consumed. On balance, however, the steps being taken in the Bill represent a significant improvement. It extends the grounds on which a member of the Garda Síochána can request a preliminary breath specimen and it represents an efficient use of resources. The possibility of an unqualified application of random breath testing has not been ruled out in the longer term. Government policy states clearly that such a move is not envisaged within the period of the strategy.

We believe that the approach now being taken will lead to a significant improvement in driver behaviour with subsequent benefits for road safety. At present a member of the Garda Síochána may stop any person driving a motor vehicle on the road, but breath testing powers will be more specific. Under the Bill a garda will only be empowered to require a breath test if he or she has formed an opinion that the person has consumed alcohol, or has committed an offence, or has been involved in an accident. This means that a garda can stop any vehicle at any time, but can only require a breath test where one of those criteria applies. A garda can stop a vehicle at random and if during that time he or she forms the opinion that alcohol has been consumed by the driver, the garda is empowered to request a breath test. The powers now being given to the Garda therefore are wide, but not unrestricted. They represent a significant improvement on current arrangements and we believe they will deliver results in terms of increased prosecutions and better driver behaviour.

The level of enforcement in relation to road safety offences in general has been steadily increasing during the lifetime of the strategy. Over 224,000 on the spot fines for speeding were issued by the Garda in 2000 and over 253,000 already to the end of September 2001. Over 132,000 on the spot fines were issued for non-seat belt wearing in the period from July 1999 to the end of September this year.

Drink driving, despite the perception and reality of stricter enforcement and changed social attitudes, remains a major road safety problem. Some 10,433 detections for this offence were made by the Garda Síochána in 2000. This represents a 24% increase on 1998. Some 92% of blood and urine specimens and 82% of breath specimens analysed in 2000 by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety were above the alcohol limit for driving. Some 61% of blood and urine results and 33% of breath results more than twice exceeded the limit. Almost 10,500 drink driving detections were made to the end of October 2001. There has also been a significant increase in the number of specimens analysed for alcohol. The number of blood, urine and breath samples certified in 2000 by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, at over 9,500, represents an increase of almost 47% on 1997 levels. Over 6,000 specimens have been analysed in the first six months of this year alone.

The worrying statistic that 61% of blood and urine results and 33% of breath results more than twice exceeded the limit would suggest that reducing the BAC level will not impact on that situation which must remain as the primary focus for drink driving law enforcement. We need to strive for greater compliance with the existing level and to change the driving behaviour of those who continue to drink and drive and for whom the BAC limit is irrelevant. The road safety strategy also recognised that the influence of drugs on driving behaviour is an issue of increasing concern. A research programme is being carried out by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to assist in determining the extent of this problem. Since the beginning of 2000 over 1600 specimens have been analysed for the presence of drugs by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. It is expected that by the end of 2001 sufficient "under the limit" specimens will be received to complete the survey, the preliminary findings of which were made available in May 2000. These showed that 37% of samples screened were positive for drugs. The extensive survey being conducted during 2000 and 2001 will identify true trends in the types of drugs being taken, their combination with alcohol and the extent of polydrug use. A full review of all the collected data will take place in 2002.

The consistently high percentages of specimens which are over the legal limit, and the fact that research has shown that a considerable amount of specimens below the legal limit are testing positive for drugs, indicates that the Garda resources are being effectively targeted. The new provisions will enhance the effectiveness of those resources by extending the grounds on which a breath specimen can be requested.

I am opposing the motion as proposed, on the basis that the Government is actively pursuing the introduction of a wider range of circumstances under which breath testing can take place, as provided for in the Road Traffic Bill. The proposals represent an improvement on current requirements while still maintaining an efficient use of resources. There is a clear case for directing this proposed enhancement of the enforcement of drink driving legislation at drivers involved in accidents – which cannot be denied. A similar argument can be made in relation to incidents where motorists breach traffic laws – neither can that be denied. I consider that breath testing, as provided for in the Bill, is itself effective and targeted. I am prepared to listen to arguments in regard to this matter. The Road Traffic Bill contains proposals to introduce the new legislation extending breath testing and I have an open mind on this issue.

Four years ago when the strategy was written we made a move in this area and I am prepared to consider moving further. I will take into account the views expressed here in the Seanad and the views that will be expressed in the course of debate in the Dáil on Second Stage. I am quite open to an amendment introducing random breath testing. The Government has not yet made a decision to do so but we are open to considering this matter during the debate on the Bill.

There are aspects of it that need to be carefully considered. Senator Quinn referred to the civil liberties aspect in his contribution and that is a matter we have to carefully examine to ensure we are fully satisfied before we proceed further. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it as it gives a double focus by bringing this House into the discussion and we can proceed from here into the other House with the Bill. I mean what I say – I think every one knows that I usually do what I say nowadays.

I am not sure I have time to go into much more detail but I may write to Senator Quinn. People are complaining about the delay in the penalty points system but this is not because I want it held back or anything like that. There were certain difficulties and I could give the House a long explanation on this. There were constitutional aspects that had to be agreed. The Oireachtas and the Judiciary are two separate entities. Disqualifying a person from driving by automatically removing their driving licence on the accumulation of a certain number of penalty points without redress to the courts is a new departure and impinges on the area of the Judiciary. The Attorney General, wisely and correctly, took time to study this issue before the proposals which were put into the Bill emerged. We are quite satisfied that they will stand the test of constitutionality.

We know that of all the offences that people commit the ones most likely to be challenged time and again are those relating to driving disqualifications arising from drink driving. There is much evidence already to that effect and the evidential breath testing machine has been challenged in the courts. One challenge was successful and there are two more pending, with presumably more to come regarding the penalty points system when it is introduced. We must accept that there is a need to be very careful regarding the formulation of the legislation to ensure that it will be constitutionally solid.

Measures are currently under way to link together related databases such as the Garda information technology system, PULSE, the Department of the Environment and Local Government's national driver file which is located in Shannon and the local authority records of licences issued as well as those of the courts system. This will need to work efficiently and well in order for points to be awarded. It was a massive software task and work is proceeding on it with a significant chunk already completed.

In May 2001 tenders were sought by the Garda for the development and implementation of a national fixed charges processing system within the PULSE computer system and a general PULSE central records archiving system area. Tenders have been received and are being evaluated. It is expected that a contract will be awarded shortly and the system will be ready for testing by mid-2002, and operational by the end of 2002. The specification for the new system takes account of the national driver file requirement in regard to penalty points.

The successful tenderer will be required to analyse, design and build a system within PULSE which will provide a national capability for the data capture and processing of fixed charge offences. The main elements of the required solution includes data capture, offence processing, archiving, change management and implementation. The new Garda computer system, FOTS, is being introduced in the context of the Government's road safety strategy.

A criminal case tracking system which tracks criminal and road traffic cases heard in a District Court has been implemented in the Dublin, Swords, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick District Court offices. The national driver file will link in to the CCTS. A prerequisite to the implementation of the CCTS in all 42 District Court offices is the installation of local area networks in each office. In addition, it will be necessary to connect each office to the central CCTS database in Dublin through the installation of a wide area network throughout the country. Tenders have been received for the installation of both local and wide area networks linking all offices throughout the country and are being evaluated. Completion of the installation of local and wide area networks in all offices is anticipated by the end of 2002. Once the networks have been installed it will be possible to commence the roll-out of CCTS in each of the local offices and it is expected that such work will commence in June 2002. In regard to the implementation of the interface between the CCTS and the NDF it is the intention of the courts to develop the interface as an addition to the existing contract. It is a complex, massive job and it is important that it works.

I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this issue. No single measure in the national road safety strategy, whether penalty points, random breath testing or the dramatic television advertisements, which are also shown in cinemas to bring home the road safety message, is a panacea that will result in zero road deaths or accidents on the road. The culture and attitude of road users need to be changed. All of us need to exercise much greater care and courtesy, and compliance with road traffic legislation. If everybody acted in a reasonable, sensible fashion, the figures could be halved overnight. Unfortunately, there is always a percentage of the community who do not behave in such a fashion and these changes are aimed at these people to encourage and motivate them to be more careful.

Young people have a significant belief in their capacity and ability to drive vehicles at speed but they do not have the necessary experience, nor do they understand the capabilities of the cars they drive. They take enormous risks with their lives without even knowing it and that is a difficult problem to address. We are focusing on schools. A programme for primary schools was launched some time ago and recently a programme was produced by the National Safety Council. Many agencies are working in the road safety area but it is not an area one can grasp with one's hand.

It is not like any other issue because a bus with 40 passengers on board could leave the road tomorrow and crash into a river. That would increase the number of road deaths by 40 and the finger could be pointed at the Government that it is not achieving its target. I expect people to be sensible and reasonable. We set targets and they are a challenge to the community and the Government. We are prepared to accept criticism for foot-dragging. However, I have not been responsible for foot-dragging. There have been difficulties and complications along the way which may have made it appear there was a slowdown, but that is not the case.

Earlier I launched the Christmas anti-drink driving campaign. Motorists will experience the most vigorous enforcement of the drink driving legislation ever between now and the end of the year.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn:

I welcome the Minister of State's comment that there will be strict enforcement of drink driving legislation in the run-up to the festive season. There was a major tragedy on the roads earlier this week which left the families of two young people devastated and our sympathies go out to the respective families.

There is only a small percentage of people within the community who cause mayhem through drink driving and the majority of them are males aged between 17 and 34 years. The Minister of State addressed the problem of the combination of drugs and drink given that drug taking is becoming an increasing force with drink. I am delighted he identified this problem. In 2000, 1,600 blood samples were taken and tested for drugs and 37% proved positive. I am delighted further testing has continued this year and that sampling will be carried out on the types of drugs being taken because this is extremely important. The erratic driving that we sometimes witness on our roads is the result of a combination of alcohol and drugs being taken. It is important that future testing should allow for the identification of drugs as well as alcohol. I do not have a scientific background but there is a need to identify the drug element among various offenders.

Senators Quinn and Henry proposed the introduction of random testing. International figures demonstrate that such testing has proved to be helpful and positive in reducing the number of road accidents and fatalities as a result of drink driving. However, as the Minister of State and Senator Quinn said, a balance must be struck. People cannot be tested on a whim and there must be a reason. The provisions in place are highly commendable. If a garda thinks somebody has committed a crime or believes a person is under the influence of drink, he or she can breath test that person.

If random testing is introduced, the democratic rights of citizens must be protected so that they are not apprehended unnecessarily or stopped for frivolous reasons. I am delighted the Minister of State has not totally rejected random sampling and perhaps down the road his Department will consider it favourably. It is worth examining the information that exists on random sampling throughout the world and the type of legislation that would be required to enforce it. However, resources are also an issue. The Garda must be complimented on the action it has taken to prevent accidents through the taking of samples. The proportion of people testing positive in relation to the number sampled is high.

At the end of the day, however, everybody should have a sense of personal responsibility. There is a small percentage of people within the community who do not have a sense of individual responsibility and there is a number of reasons for this. Some parents have not instilled in their children that they should not drink and drive. There are not sufficient education for life courses in our schools and there is a need to convey the absolute necessity to take responsibility for one's actions, which is vitally important as there is increasing evidence of people behaving irresponsibly.

It is easy to criticise young people. I am most impressed by the responsible position that young people adopt in regard to drink driving. I come from a rural area and most young people must travel by car to discos and other entertainment venues. I am amazed at how responsible they are as they take it in turns to drive or they hire taxis to take them home. They deserve to be commended for the responsible way in which they behave. However, some people lose the run of themselves when they are out celebrating and partying and, unfortunately, tragic accidents occur. It is telling that many alcohol-related accidents involve only one vehicle.

One can continue to legislate but eventually people must take responsibility. Education is fundamental in all of this. The television advertisements are extremely helpful and the more shocking and horrifying they are to try to shock potential offenders into a sense of reality the better. Needless to say, I am sure it will cause major heartbreak for people who have lost relatives in horrific crashes but if it prevents others from being victims it is highly commendable.

We must equally address the issue of our roads structure which in many instances is substandard. CIE has just announced ending freight transport. This will be a disaster because more cars and lorries on the roads will cause more accidents. The Minister of State should discuss the issue with the Minister for Public Enterprise because it is unacceptable. Driving cars and using mobile phones simultaneously is becoming extremely common. The Minister must look at this aspect as a potential offence in the future. If there is not a hands-free set in the car one should not use a mobile phone. This is a serious distraction.

I welcome the general tone of the Minister of State's contribution tonight. The fact that he has not totally closed his mind to random sampling is welcome. I look forward to his coming back to this House with a further assessment on research carried out by his Department on the introduction of random sampling. I concur with him that if more drivers had a sense of care, courtesy and compliance there would be fewer accidents. I travel extensively and I am amazed there are not many more accidents given the near misses that occur. If one travels on a short journey one could have six near misses, which is extraordinary. When I travelled recently for approximately 60 miles with my 18 year old son who has a provisional licence we witnessed six near misses. He asked whether these people knew anything about the rules of the road. He suggested these drivers should either not have passed the test or they should be retested because of their incapacity to apply the rules of the road.

The current scenario in regard to carnage on the roads is extremely serious. The high incidence of alcohol-related incidents, amounting to more than 40%, is totally unacceptable. Any action required which would reduce this figure and save families from the heartbreak and hardship that has affected so many people down through the years must be examined with a view to implementation.

Mr. Walsh:

Cuirim leis an fháilte don Aire go dtí an Teach anocht agus molaim é as ucht na hiarrachta atá á dhéanamh aige chun an t-ábhar tábhachtach seo a fheabhsú.

I welcome the Minister of State who deserves to be complimented. Since coming to office the Government, particularly the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State have given priority to road safety. The Minister has championed many initiatives which have advanced the cause of road safety.

Whether in regard to politics, business or whatever, I always admire people who nail their colours to the mast by setting themselves targets and objectives. The first road safety strategy of the Government, setting a target of a 20% decrease in fatalities and serious injuries on the roads from 1997 to 2002, was commendable. Should the tar get be achieved, it would lead to approximately 172 lives per annum being saved by 2002. Significant progress was made from 1997 to 2000. There has been a reduction of 12% in fatalities and 25% in serious injuries. This is a significant improvement, particularly against the background of a huge increase in the volume of traffic on the roads during the same period. That fact magnifies the percentage of decreases for which great credit is due.

The three areas identified as the main contributors to accidents, that is, speeding, driving while under the influence of alcohol and the non-wearing of seat belts, have to a degree been tackled effectively. However, everyone will concede there is no acceptable level of accidents or deaths on the roads. We will not eradicate the problem but every effort must be made to maintain low levels comparable to the best practice achieved in other countries. This is being done with the assistance of many agencies. The NRA, through its road safety measures, has spent more than £14 million. The National Safety Council has been very much to the forefront in this regard. Its fairly graphic and hard-hitting advertisements have been effective and have been commented on.

The Minister has been pioneering in other areas such as breath testing. Despite current difficulties in the Supreme Court, I am confident the measure will withstand that test and go on to be a significant contributor to reducing alcohol-related accidents in the future. On the spot fines for the non-wearing of seat belts is commendable. He has taken on board the idea of introducing penalty points, which has been spoken about for decades. Once the legislation is formulated to comply with the Constitution, I have no doubt there will be a major improvement in driving behaviour and patterns generally.

Other measures which have been undertaken include the schools education programme and support for road safety from the business and voluntary sectors. As the Minister of State rightly pointed out, it is essential to obtain public support and compliance in this regard. That can be done in a number of ways. We must continuously concentrate on three areas if we are to achieve more acceptable levels of accidents. These include driver behaviour, enforcement and the roads network, which has not been commented on to date. On driver behaviour, the educational programmes are good. Perhaps we could institute more meaningful courses during civics classes, for instance, particularly at second level. I do not know if they should form part of the curriculum. One would be dealing with people, some of whom are beginning to drive, so it is the ideal stage to emphasise the need for good behaviour on the roads and compliance with road safety standards.

The Minister of State's information that compliance with the wearing of seat belts would result in a 40% reduction in fatalities and serious injury is alarming. That would be an extraordinary reduction and it defies logic that people will not wear seat belts in their own interests. I am aware that some people who suffer from a type of claustrophobia have difficulty in this regard. Some friends of mine will not wear seat belts. However, very few people are afflicted in this way. Most people do not wear seat belts through negligence or failing to recognise the hazards involved. On the spot fines will be a deterrent in that regard.

We mentioned alcohol alone but we must also examine the drugs issue. Drugs will increasingly become an issue in terms of enforcement and ensuring people drive safely. Evidence of that is already starting to emerge. It was timely to put down the motion on random breath testing. It may be a factor and evidential breath testing another.

What is really needed is higher visibility of enforcement. Someone on the radio today said that he could drive from Cork to Dublin without seeing one Garda car. In the US and some European countries, the police are highly visible. That is an effective deterrent and I ask that it be examined. Perhaps the role of the gardaí in this area could be transferred to traffic wardens or rangers, employed by the county councils, who would be resourced to do the job effectively on a county-by-county basis. The results could then be compared.

Speeding is such a major issue partly because people are caught in large volumes of traffic for long periods of time and take chances in speeding when they get moving. Investment in road infrastructure is essential. When one looks at comparable countries in Europe one sees good motorway and dual carriageway networks and the number of accidents and fatalities is significantly reduced as a result. It is an area that should be examined. The NRA is often viewed as being too short-term, taking too long to reach decisions. We should see if there is a more dynamic body to tackle that area.

I wish the Minister well in his initiatives and endeavours. He is on the right track and if he continues to put the same energy and commitment into it, we will see the reductions that have been targeted.

Mr. Norris:

I thought it illuminating that the Minister put the clear technical specifications and the results of this new breath testing machine on the record of this House. The fact that he is in a position to inform the Seanad is very useful. It is always good to have a Minister who is on top of his brief and can depart from the script and amplify it for the information of the House.

I hope to profit from his warning of the intensification of the drink driving measures. I will do my best not to be in my car, even with the comparatively low blood alcohol level that is involved. I agree with the Minister when he says that there is little point in reducing the upper limit further. It is the equivalent of one pint; one worries after a glass and a half of wine. I am not entirely convinced that it is simply drink that causes problems but people who are unwise with drink taken. The Minister did say that many of the people convicted of these offences have very high levels of blood alcohol, many of them twice the legal limit.

It seems possible that there is a correlation, not just between the amount of blood alcohol and the accident rate, but also the personality type. The kind of person who is gung-ho and likely to go out and get totally gargled is the kind of person who is likely to make bad driving judgments anyway. It is bad driving, complicated by other factors such as alcohol and speed. Speed on its own is not necessarily such a dangerous thing – it is a question of the capacity of people to drive.

Six weeks ago I was filming in the country and, while we were returning in a van, a four-wheel drive vehicle passed us out. The driving was so bizarre that I used the car's phone to call the gardaí in Maynooth and ask them to keep an eye out for it because I was convinced that the driver was about to kill himself or some other unfortunate road user. It worried me because he was travelling across the double white line, almost into the ditch, before swerving all the way back again. It seemed a situation almost bound to cause a tragedy.

There are certain factors to be examined, such as the time of night accidents happen, say, between the hours of ten o'clock in the evening and four o'clock in the morning. So many accidents happen at this time when people are returning from the pubs and often involve just one vehicle. These combinations suggest that the accidents may be drink related but I do not think it is the only element.

There are certain curious phenomena. I have tried to stop driving in the country, especially at night, partly because I am a lousy driver. In the old days, I could get away with it because there were far fewer drivers and other drivers were generally of a higher standard. I am sorry to say that the Irish people have sunk to my level, which makes it dangerous for me to be on the road.

There are certain geographical factors to consider. The worst driving is in County Louth. There is no doubt about it. I made anecdotal personal observations but I examined the figures and it seems to be fact. I suggest that we target our response towards those counties that have the highest levels of accidents. There should be education through schools, advertising, police control and monitoring of traffic. Anyone who has been in Louth will find driving hair-raising. Cars overtake on the brow of a hill with oncoming articulated vehicles. I do not know what kind of magic they think controls their lives.

Speed cameras are a good thing but I ask the Minister to encourage greater public co-operation. There are some idiotic examples of the positioning of speed cameras and people are continually complaining about them. For example, the speed camera on the dual carriageway near Belfield – which is almost a motorway – is positioned where the speed limit suddenly reduces to 40 miles per hour. The same applies on the approach to Kingsbridge station at Kilmainham. One comes off a motorway onto what appears to be still a motorway with no increased danger and the speed limit is suddenly 40 miles per hour. This is stupid and it ought to be stopped because it will antagonise people and make them lack respect for speed cameras in places where they ought to be. The proper and wise location of these cameras is crucial if one is to avoid setting people against the system as the Dublin traffic system has done.

If there is to be random breath testing there should be random intelligence testing for the people directing the traffic in Dublin. It is dreadful, and laughable in some respects, but it is also tragic as evidenced by the case of young Dr. Potterton who was killed on the quays. It is inevitable because the corporation is constricting the traffic by erecting steel fences that people get squashed against them. Drivers of articulated vehicles cannot see cyclists and tragedy struck again recently in this way. What is happening? One of the reasons there are so many accidents in Dublin is that the city authorities have decided to use the infrastructure of the city as a weapon against motorists in order to drive people out of the city. This too must change.

My colleague, Senator Quinn, has a genius for picking the items au courant. In today's issue of The Irish Times there is a piece by Jim Cusack which prefaces relevant figures with descriptions of some dreadful accidents. One of these happened in Wicklow in 1998 when five people, three children and two adults, were killed in a crash between a minibus and a lorry and this week there was the dreadful accident in County Louth. A young couple, who were due to emigrate to Australia the following day, had stopped and were indicating a turn when a lorry crashed into them and knocked the car into the path of another lorry coming in the opposite direction. I felt a frisson when I saw that.

Exactly the same thing happened to Nuala Ó Faoláin and me at Termonfeckin as we were driving to the North to make a television programme. The person in front stopped to turn right. As we drew up behind, I could hear the vehicle coming up behind us and it splattered right into us. Thank God the driver of the car in front, who was a monk, took his sandals off the brake and let us drive into him and he pushed forward with the impact. We could very easily have been killed.

In the wake of the tragic accident in Wicklow, a new strategy was introduced aimed at reducing fatalities by 20%, but up to yesterday afternoon, there were 20 road deaths in November. There has been one a day for this year. It will probably go over 400, unless the Minister's Christmas campaign has an effect.

Then there is the question of the penalty points system. It is in operation in Northern Ireland where it has been quite successful. It is incremental in that after a speeding offence the driver receives a fine and a three-point penalty for a first offence. After five points, the insurance is weighted. At 12 points the licence is revoked. There is also the issue of speed cameras and there is the question of introducing a system where fines will be issued without recourse to the courts. The Minister has indicated the constitutional crux there, but appeared to believe he would get over it, and I hope he will.

This is the way to go. The proof of the pudding is that this system has been successful elsewhere. In the Australian state of Victoria, which has a roughly comparable demography in population terms, these precise measures were introduced. There were 777 road deaths there in 1989 and that figure was reduced to 400, just about half. That is what we can do. I support the Minister in these moves, but I appeal for common sense and moderation. The gardaí need to put these cameras in appropriate places. The authorities in Dublin must cease to use the infrastructure of the city as a weapon against the citizens in their motoring cars.

Mr. J. Cregan:

I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on the personal hands-on way he has introduced many initiatives that have been a deterrent in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Drink driving is a serious contributory factor and a serious road safety problem. Although the substance of the motion refers to random breath testing, there are other factors that contribute to serious injury and loss of life on our roads.

Speeding has been mentioned and I believe it is the biggest killer on our roads. Although we have figures that indicate that drink driving is a substantial contributor, in many cases there is a combination of speed and drink driving. We have also heard reference to the bad driving habits of many people, causing problems on the roads, and the same is true of road rage, which has become common on our roads.

Up to a few months ago, anybody could walk into a local authority office and pick up a provisional licence. The only criteria were that the person had the required fee and was over 17 years of age. That certainly lead to accidents on the roads. It was very sensible to introduce theory testing before someone could start to drive on the roads. I welcome that very much and I believe it will be a huge help in ensuring that young drivers in particular have a decent level of knowledge after preparing for and passing the theory test.

I welcome the Road Traffic Bill, which will shortly be introduced in the other House. For many years, I have advocated the introduction of a penalty points system. The problem of enforcement has been mentioned this evening. It is quite common for someone to travel from Dublin to Cork without meeting a Garda car. Those who are caught and prosecuted are probably the unlucky ones. We all know that we can take chances on long journeys without getting caught.

I support Senator Walsh's proposal to divide the duties of the Garda Síochána. There is serious crime and there are road traffic offences. Many gardaí would be much better deployed tackling serious crime. It is necessary to make a serious attempt to enforce our traffic regulations and try to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. One way of doing that is to have either a police force or a particular section of the Garda Síochána that would deal specifically with road traffic offences. If I knew there would be a Garda presence on the road on which I was about to drive without knowing the exact location, I certainly would not take a chance.

Despite the article quoted by Senator Norris, 250,000 fines of £50 have issued this year alone. That is a deterrent in one sense, but in an affluent society people are quite prepared to pay the £50, sit in their cars and break the speed limit again. They know they would be unlucky to be caught a second time and may survive three, six or 12 months or may never be caught again. This must be addressed also.

Educating our younger people has been mentioned. I agree with Senator Taylor-Quinn who said our younger people are very responsible. On many occasions these young people tend to ensure that the person driving the car is drink free or that they get a taxi or some form of public transport. However, that is exceedingly difficult in rural parts of the country. In my constituency, there is no public transport, no taxi service and only a small number of hackney cars. It is difficult for people to go about their business, particularly at Christmas.

I welcome the Minister's statement that the present 80 milligram level will stay. Reducing that further would make no difference. We must have some level of tolerance for people who have to drive their cars in rural areas so that they can have a drink or a drink and a half and drive home on a county road at probably 40 or 50 miles per hour. Those people are not a threat to anybody on the road. It is time somebody spoke up for those people. I am certainly not advocating a different law for people in rural areas, but it is preferable to enforce the law we have rather than try to reduce the level further.

The penalty points system would benefit young drivers who are paying astronomical and immoral premiums for their insurance. After the penalty points system has been operational for a number of months, the insurance companies should start young drivers on a reasonable premium that they can afford to pay. If they then get penalty points, they should certainly have to pay the price for that. The penalty points system must be introduced as soon as possible and it will prove a much better deterrent than a £50 fine. None of us wants three or four points on our licences because people who get 12 points may lose their licences and probably their jobs. They will lose their cars and we all know the serious inconvenience that causes. It is difficult to change old habits and that is probably why young people are more responsible.

Some Senators mentioned an input to the school curriculum to ensure greater education for young people. If they start off on the right foot they will probably stick with it. They will be better drivers and will be more responsible on the roads, and that will help in reducing death and carnage.

The Government strategy has a very positive impact. The gains that have been made have been quoted by the Minister of State in his speech. The level of road deaths was reduced by 12.1% between 1997 and 2000 and that is to be welcomed. Serious injuries have decreased by almost 25% in the same period. That tells us we are getting it right. We certainly have to go further and the Road Traffic Bill, which will soon come before us, will help to reduce accidents on our roads.

For all intents and purposes, random testing already exists. A garda is entitled to stop any vehicle at random. There are times when the gardaí are suspicious and find it necessary to ask for a random breath test. While I welcome the fact that the Minister is here to listen to the ideas put forward, I am satisfied that the means necessary are already available, but we must ensure proper enforcement.

Ms O'Meara:

I thank the independent Senators for putting the motion before us. The high levels of carnage and mutilation arising from road accidents is an extremely important issue and one which, despite all our best efforts, does not go away. We have an extraordinarily high tolerance for bad driving, speeding, drink driving, bad roads and all the other things that lead to the unacceptably high level of deaths on our roads. Only last week I attended the funeral of a seven year old child killed on a Saturday afternoon on a stretch of road not known or considered to be dangerous. While it is not possible to say exactly what the cause of the accident was, it would appear to have been as a result of speeding, the use of a mobile telephone, or possibly both. That accident had nothing to do with drink, it had everything to do with negligence.

A colleague brought to my attention that the report of the National Crime Council shows that there has been a considerable drop in the number of charges of criminal negligence and manslaughter arising from road deaths. That appears to be part of our tolerance for the high levels of accidents and deaths on our roads. Why do we not charge those responsible for road deaths with manslaughter and criminal negligence? I would like to know why the figures have dropped considerably at a time when there has not been the same drop in the number of deaths or in the levels of negligence on the roads.

We all know what the problems are because we are all drivers. We see what the problems are, the risks people take and the speed at which people drive. We also see that people drive while under the influence of alcohol. I do not share Senator Cregan's view on the alcohol limit. I think the level should be decreased. I accept the issues he raises about rural areas – I also represent a rural area. Unless we accept that it is simply unacceptable to drink and drive we are only fooling ourselves. We are accepting that it is all right to go to a public house or visit someone's house, take alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car. Unless we take the view that it is simply unacceptable to do that in any sense, we will not move forward. If we tolerate to a small extent, we tolerate to a large extent.

Yet I believe that there have been improvements in that attitude. When I started to drive there seemed to be a view that one could be a better driver having taken a drink. I have heard that said. I have heard of people going to the pub at Christmas time, drinking a lot of alcohol and then driving to midnight Mass. At least we have moved to a time when that is simply not tolerated. I do not think we have yet arrived at a stage where there is a complete intolerance of drink driving.

Many people have referred to the need for education for young people and I agree with them. My son was in transition year the year before last and he and his class were expecting some driving lessons as part of the year, but that did not happen. That is not good enough. It must be part of the curriculum. Good driving habits, learned early, are extremely important. I agree with those who say that young people are, in general, very responsible and probably more responsible than their parents. From my son and his friends, I know they would not tolerate someone who had a drink attempting to drive a car. They nominate a person to drive who has not taken alcohol or drugs. However, young people have a sense of invincibility. We had it ourselves when we started to drive. We thought it could never happen to us, no one will ever run into us and we would not have an accident, and if we did, so what?

There are much more cars on the roads now and because of our economic prosperity, young people can now afford to buy bigger and faster cars than they did a generation ago. That in itself is an increasing problem. Senator Walsh referred to a radio programme he heard this morning. I heard the same programme as I was driving to Dublin – unfortunately I was not taking public transport this week. Pat Kenny, one of our national broadcasters, referred to this matter on more than one occasion. He believes that we should introduce a system whereby cars are not allowed to exceed the speed limit by means of a mechanical impediment. I have a lot of sympathy with that. Why should that not be introduced?

We have an extraordinarily high tolerance of carnage and injury on our roads. We attend funerals of people of all ages who are killed in accidents. We meet families whose lives have been devastated and ruined forever by accidents which should not have happened. Why are we continuing to allow that to happen? We need to take radical and extreme measures to stop that and we need to continue to change our culture particularly in relation to speed and drink driving.

Senators Walsh and Lanigan mentioned the National Roads Authority. There is a spot on the N7 on the Dublin side of Roscrea where the RTE broadcaster Uaneen Fitzsimons died a year ago. She died at a spot which had been brought to the attention of the NRA on several occasions by county councillors and the county council. Effectively, the answer of the NRA was that not enough people had died there. One person died. Is that enough to make the NRA act?

Mr. Costello:

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and commend Senator Quinn for tabling this motion. This matter is discussed often because there are so many deaths and tragedies on the roads. There is also outrage and people ask how many people are dying on the roads. They see it happening every day and nothing seems to change. The Minister has said that his plan has been in place since 1997 and it is coming to an end. I do not know if there are 12 months or one month left in this but there is very little to show. The anti-drink driving campaign released its findings on the "Six O'Clock News" and some of those findings were incredible. They expect one person to die every day on the roads between now and Christmas if the trends continue and 50% of deaths are drink related. The Minister of State's figure is 40% but theirs is 50%. There are also many deaths as a result of speeding and people not wearing seat belts.

Obviously alcohol is the key area when it comes to deaths on the roads. I welcome the measure proposed by the Minister of State in relation to random testing and analysis but what can be done? Nothing done so far seems to have made the slightest bit of difference. Is it because our roads are so bad? Is it because we have such a tolerance for drink? Is it because the people of Louth and other areas have some strange propensity for accidents on the roads? Nobody seems to know. The Minister of State's figures give no indication that there is a decrease. The gardaí have imposed more on the spot fines for speeding and conducted more analysis of drink driving. Certainly there is no awareness campaign that seems to have improved the attitudes of drivers. What has happened in the last five years? There is very little to show.

I know the Minister of State has worked on this and that everyone has the best intentions but has anyone ever looked at the possibility placing responsibility closer to home where this arises? If 50% of injuries and fatalities are due to drink driving, surely we should not be looking at the gardaí in terms of detection but also where the problem occurs. It is alcohol that causes drink driving, not drugs. I also notice the Minister of State said there is an increase in the amount of drugs showing up in urine and blood analysis samples but he has given us no idea whether this is cannabis, heroin or another drug. It is not meaningful just to say there are drugs involved. What sorts of drugs are people taking? Are they mixing drugs with alcohol? Is there a new element to this area?

We have made publicans responsible for serving minors in public houses. However, our planning authorities virtually insist when a new pub is being developed that there are adequate parking facilities. Why should pubs have huge car parks? Is it not inevitable that if there are car parks then people will drive into them and use them? If they use car parks they will drive out of them. Would that not be a place for random checking? Are car parks ever checked by the gardaí? Can any onus be put on a publican to take some responsibility for his or her customers, whether they have transport home or they intend to transport themselves? That should be looked at.

We have a limited number of pubs. There was talk of deregulation but while the population has expanded there has not been an increase in the number of public houses. This is where Irish people normally socialise, so people have to travel to go to pubs. Perhaps there should be more public houses. We should look at this issue in that context.

Regarding our roads, we still have a notoriously bad infrastructure which affects people's ability to commute, particularly during the hours of darkness. We have narrow roads which are poorly lighted. The increase in traffic makes an increase in accidents, injuries and fatalities inevitable. Any cutback in the infrastructure is not helpful in relation to the matter under discussion.

I do not know what the answer is. However, we go over the same ground every time we discuss this issue and none of our proposals so far has been effective. It might be no harm to shift the focus, not so much at the detection level – we do not seem to have made much progress with awareness as tolerance seems to be growing all the time – but to where most of the problems come from, the public houses. We should look at how we can ringfence how pubs operate and who comes out of them as well as the condition in which they leave and the circumstances in which they depart. We should look at how that can be monitored as it would go a huge distance towards reducing the problem. If we refocused the attention of the legislation to give some responsibility to publicans and to get the gardaí to redirect where they get the random sampling, then we would be far more effective in doing something useful for the future which has not been tried so far.

Ms Cox:

Before I start, the Minister of State, who is also responsible for housing, was kind enough to announce £254 million for social housing in Galway today. He has had a tremendous impact on this area, though I know that is completely irrelevant to the motion.

It is important to note that road safety is about responsibility. It is the drivers' responsibility when it comes to how they behave and drive and the influence under which they drive. If that involves drink or drugs it is the responsibility of the individual first to acknowledge that all the Governments and gardaí are not going to stop the kind of accidents we are seeing, as people are getting into cars without taking responsibility for their own actions.

The advertising campaign has been mentioned by almost every speaker. It has gone a long way towards identifying responsibility, whether that is the responsibility to wear a safety belt, not to drink and drive or not to speed. Those messages have come across clearly but we need to do more. We must recognise that the strength and direct nature of those campaigns have worked. The other evening I turned off the television because I find the advertisement with the car rolling over and killing the little boy too disturbing but those advertisements are particularly useful.

Some of my ideas have come from a series of discussions with various agencies involved in this area. It is important to continue the inter-agency approach, which has been one of the fundamental aspects of the Government's campaign. It has involved the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Environment and Local Government and Education and Science. The only way to work on safety on the roads is to apply the minds of all the agencies involved. The synergy created by that will allow us to continue to address this problem. It is important from the point of view of the environment and design.

Much money is being put into the design of roads but I am not sure the Garda is involved in that process. Safety should be incorporated into the design of roads and I am not sure all the danger points have been eliminated on all the new roads. I favour more involvement by the Garda at design level. The Garda would welcome this role and I am sure the NRA would have no difficulty with it in relation to major roads.

The general speed limit of 60 mph on many of our small roads is too high. County roads, such as those in Connemara or County Mayo, can be winding, narrow and dangerous and a 60 mph speed limit on them is too high. Lower speed limits on these roads should be introduced and enforced.

More research should be carried out on driving habits – such as why people drive under the influence of drink, why they do not wear their safety belts or why they drive in an aggressive and negligent manner – and how they can be changed. The answer appears to be better education and better enforcement of the law. Perhaps we can continue the work with regard to education and I ask the Minister to expand the pilot project in schools in Dublin where young people learned how to drive properly at an early age.

Other speakers mentioned the need for more dedicated resources in terms of people whose only job is to enforce road traffic laws. If more money was spent on that aspect, lives would be saved and the State would face lower costs in terms of accident and emergency, health and con tinuing rehabilitation services. Savings made in that regard would meet the additional costs associated with dedicating resources in this area.

I drive a Volvo car and if I turn on the engine without putting on my safety belt, a beep will continue until I put on the belt. Perhaps this device could be fitted in all cars. Perhaps the Government could introduce legislation that would require all cars to have a noise deterrent to the non-wearing of safety belts. This would ensure everybody wears safety belts and I am sure something could be done about this idea.

A pub breathalyser campaign should also be considered. If a person was drinking in a pub and thought he or she was capable of driving, he or she could be tested on a breathalyser in the pub in the same way as a person might check his or her weight on a scales or check his or her blood pressure in certain shops. A pub breathalyser might surprise many people because, as Senator O'Meara said, some people still believe they are better drivers when they are drunk compared to when they are sober. This fallacy needs to be highlighted.

A huge number of people drive under the influence of drugs. As drugs such as Ecstasy and hash become more prevalent in social scenes around the country, there is a danger that people will do crazy things in cars, for example, race down roads with 30 mph speed limits at 100 mph and cause accidents. Occasionally, such incidents are related to drugs rather than drink and I am not certain that the current tests address that problem.

There is a need to continue the inter-agency approach. More research into this area is required because more than one solution is needed. While random breath testing may be part of the solution, it is not the only answer. A huge amount has been done with regard to road safety but we all acknowledge it is not enough. Every death on our roads is one too many. I hope the downward trend in road deaths will continue and that the NRA signs, which state how many deaths occurred on particular stretches of roads in previous years, will continue to show declining figures.

Mr. Quinn:

I read an article recently that referred to a fortune teller who gave discounts to smokers. When asked why she was giving this discount, she said smokers do not have as much future as others. This fortune teller could also give discounts to people who drink and drive and those who speed. She could also give a discount to people who do not wear seat belts.

The National Safety Council referred to a number of problem areas – the Minister of State mentioned a number of them – including speed. I tabled the motion not only to discuss random breath testing but to highlight the horror in this area. Senator O'Meara mentioned attending the funeral of a seven year old child. We have all attended funerals of people who have been killed and we have seen the effect on their families. Every time it happens we say we must do something about it, but not enough is being done.

The Minister of State's heart is in the right place but I did not get a sense that the determination I wanted to see was present. I am a little worried that some of the words used by the Minister of State conveyed a sense of complacency. That may be unfair to him and I know it was not his intention, but he referred, for example, to the efficient use of resources. I am frightened by that term. Accountants and the mandarins in Merrion Street talk about the efficient use of resources. However, I want the Minister of State to show the same determination he displayed last year with regard to taxis. He should grab hold of this issue and say that something actually will be done about it, such as changing the attitude of the Government and the nation to this issue immediately.

The Minister of State will introduce the Road Traffic Bill providing for penalty points next week, but he told the House earlier that it will be the end of 2002 before it comes into operation. Legislation that was due to be introduced tomorrow will not be taken for another week and it likely, therefore, that the penalty points system will not be in operation until 2003. I understand the Minister of State's heart is in the right place but I want more. He should show a single minded determination to focus on this area and to achieve progress in it.

Regarding speed, on the Continent the speed limit applicable to learner drivers is displayed on the back of vehicles in the same way as the limit for trucks is displayed on the back of those vehicles. This provision is not included in the Road Traffic Bill. I tabled the motion because of the need to do something about drink driving and I will refer to this aspect later. However, figures show that only 47% of male motorists wear seat belts. Something must be done about this problem. The Minister of State introduced a theory test in relation to the problem of the number of people driving with provisional licences. However, people are allowed to continue driving year after year with such licences. The Minister of State referred to what happens if a person fails the test twice, but my view is that if one fails twice, one should not be allowed near a car. Too many people are driving with provisional licences. I understand the Minister of State is doing something about the use of mobile telephones. I want him to grab hold of this issue and to do something about it.

The National Safety Council referred to the problem of fatigue. The figures show this is a huge area of concern and something must be done about it. According to the National Safety Council's chairman, Mr. Eddie Shaw, the Garda's enforcement capability is being hindered by a lack of resources – that phrase again – and limitations in the current legislation:

Solving the problem of drink-driving requires enforcement in large volumes. We need to see over 500 detections per day, compared to the 28 being made at present.

I hope the fact that 28 detections are being made each day, rather than the desired 500, cannot be attributed to resources. If it can, it is a problem the Minister can do something about.

I wish to touch on some of the matters Senators raised tonight. Senator Cox spoke of the use of breathalysers in pubs. Such equipment is available, although it is not being used. I have seen breathalysers on sale in supermarkets and pubs. Others, including Senator Costello, spoke of testing in pub car parks, which is precisely what I hoped would be allowed for in legislation. We cannot test in car parks. It is not regarded as an infringement of personal liberty for a garda to stop us on the road to ask if our cars are insured, if we have driving licences or if we have paid motor taxation, but it is regarded as an infringement if we are interrupted while driving by a garda who asks if we are sober and who wishes to test us. I do not think it is an infringement of personal liberty to be tested with a breathalyser. It is something we should be well able to handle.

A number of Senators spoke of the need to educate young people. While I am not sure of the details, I believe a former racing driver, Rosemary Smith, has established a scheme in County Meath to teach transition year pupils to drive. Senators Cox and O'Meara spoke of the abilities of young people and the need to educate them. There are many opportunities to instruct young people. The major thing we need to do is to change the commitment of the Government. The Minister needs to show a determination to do something about this. I would like road safety to become an election issue as it would force the Government to show a greater interest. I congratulate the Minister on the steps he has taken but I am disappointed that he has not gone nearly far enough. We must ensure that he is determined.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach:

When it proposed to sit again?

Mr. O'Brien:

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Nov 2001