Road Traffic Bill 2006: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen)

It is highly appropriate that this new and important road traffic legislation should be presented for its initial debate in this House. Senators have shown a particular interest and concern about road safety issues generally and many of the questions raised by Senators in this House are reflected in provisions promoted in the legislation being introduced today. This Bill is the sixth major legislative initiative taken in the area of road traffic in the past six years. That legislative progression has seen the introduction of penalty points, a new system for the independent licensing of taxis, hackneys and limousines, a new structure of speed limits based on metric values and, most recently, the establishment of the Road Safety Authority.

The progression of road traffic legislation reflects a response to the changing environment in which we use our roads. The scope and level of investment in the modernisation of our road network in the past ten years, allied to programmes for the improvement in the design, construction and performance of vehicles, has given rise to an ongoing need for appropriate legislative response. However, the most significant driver of the process of legislative modernisation has been the need to augment and enhance existing road safety provisions.

The debate on road safety has become a central element of our national consciousness. There is understandable and significant disquiet at the level of death and injury inflicted by road collisions. A deeply moving and thought provoking series of articles currently running in The Irish Times presents in graphic detail the grim reality of the human consequences of collisions.

The promotion of legislation to support road safety initiatives represents an important response by Government and the Oireachtas to the need for the ongoing advancement of improved safety performance. Consistent and effective enforcement of the traffic laws promulgated in such legislation, the promotion of road user education and awareness and programmes to promote the formation of drivers provide the bedrock for the application of the measures that stem from legislative initiatives and ensure the effectiveness and relevance of such initiatives.

In Ireland as in many other states, the force that binds the various road safety measures and programmes into a cohesive policy framework can be found in the road safety strategies. Adopted eight years ago, the strategies have provided the basis for the development of a range of legislative and other responses promoted over that period and it is the current strategy that again forms the policy framework from which the major initiatives proposed in the Bill being debated today can be traced.

The number of people being killed and injured on our roads is at an unacceptably high level. I will not hide my personal concern in relation to the trends in road deaths that have become established over the past two years. The House will, however, recall a chilling prediction that was stated at the very outset of the first road safety strategy. That strategy asserted that if the Government had not determined that a strategy to provide for the co-ordination of actions across a range of disciplines was to be pursued, road deaths would have reached 550 in 2002. A continuation of what was termed in that strategy as a "business as usual" approach would have seen road deaths at levels of over 600 per annum by now. While we cannot be content with the trends in road collisions, it must be recalled that our road safety record is now significantly more advanced than would have been the case if the Government had not adopted a strategic approach.

Through the adoption of road safety strategies we have seen the identification of a series of significant and, in many instances, linked measures that have advanced the safety message for all road users. One of the great advantages of adopting strategies is that they place our plans in the public domain, thus allowing for informed debate that in turn provides a benchmark of public, media and political opinion for the delivery of the measures that have been identified.

That process of public and political scrutiny of the first road safety strategy gave rise to the identification of many of the policy options identified in the second strategy, which is now in its final year. There was a significant acknowledgement in that strategy that delivery on the extensive range of initiatives would require the full duration of the strategy, until the end of 2006. A planning horizon of just three years for a strategy is relatively short when compared with, for example, the EU road safety strategy, which is based on a ten-year timeframe. The current national strategy was envisaged as a mechanism through which very significant measures would be put into place.

In the area of legislation as promoted in the current strategy, we have already seen the implementation of the new system of speed limits based on metric values, the extensive roll-out of the penalty points system and the allied system of fixed charges, the administration of which is being outsourced to relieve the Garda of administrative functions. The Garda national traffic corps and the Road Safety Authority have become realities and the contribution of both of these organisations will have a profoundly positive effect on road safety in the future.

The primary focus of the Bill is to realise the delivery of the remaining major legislative initiatives identified in the strategy. In very general terms, the Bill sees the following: the adoption of a system of mandatory roadside breath testing for drink driving; the introduction of an administrative alternative to a court hearing for certain drink driving offences; the introduction of a new legislative basis for a prohibition on the use of mobile phones; the engagement of private sector interests in the provision and operation of safety equipment; and promotes a range of initiatives relating to driver formation. All of these issues stem directly from commitments given in the strategy. Experience over the years suggested that other legislative initiatives were needed to address, in particular, the need to further advance the range and effectiveness of deterrents against the commission of traffic offences and this is also addressed in the Bill.

The first road safety strategy did not include a commitment to introduce random breath testing. However, the road safety high level group, which was tasked with the preparation and delivery of both strategies, presented the adoption of random breath testing as a recommendation in the second strategy. Section 4 of the Bill responds to that recommendation. The section promotes the concept of mandatory alcohol testing and has been devised following lengthy consideration of this issue, which included a very significant engagement with the Office of the Attorney General supported by independent legal advice.

The aim of that consideration was to see the introduction of a system through which motorists could be made subject to a requirement to submit to a preliminary breath test without there being any prior suspicion that alcohol had been consumed or that the behaviour of the motorist warranted that a test be administered. The determination of the legislative provisions necessary to support the proposed scheme has been an extensive process, in order to strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the service of the common good by the adoption of a measure that will enhance road safety.

The section provides that the establishment of checkpoints for mandatory alcohol tests can only be pursued on the specific written authorisation of an officer of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. That authorisation must be in writing and must clearly establish the place, date and times of day when the checkpoint may be operated. It is envisaged that the Garda Commissioner will establish guidelines to assist and inform all members of the force in the carrying out of their roles in relation to the operation of mandatory alcohol tests. I wish to assure the House that this initiative is an additional measure to the range of existing provisions that apply in respect of the operation of preliminary roadside breath testing for alcohol.

The advancement of mandatory roadside testing for alcohol will provide, for the first time, a means for the detection of drink driving offences that are based exclusively on the level of alcohol consumption as opposed to a motorist's behaviour. If motorists choose to continue to drink and drive, the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing will inevitably result in further increases in the levels of detection. In recognition of this, the Bill promotes an alternative option to a court hearing for those charged with the commission of certain drink driving offences.

Section 5 provides for the introduction of a new system of fixed charges for certain drink driving offences, the payment of which will lead to the imposition of a fixed period of disqualification. The section provides that where a motorist has been detected with a level of not more than 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, or the equivalent levels in urine or breath, he or she will be offered the opportunity to pay a fixed charge of €300 and accept a driving disqualification of six months. Payment of the charge will be voluntary but if the charge is not paid, court proceedings will be instigated. The consequences of a conviction in court will be significantly more onerous as a result of other initiatives being promoted in this Bill, to which I will refer later.

The offer of paying a fixed charge will only be made available to those who have not been convicted of a drink driving offence in the previous five years and the offer will only be made once to any motorist in any period of five years.

The advent of the new system for administrative disqualification for certain drink driving offences places into the spotlight the range of mandatory disqualifications currently applied under the Road Traffic Acts. The immediate consequence of the decision to apply an administrative disqualification of six months to a specific group of drink driving offences means that the periods for minimum disqualifications that apply following convictions for drink driving offences generally required review. The result of that review is set out in section 6 of the Bill.

The process of that review established that there was a need to look critically at the overall range of minimum disqualifications currently applied in respect of the more serious offences created under the Road Traffic Acts. The disqualifications in question are known as consequential disqualifications as they are applied as a consequence of a conviction for an offence. The range of offences to which this system applies was last set out in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That Act, with an amendment promoted through the Road Traffic Act 1995 in respect of certain drink driving offences, also establishes the minimum periods for such disqualifications.

Given the much higher profile that applies to road safety now and accepting the fact that there is a broad consensus on the need for more consistent deterrents that reflect the seriousness with which society views the more serious breaches of traffic law, it is timely that the system for consequential disqualifications should be reviewed at this stage. Accordingly, section 6 provides that the minimum period of disqualification for the most serious offences, which include dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and the most serious drink driving offences, will be increased from two years to four years in respect of a first offence and from four to six years for a second or subsequent offence. The new offence of striking a railway or other bridge, which gives rise to death or serious injury, has been added to the list of the offences to which that range of minimum disqualification will apply.

The minimum period of disqualification following a conviction for a drink driving offence will now be one year. That same period of disqualification will also be applied to the general range of offences that attract consequential disqualifications. The offence of driving when disqualified has been added to that group of offences and in a final change to this system, the offence of dangerous driving, where it is tried summarily, will now always attract a disqualification of at least one year.

The review of the system of consequential disqualifications has also prompted an examination of the system whereby persons who have been disqualified from driving may apply to the courts to have their licences returned. The current provisions relating to such applications are cumbersome and lack clarity. In addition, while the principle that underpins this system has merit, its application to all disqualifications raises questions in respect of the degree to which the deterrent value of disqualifications is being compromised. With that in mind, section 7 of the Bill promotes a new system through which applications may be made to the courts for the restoration of a licence. In particular the facility will only be applied in respect of first-time disqualifications of not less than two years. The determination of "first time" is applied in the context of a ten-year threshold from a previous disqualification. In future, the application for the restoration of a licence may only be made following the completion of half of the period of the disqualification, and a successful application will only result in a reduction of one third in the overall period at the very maximum. That is an important point for Senators. One can only apply after six months and can get only one third of one's sentence remitted, unlike the current situation.

These new provisions will mean that where a person is disqualified for any period of not more than two years, the full period of disqualification will apply, and where a person is the subject of repeat disqualifications, he or she will not be able to avail of the facility to apply for the restoration of the licence.

Section 3 of the Bill provides a specific response to the question of the establishment of a dedicated offence relating to the use of mobile phones while driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle. The section applies a specific ban on the holding of a mobile phone by a person driving a motor vehicle. It also establishes that the Minister may regulate other uses of mobile phones or other communications devices by occupants of vehicles. This latter provision recognises that legislation needs to retain a flexibility so that it can respond to developments in the rapidly changing area of mass communications. In addition to a maximum fine of €2,000, the commission of this offence will attract the endorsement of four penalty points on conviction. Following the completion of the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas, I intend to make regulations that will apply a fixed charge in respect of this offence, on the payment of which two penalty points will be applied.

The Road Safety Strategy 2004-06 promoted the introduction of a legislative basis for a form of random roadside breath testing and for an offence relating to the use of mobile phones by drivers. In addition, the strategy recommended that private sector interests should be engaged in the provision and operation of equipment used for the detection of speeding offences. Section 17 of the Bill delivers on this commitment. The section addresses the specific parameters necessary to facilitate the engagement of a private sector operator. However, I remind the House that the Government is fully committed to the establishment of very strict criteria that will be applied in respect of the determination of the locations and operational parameters for the engagement of the private sector in this area and that this project will be under the control of the Garda at both strategic and operational levels.

The promotion of this legislation has suggested to me that a further review of the range of financial penalties that apply to road traffic offences is warranted. The levels of maximum financial penalties was last reviewed through the Road Traffic Act 2002, though significant increases in the levels of fines have since been promulgated in other legislation. In view of the importance of road safety generally and the need to provide the maximum level of deterrent possible, it is appropriate to look again at the general level of financial penalties that may be applied to traffic offences. Section 18 of the Bill sets out the result of that review and provides in particular that the lowest level of maximum fine to be applicable to a road traffic offence will now be €1,000. This is an increase of 25% over the comparable level set in 2002.

I now turn to the driver licensing provisions of the Bill. The provision to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is that contained in section 10. This section re-enacts existing provisions in section 42 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act which provides for the making of regulations governing the driver licensing system. The revised section, together with section 11, provides for the introduction of a learner permit to replace the provisional licence. In addition, it provides that regulations may require learner drivers to undergo a course of instruction, regulate the content of such courses of instruction and regulate the charges that driving instructors may charge for such courses. This provision will facilitate the introduction of compulsory initial practical training of motorcyclists before they are allowed on public roads. Those who use motorcycles have been urging this for some time and I know they are delighted this provision has been included in the Bill.

There is also a provision which enables a period to be specified, following the granting of a learner permit, during which a learner driver may not apply for a driving test. This is intended to ensure there will be a minimum period during which a learner driver has to undergo instruction before being allowed to apply for a test. These provisions will facilitate the introduction of reforms to the licensing system to reduce long-term reliance on provisional licences as provided for in the Government's road safety strategy. Such reform is dependent on the current driver testing backlog being eliminated and I look forward to the driving testers accepting the proposals to deal with the backlog which were put forward by Kieran Mulvey, CEO of the Labour Relations Commission, last week and which endorsed the plan I put forward. I have accepted his recommendations.

There is provision in section 12 that where people allow their driving licences to lapse for less than a period of 12 months, they will only be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,000, while if the licence has expired for a period of more than 12 months they will be liable to a more severe penalty of a fine not exceeding €2,000 and one penalty point on payment of a fixed charge or three penalty points on conviction. In addition, a person who is caught driving while disqualified will be subject to a mandatory disqualification for a year as provided for in section 6. This issue has been raised by many colleagues in both Houses and involves people abusing the law by taking a chance and driving when disqualified. Accordingly, the Bill introduces an extra offence whereby a further mandatory year of disqualification will be applied to anyone who takes a vehicle out on the road while disqualified. In addition to addressing major policy issues, the Bill provides for several necessary initiatives that will help to bring clarity to a number of areas, with particular attention being paid to deterrents. Section 2 will allow for the use of regulations under the Road Traffic Acts to be used for the purpose of transposing EU legislative initiatives into Irish law. This provision is necessary following the determination by the Supreme Court in the Brown and Kennedy judgments.

Sections 14 and 15 provide for the introduction of several changes to the fixed charge system, which include the capacity of applying the system to the offences recently created under the European Communities regulations. These relate to the use of seatbelts and child restraint systems and which replaced similar regulations made under the Road Traffic Acts. Section 16 introduces changes to the penalty points system targeted at the application of that system to the new seatbelt and child restraint offences. It also sees the application of the system to offences relating to the use of mobile telephones and offences relating to bridge strikes.

Section 19 provides for the extension of the powers available to the Garda to detain uninsured vehicles being extended to vehicles that are registered in states other than Ireland. Currently only vehicles registered in Ireland can be impounded by the Garda. Given the welcome involvement of many foreign nationals in our expanding economy, the law must be equal for all operating vehicles. The position will be that if any vehicle on the road breaks the law, it can be impounded by the Garda.

Section 20 provides for the restatement of section 115 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to provide that the offence relating to the making of false declarations will be extended to reflect the various changes made to road traffic laws over the past 45 years on licences, permits and certificates.

Section 21 makes minor changes to the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 to facilitate the development of a superannuation scheme by the Commission for Taxi Regulation. It also clarifies certain provisions in section 36 of the Act which refers to mandatory disqualification for holding or applying for a licence by a person who has committed one of a range of serious offences.

The Bill is one element of the programme for the advancement of road safety that will deliver the gains that society requires, whether in the short, medium or long term. Over the past two years major institutional changes have taken place that will support that requirement. In particular, the establishment of the dedicated Garda traffic corps and the allocation to that force of an additional 60 officers per quarter presents a significant level of delivery on the Government's commitment to meet the immediate challenges presented by those who continue to commit traffic offences. The recent passage of the legislation to provide for the establishment of the Road Safety Authority is testament of the need for a radical approach to the development of future road safety policy. That approach is also supported by the separate establishment of a special Cabinet sub-committee at which relevant Ministers are afforded the opportunity to address issues of immediate importance in a collective and systematic way.

The Bill, when taken with the institutional changes referred to, marks a significant watershed in the deployment of road safety policy. Senators will appreciate there is a particular urgency which the Government wishes to see applied to the passage of the Bill. In particular, it will allow for the early deployment of mandatory alcohol testing and the commencement of the process for the engagement of private interests in the operation of the speed camera programme. Senators will make worthwhile suggestions for initiatives in the area of road safety that do not fall within the parameters for the Bill. Such suggestions will be considered carefully and it is my intention to return to the House with a further road traffic Bill before the end of the year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Coghlan

While all legislation that comes before the Oireachtas is important, this Bill is critically so. It offers the potential of savings hundreds, even thousands, of lives if it is properly implemented. I am disappointed at the unacceptable delay in producing the Bill given that the proposals contained in the legislation were first mooted ten years ago.

The Government's record on road safety is appalling. At a time when most European countries are significantly improving their road safety measures and succeeding in reducing the level of death and fatalities on their roads, in Ireland our level of road deaths is getting worse. In 2005, 399 people were killed on our roads. In 2002 the figure was 376. With 178 people already killed on our roads, 12 more than at this point last year, this year's figure will be even worse.

The picture is one of a worsening situation of carnage on our roads. Only last month, an EU survey placed Ireland's level of enforcement of road safety measures low on the scale of European states. In particular, it highlighted our problem in dealing with drink driving and speeding. This survey once again identifies that we are regressing on road safety.

The Government will lay the blame for this level of death and injury at the door of personal responsibility. While individuals have a significant role in ensuring they drive carefully and responsibly and obey the Rules of the Road, State structures are also vital in improving road safety. The Government must hang its head in shame. It is not new to the fact Ireland has a bad road safety record. In its nine years in office, it could have taken decisive action to reduce fatalities. Instead, this jaded Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government has produced two glossy road safety strategies but failed to implement the key recommendations contained in them.

The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, owes the House and the wider public a full explanation as to why it has taken so long for key life-saving measures such as the roll-out of speed cameras, random breath testing, stiffer drink driving penalties and the ban on mobile telephones to finally make their way into legislation. The Government has been in office for almost ten years. In that time these measures could easily have been debated and enacted by the Oireachtas. Instead, we got stalemate, inaction, U-turns and procrastination. While the public waited for action from the Government, hundreds died in the interim on our roads and thousands more have been injured.

Not once, but twice has the Government failed to reach the targets set in its own road safety strategy. From 1998 to 2004 and from 2004 to now, the Government has failed to reach the target of reducing road deaths by 25%. Instead, the numbers killed on our roads have continued to soar and hundreds of lives which could have been saved if the Government had acted sooner, were lost.

Since the initial effects of the introduction of penalty points began to wear off in early 2004, an additional 1,200 people have lost their lives on our roads. Mr. Eddie Shaw, the former chief executive officer of the National Safety Council, persistently told the Government that if it fully implemented its road safety strategy, the numbers killed on our roads each year could be reduced by as much as 200 per annum. This would have halved the current level of carnage. The Government cannot be proud of its record of inaction and paralysis. Neither does the response of the Government offer any comfort to the families, friends and communities of those who have been killed or seriously injured. The legislation is too little too late for them.

Despite their delayed appearance, I welcome the key proposals contained in the legislation, particularly those dealing with random breath testing, the national roll-out of speed cameras, the ban on driving with a hand held mobile telephone and the proposed reform of the driving test. The devil, however, is in the detail. The Bill's detail does not inspire great confidence that it will dramatically change our appalling road safety record or reduce the carnage on our roads. I say this because, first, it is a fact that enforcement of both existing road traffic legislation and today's proposals will be critical to its success and, second, that many of the proposals in this legislation are merely enabling provisions which must be implemented at a future date. They do not suggest rapid and dramatic change to our current road safety enforcement nor are they intended to do so.

In terms of enforcement, the figures extracted from numerous parliamentary questions have suggested that the level of enforcement by the Garda in areas such as speed checks, roadside inspections, convictions for drink driving, etc., has remained low. In effect, if current road traffic legislation is not properly enforced and is not having an impact, it is difficult to see how placing additional burdens on the Garda will create change. With all road traffic legislation, a visible presence of gardaí implementing such legislation on our roads is the only way progress can be made. It is difficult to see whether the Garda has the manpower and resources to do this.

I am disappointed that much of this legislation does little more than enable either the current Minister for Transport or some future Minister to enact provisions to reform aspects of our road safety regime such as the driver licensing system. That system will not be reformed until the current mess with regard to the massive backlog of drivers waiting over a year to get a driving test and the dependence of thousands of other drivers on a provisional licence is resolved.

The problem with the current approach is that because of the Government's dithering on this issue it could be many years before the problem with the backlog is anywhere near being resolved. In the meantime we will continue to allow inexperienced drivers to drive on our roads. It is outrageous that learner drivers who fail their test are allowed to drive away regardless. The legislation will do nothing to resolve this problem. It remains at the whim of the Minister for Transport to enact regulations to change our driving test system.

The Minister has introduced legislation which promises much but delivers little. We had a similar situation with the recent road safety authority legislation where the Minister followed a similar pattern of introducing legislation which lacks teeth and which merely promises to introduce further reforms at some unknown point in the future. The authority is now a shell organisation subject to the whim of the Minister for Transport. This has the danger of leaving the authority subject to the Minister's decision as to whether to prioritise a particular function for the authority. Its functions should have been clearly laid out from day one. I would have no problem if the Minister wished to add to or expand its functions. The new authority currently exists in a powerless vacuum in terms of functions and duties.

Something similar is happening with the legislation before the House. It promises much but changes little, with much resting on the power of the Minister to bring forward the necessary regulations. Given the Government's track record of failing to bring forward critical road safety measures in the past nine or more years, it is extremely difficult to believe the Minister will now prioritise this matter, but I hope it will be otherwise.

I welcome the decision to implement stricter penalties for existing road traffic penalties in areas such as fixed charges and disqualification for certain drink driving offences, an increase in financial penalties, disqualification periods and so on. However, I must return to the point I made earlier, that all of these measures can only be successful if Garda presence on our roads is high and remains constant, not just for special periods such as bank holiday weekends. If enforcement is not sustained the public will lose confidence and the impact of this and existing road traffic legislation will wear off, just as was the case with the penalty points system.

I welcome the broad outline of the legislation. Amendments to it are required and these will be teased out on Committee Stage. In this regard, I am particularly concerned by the lack of teeth to effect change contained in the Bill's proposals and the danger that it could fail to make an impact. I regret that it has taken so long for these proposals to come before the Oireachtas and I urge the Minister to now assure this House and the public that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. The Minister and his Cabinet colleagues must now prioritise road safety. If they do not, more lives will be needlessly lost and damaged on our roads.

Mr. Dooley

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. It is the second road safety Bill we have discussed in the House recently, the other being the Road Safety Authority Bill. Despite what Senator Coghlan and others may say, this Bill clearly shows the commitment of the Government to dealing with the scourge of road deaths. Dealing with road accidents cannot be seen purely as the remit of the Government. It is up to all of us to address this scourge as quickly as possible. The Bill outlines the statutory background to a range of specific measures set out in the Road Safety Strategy 2004-06 and it is very welcome.

The best experts have been available to us in terms of trying to divine strategies that will lead to a reduction in road deaths. Some Members of the Opposition and other commentators have tried to corral the Government into making quick decisions in regard to the enactment of legislation. However, if we have learned one thing from the past week it is that rushed legislation never provides the best framework for a comprehensive approach to dealing with any matter, including road deaths. That is why I believe the background work that has been carried out and the comparisons with other jurisdictions in terms of how they have handled this problem will provide a meaningful and comprehensive set of measures that will address the problem of road deaths.

It is the remit of the Government to enact legislation to set out proper guidelines for behaviour on the roads but it us up to all road users to play their part. All citizens have a responsibility to look upon road travel as a privilege rather than a right. In this way they will be obliged to utilise the road in a way that is safe not just for themselves but for others. The legislation is of the utmost importance. It has been claimed that it has taken a year to get to this stage which is due to the reasons outlined. One must put in place a comprehensive package of measures.

In my time in the House the issue of road safety has been the one topic that has been discussed more than any other. There is a good reason we have debated this matter so often. This is a critical national issue which is being discussed in every parish and community. The matter is of concern to everybody because we all either know or are related to somebody who has been involved in a serious accident in recent years. From the outset the Minister has shown a willingness and desire to tackle the scourge of road deaths. He has outlined his approach to the House on many occasions.

Much of the publicity tends to focus on road deaths but the serious injuries that occur in road accidents are also a major cause of concern. Many people have been maimed for life as a result of road accidents and some are confined to wheelchairs in hospitals or other institutions. Their lives are completely destroyed. It may appear callous but while it is devastating for a family, at least death brings closure, but for those who are maimed in a most appalling way their families continue to suffer on a daily basis.

It is critically important that we adopt a united approach to putting in place a culture that does not accept the current level of death and destruction on the roads. The legislation will be helpful in contributing to this in terms of its carrot and stick approach. We must encourage people to be more responsible on the road while putting in place measures that will penalise those who show scant regard not just for their own lives but the lives of other people.

Senator Coghlan outlined a number statistics. It is important to view the issue of road deaths in the context of the greater number of cars on the road. If one examines the period of time in which the Government has addressed this matter, the actual number of road deaths has decreased. In the past year, there has been a blip in the pattern, which some have suggested was due to a lack of conviction or work on the part of the Garda in terms of finding law-breakers.

We should examine the matter in respect of the number of vehicles on the road. In 2001, there were 411 road deaths and a registered number of 1.6 million vehicles on our roads. In 2005, there were 399 road deaths, which was an increase on the 2004 figure, and 2.1 million vehicles. As such, the number of road deaths has been decreasing for many reasons, such as the strategies taken and better roads, which has resolved a number of the issues. One must view the number of road deaths in the context of how many vehicles are on our roads. We all recognise that our roads are becoming busier.

An attempt to change society must address attitudes and culture. Some people have little regard for road usage. Previously, an interdepartmental task force was mentioned. Perhaps the Minister will refer to it and its level of development when he concludes. The task force would bring together the Departments of Transport and Education and Science, which has made initial comments on what it is proposing to do in respect of educating young people on road usage as part of the curriculum or secondary cycle.

The leaving certificate examination has just begun and many young people are focusing on it as a major element in their lives, but it will become secondary for those who go to college during the coming years. A significant decision in their lives will be to find jobs, a by-product of which will be the requirement to have cars. In this day and age, there is nothing more important than educating young people in such a way that they have respect for the privilege of road usage. There has been some opposition within the bowels of the education system, but this is an important matter. We should focus on improving and changing the culture. The Minister knows better than anyone that trying to change a culture takes a long time. The only way to do so in this respect is through the education system.

In this Bill and other legislation, the Minister has outlined the updating of the penalty points system, to which I give a cautious welcome. From the outset, I signalled my opposition to the overuse of penalty points as a deterrent. In their early stages, they were effective in identifying a number of key road safety factors and ensuring the stick element of the carrot and stick approach worked. However, the system loses its impact if there are penalty points for too many offences.

Previously, Senators spoke about getting penalty points for turning right on a main road, driving in the wrong lane or crossing a lane. These provisions take the matter too far and have the potential to lose the public's enthusiasm. If the system is restricted to the main problems of speeding, drink driving — which is covered in terms of disqualification — seatbelt wearing and general disregard for others' lives through dangerous driving, it will keep the focus on penalty points and, through their use and punishments, derive the hoped for benefits.

I recognise the difficulties experienced by the Minister and his officials in trying to draft legislation that takes account of the changes in the communications infrastructure, that is, the penalty points associated with the use of mobile telephones. I am on the road on a regular basis and the most appalling sight thereon is the use of mobile telephones by truck drivers. Most heavy goods vehicles are driven by young people. Previously, older and more experienced people drove those trucks, but it is impossible for hauliers to get people with experience to take on what is a difficult job.

The younger drivers tend to use their mobile telephones in the most appalling ways. Recently, I saw a truck reversing on a narrow street where many young people, children and parents with buggies were passing. While using the truck's mirrors to reverse, the driver had his telephone to his ear. Regularly, one can see this happening as trucks drive by on motorways well above the speed possible with engines fitted with governors.

This practice must be stamped out and I hope this legislation will do so. However, enforcement must be put in place and I am not sure that the Bill provides for cameras to detect the use of mobile telephones. It is not specifically mentioned, but perhaps it can be introduced through regulation. Mobile telephone usage is one of the major causes of serious road accidents. It would be of great benefit were the issue to be addressed through the use of cameras.

The continued focus on the wearing of seatbelts, speeding and drunk and dangerous driving is the best way forward in dealing with road deaths. The Minister has done good work in respect of legislating for random breath testing, a matter on which there were various views. The Minister asked the members of the Joint Committee on Transport to examine the issue and our deliberations were helpful in informing the debate.

Various interest groups created the potential for a legal quagmire in the form of a constitutional challenge that could not be surpassed, but I welcome how the Minister took the issue by the horns and found a way through that most right-minded people consider should have been the case for quite some time. In a targeted way, random breath testing will lead to a decrease in road deaths, as proven in Australia and elsewhere. In conjunction with the Garda, there will be a requirement to resource specific facilities, such as those in Australia in the form of the booze bus. It ensures that if one person is detected, the two officers assigned to the checkpoint are not taken away to process the individual. If there is a targeted measure in a particular area, be it a pub or whatever, it is likely that many people will be intoxicated. If the first person to get caught removes the presence of the Garda from the site for the rest of the evening, one is only scratching at the surface.

We need an approach that resources the Garda in such a way that allows it to implement a targeted measure. This would send out a strong message. If word got out that the Garda is in a position to apprehend 15 or 20 people leaving a licensed premises above the legal alcohol limit, it would provide a greater shock to the community than saying people could be stopped anywhere at any time during the day or night for random breath testing. If there is a belief that one will certainly get caught, it will have a more significant effect. The Garda will require help to fund that enforcement.

A publicity campaign is important in changing culture. I do not often compliment RTE. Most of the time, I privately complain about the publicity it gives to issues of little concern or how it balances its views. However, I compliment RTE on its recent work and particularly that of Mr. Charlie Bird. The first example was RTE's broadcast of a parent telling the story of the loss of his daughter approximately 48 hours after she had been buried. He recounted the effect on the victim's little daughter, which was very chilling. Media reports should name the people who die in a given month, because it would serve as a harrowing reminder to everyone of the effects of death on the roads. Shock tactic advertising has not worked. Some great advertisements, which people initially thought too gruesome to be shown, have not changed the culture in any way. RTE deserves credit for the harrowing stories to which it has given publicity.

I compliment the Minister on his work and the way he has addressed the issue. I welcome the Bill and the Minister's indication that another piece of legislation is in preparation. That gives the lie to the notion that the Government is inactive and lacks concern for this major problem.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister and this important legislation. When I was young, owning a car was a luxury and there were not many around. Now we must face the problem caused by a great increase in road traffic, which is not exclusively an Irish problem. Neither are road fatalities just an Irish problem, as evidenced by a report published today highlighting the problem on an international scale. It refers to an epidemic, especially in developing countries, and to the very large number of children and young people who are slaughtered in road carnage. I welcome the fact that the Minister addresses that in the Bill with serious intent.

We are becoming inured to the problem, to the extent that we assume there will continue to be slaughter on our roads, particularly at weekends and bank holidays. I recently filled in for the presenter of a radio broadcast and reported that Gay Byrne had said it would be wonderful if, over the bank holiday weekend, Irish people had become so alert to the dangers that they avoided fatalities. It would be marvellous to be able to come on air and report that nobody had been killed over the weekend. I thought that was the case, because I could see nothing in the newspapers about it. However, I was apparently wrong because somebody phoned in and asked whether I listened to the news broadcasts on the radio station on which I presented, whereby I would have learned of seven deaths over the weekend. I consulted with the Minister's adviser and was told it was true. However, because they happened in ones and twos nobody paid any attention. There has to be a pile-up with multiple fatalities before there is any real media coverage. That says something about the way our feelings have hardened, so that we accept as a matter of routine the fact that people will be killed. Each death, however, is a tragedy for the person concerned and for his or her family.

On the subject of broadcasting, I commend the Government on appointing a well-known broadcaster, who has great respect and commands a wide audience, to a position in this area. We must communicate at a popular level. I would like the popular, commercial radio stations, to which young people and teenagers — the audience most at risk — listen, to insert information on the subject on a regular basis.

The Minister talked about the implementation of a new system of speed limits. That is welcome but a more radical approach would be even more so. As the Minister knows, I harp on about this continually and eventually the penny will drop. To achieve greater standards of safety on the roads it is necessary to command the respect of the driving public. The present speed limits do not do that and cannot do so because they are totally incoherent and random. Last weekend I drove to Blessington for a 90th birthday party. When one reaches the well-known watering hole, the Old Shieling in Jobstown, one passes from a three-lane motorway on both sides, on which the speed limit is 60 km/h, or 35 mph, to a winding country road with a speed limit of 100 km/h. That is daft. Why would anybody respect that? I am always told such matters are in the control of the local authorities but it should be taken out of their control. There should be a national controlling body to oversee the relevant limits and make them consistent, coherent and worthy of people's respect. Then they should be rigorously enforced. It is not fair to enforce absurd limits which contradict reason.

Why is there no consistency in road humps? I invite the Minister to travel along Londonbridge Road. I travelled along that road at ten or 12 mph the other day and I still nearly lost the back of my large old automobile. The humps are not rounded but akin to cliffs, from one side of which a driver tumbles vertically. That is also absurd and there should be some degree of standardisation, so that people will have respect for the authorities.

Tackling drunk driving, which is still, regrettably, endemic, is one of the main features of the Bill. We cannot address the subject purely from the perspective of road traffic. Visitors to this country constantly tell me that drinking, including drinking to excess, is part of our culture. We have licensed every newsagent in Dublin to sell hard liquor, beer and wine, and that is a problem. Why has the Government failed to act on the recommendations of a report it commissioned? I can supply the answer myself. It is because of the extraordinary strength of the vintners' lobby. The Government should face up to that lobby in the way it courageously did on the question of smoking in public places. It has not shown equivalent concern about excessive drinking. Until we address it we will not solve the problem of drink driving.

Earlier today I was listening to RTE 1 and a light hearted show with a Polish theme. It was like an advertisement for vodka. The message sent by the show was that a person was neither fully alive nor capable of having a good time unless he or she was absolutely plastered. Why do we continue to do that, and to continue to permit such a high level of advertising? I ask that as a fallible human being who, at the moment, both smokes and drinks. To embed such an idea in our culture causes great problems.

The Minister is considering mandatory testing but seems to avoid the words "random testing". Various constitutional issues have arisen on the subject, one of which seems to suggest that if gardaí singled out one person from a group for a breath test there might be a constitutional requirement to test every member of the group, which would be a waste of time. However, if there is a suspicion in the minds of gardaí that a person is drunk, they should have the power to test that person. I hope this legislation gives them the power to immediately stop a person for that purpose. I am not a sneak and informers are not popular, even when they clearly should inform like Deputy Ferris in the other House. However, I have, on occasion, telephoned from my car, on my hands-free set and having pulled in at the side of the road, to give a registration number and other details to gardaí of cars which were being driven dangerously. I remember one man on the Navan Road weaving right across the double white line in the centre of the road. He was obviously very drunk or very seriously ill and, I understand, was subsequently stopped.

I have a problem with fixed charges and disqualifications. If a person bites the bullet on foot of an accusation of drunk driving, he coughs up €600 and takes his medicine in the form of a six month disqualification. That is fine. If a person goes to court, however, he faces more severe penalties. I know what the Minister is trying to achieve but I have a problem with this in principle because access to the courts is a right as a citizen. It is not appropriate that citizens should be penalised for exercising their democratic right to contest a case in court. Neither is it fair; if people are equally guilty, they should get an equal penalty. This level of discrimination is wrong.

Hands-free mobile phone sets are for the time being exempt from this provision. I agree with Senator Dooley and others that the use of mobile phones is a curse, not just in this country. The worst example of this I have seen was in Cyprus, a lorry driver on the road from Limassol to Paphos was steering with one elbow, his phone at his ear, while he extracted a hair from his nose with his other hand. It is a mercy he did not cross the reservation and plough into a line of traffic heading the other way.

I have not seen the same here but I have seen bus drivers using mobile phones while driving. I saw a woman the other day turning a corner with one hand on the steering wheel while on her mobile phone. It is endemic and is not gender specific, it takes in all classes and categories of people, including gardaí. On the radio programme I hosted yesterday, someone phoned in to say he was on the M50 and had seen a Garda car with the driver on a mobile phone while entering the roundabout. There is an exemption for people in the legislation, a legitimate defence being phoning an ambulance or the gardaí. The gardaí are probably more or less exempt but they should be careful and should be limited in the use they make of this. It sets a bad example if the gardaí are seen using their phones. People will think that if the gardaí can get away with it, so can they. It is a problem that comes back to the question of respect.

I want to introduce a subject that is not directly related to road safety but that has a bearing on respect in terms of road traffic: clampers. I notice that Galway has got rid of them. I initially welcomed them, and was pasted by my friends in North Great George's Street for doing so, but I am less anxious to support clamping now. This is related to the privatisation principle included in this Bill.

On two occasions neighbours of mine, one of whom is a distinguished solicitor, found their cars clamped although they had a perfectly valid ticket visible through the windscreen and were within their time limit. Photographs were taken but on both occasions the clampers refused to present the photograph to the driver and insisted upon clamping the car, telling the owners that they had no right to see the photograph. The car owners pointed out that the ticket was in the car and within the time. The clampers replied that the ticket could have been bought any time but that is not the case because the ticket displays the time of purchase as well. On both occasions, however, the car owners gave in and paid. That is not fair. It is also wrong to have cars removed from highways and dumped in residential streets, as happens regularly in my area.

There is a suggestion in the legislation and the Minister's speech that public vehicles are routinely tested. I do not believe that. If they are tested, it is done badly. My car was initially refused a certificate a couple of years ago because of the absence of a tiny rubber nipple in the boot. I constantly drive behind buses, particularly tour buses, that belch out black smoke. That does not suggest they are being looked after.

There is an accident waiting to happen in O'Connell Street. The taxi rank was successfully moved out and at least half of the drivers were happy with where they were relocated. A big bite was then taken out of the central reservation, the taxis were put back and a bus lane was added. Do people not remember the tragedy at the Clarence Hotel involving a bus? That will happen again in O'Connell Street.

Worse still, even though it is attractive, there is no visual distinction between the road way and the footpath in the plaza outside the GPO. That was done to create the impression of a square but it is very easy for foreigners, elderly people and daft old bats like me to wander out under a bus. The paved areas should be clearly marked. Local authorities have a terrible responsibility because several tragic accidents have occurred due to the application of inappropriate road surfacing material.

It is absurd, as people on all sides of the House have agreed, that driving instructors should take a day off to deal with the driving test backlog, thereby creating a worse backlog. It has implications for young drivers because those who have not passed their test are penalised by having to pay far higher insurance rates because they do not have a full licence. Why should young people be penalised in this manner? It costs them a great deal of extra money.

The way to get us to drive more safely is to give us all reason to respect the rules of the road. The notices at county boundaries which detail the number of fatalities on the county's roads, and those that tell drivers belt up or pay up, are useful reminders. On occasion, I have noticed that I have forgotten to put on my seat belt and the sign has reminded me. Such stark notices with sensible messages are effective.

Mr. Morrissey

I welcome the Minister and this legislation to the House. Law-abiding families and road users across the country will cry "Hallelujah" at tougher penalties for drink driving offences, a ban on hand-held mobile phones in cars and random breath testing. As for the law breakers, I hope the full force of this new legislation is brought to bear on them. All Members of the House agree on that.

It was interesting to hear Laura Robinson's description this morning of the global epidemic of road fatalities. Across the world, 1.5 million people are killed annually on the roads, 3,000 each day, 300 of whom are children. Other Members have mentioned the terrible figures in Ireland, which is not unique in the challenges it faces. Today, however, is an indication of what we see as part of the solution to the problem.

We all know of the steps taken to date to tackle the crisis in road safety. There has been greater enforcement, new penalty point offences and now this new Road Safety Bill. The Minister and the Government are to be commended on the work undertaken so far but the challenges remain and will continue to have tragic consequences.

The concerns expressed by the chairman of the road safety authority, Mr. Gay Byrne, are worth pointing out. Opposition politicians were asked not to use pending road legislation as a political football, thereby delaying its passage through the Oireachtas. He is reported to have said that with just weeks until the summer recess, he hopes the Road Traffic Bill will be passed before the summer. The Progressive Democrats Party echoes that hope. The Oireachtas must be able, and allowed, to do its important work. Nevertheless, Senators will agree with almost all of what Gay Byrne expressed when he said:

We are praying that it will get through before the cursed summer recess — if the Opposition parties don't decide to mess about with it too much, making amendments and alterations. If it is stalled, it will have to come back in the autumn and God knows what will take precedence over it at that stage.

Whatever about the "cursed" summer recess, the sentiment that we must get busy on this Bill is the correct one. We are talking about saving lives. When this Bill is enacted, road users can expect significant changes in speed and drink driving law enforcement by the autumn. We must facilitate that quickly. Law-abiding road users, including young drivers, demand it.

Our attitudes to road safety have been transformed by the trauma and tragedy visited upon families the length and breadth of this country by road accidents. I was interested to read of research published by the National Safety Council, which showed that 87% of people are against any form of drink driving. One must wonder, rightly, what the other 13% are thinking. This represents a significant shift in the views of people of my generation on the subject of road safety. The Government must keep up with that sentiment.

For the first time, road safety planning is taking place within a distinct policy framework, including a set of specific, associated goals. That is as it should be. The Government is to be commended on pursuing progress across a range of areas. The unrelenting growth in vehicle numbers and, sadly, the unacceptable negative trends in road casualties demand nothing less.

People may be shocked to hear that the primary target of the existing road safety strategy is to reduce the number of road deaths to no more than 300 by the end of this year. Three hundred seems like such a dreadful toll but people should realise that even meeting that target is a serious challenge. We must accept there are no experts jealously guarding the solution to this problem. The continuing road fatalities prove that point. The level of road use in this country means that, regrettably, we can expect 240 fatalities per year. Believe it or not, that is international best practice. The Bill is part of the process of achieving that goal, if "goal" is the appropriate word in this regard.

It is difficult to imagine that anyone living in the real world could object to the principal provisions and intentions of this Bill, which I welcome. No doubt there will be some political skirmishing about the engagement of private sector interests in the provision and operation of cameras and other technology for the detection of speeding offences. However, the public will quickly demand that we move beyond this tired dogma and simply get on with the job.

The law-abiding citizen will show no resistance to the introduction in a targeted manner of mandatory roadside breath-testing of drivers for alcohol, so we should work to ensure this takes place as quickly as possible.

The public will wonder why measures to control the use of mobile phones and other in-vehicle communication equipment are not already in place. Once again, we should get on with it, while incorporating the relevant safeguards and exceptions. At our party's recent annual conference, I called for consideration to be given to new stricter penalties for offenders. Although more can be done, I welcome the Bill's provision for new fixed charges and disqualification for certain drink driving offences, along with an increase in financial penalties in respect of all offences established under the Road Traffic Acts. The legislation correctly provides for an increase in periods of disqualification for drink driving and other serious driving offences, which is difficult to argue against.

I have continued to highlight the driving test system which is failing young people and vice versa. We need to reform the driver licensing regime, in particular, to reduce long-term reliance on provisional licences. We have all heard of the cancellation of today's tests involving 1,300 drivers, while driving instructors meet to agree reform measures. This is the crazy situation we find ourselves in but at least reform is now being considered.

I welcome the steps proposed under the Bill to reform the provisional licence system. In particular, sections 10 and 11 provide for the introduction of a learner permit instead of a provisional licence. Importantly, the Bill provides that regulations may require learner drivers to undergo a course of instruction, and may see the regulation of the content and cost of such instruction courses. The key word here is "may", so I will be interested to hear how the Minister expands upon this point. The legislation contains a welcome provision to introduce the compulsory initial practical training of motorcyclists before they are allowed on the public roads.

We should also welcome the establishment of a specified period following the granting of a learner permit, during which a learner driver may not apply for a driving test. There is widespread acceptance that there should be a minimum period during which a learner driver undergoes instruction before being allowed to apply for a test. We should not overlook the fact that young people must pass the test in order to reduce insurance costs and for employment reasons. Nevertheless, all parties must get involved in finding a solution to the wider systemic driving test problem. I hope the Bill can in some way precipitate that action.

The fear principle underpinning the penalty points system is no longer working. Ireland achieved international best standards immediately after the introduction of penalty points some years ago but, regrettably, the effect has diminished. New messages must be sent to drivers. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill and the recent Road Safety Authority Bill, we must move on to new road safety initiatives with a blank canvas. We should keep the valuable initiatives but we cannot stop there. Progress can only be made with an open mind. We must promote road safety more vigorously by incentivising someone who voluntarily takes a driving lesson — not just learners or those taking a test, but people simply seeking to improve their driving skills. We may be a long way from that but a carrot and stick approach is important. We must start asking people to apply for retraining over a period with a built-in incentive for them to do so.

We must start anew and not be afraid to ask some hard questions. Is it right that young people spend thousands of euro on car insurance and a relative pittance on driving lessons? Is it right that those on a provisional driving licence can drive at the same speed limits as qualified drivers? Is it right that someone can apply to have his or her driving licence reinstated having spent only half the banned period off the road? Is it right that having been found guilty of drink driving, a person can postpone the date of the ban by up to six months? I am aware of cases where people were found guilty of drink driving but, following an intervention by their solicitor with the judge, they can say they will begin their six-month driving ban in November, for example. Should the ban not take effect immediately?

Is it right that we have no mandatory custodial sentence for driving while disqualified? I welcome the Bill's provision in this regard. Some drivers are serial offenders and have a complete disregard for the law. The new measure will go some way towards checking their flouting of the law. In addition, is it right that we have no mandatory custodial sentence for drink driving which causes serious injury or death? We must go that distance. Is it right that we have no dedicated court to hear drink driving and other dangerous driving offences in the greater Dublin area?

We need to get the message across that driving can kill. The Bill's provisions show that the Government has a firm idea of how to make progress and that it will take the legislative steps to do so. When one buys a packet of cigarettes, 40% of the packet's surface area must warn smokers of the danger that smoking can kill them and their friends. Such a safety message should be introduced at every stage of the driving process — when one buys a car, purchases insurance cover and applies for a driving test. At all those stages we must introduce a strong safety message, as we have done with cigarettes. The message on cigarettes packets warn they can kill but that is what cars are doing every day on our roads. I welcome the provisions in the Bill but the Minister should consider some aspects of the issue, for example, the period in which a drink driver can decide when to serve a sentence and the incentives for existing drivers to improve their driving.

A new practice has emerged whereby insurance companies allow drivers to pay their premium on a monthly basis. A young driver whose insurance is perhaps €2,000 per annum might pay €250 per month. The driver gets the disc immediately and, therefore, can default on further payments but still keep the insurance disc. That practice exists and must be examined.

With regard to foreign drivers on our roads, I am aware of a young person who will fly to another country this summer and drive a 32 year old car to Ireland at a cost of €150. We have to decide how to stop such practices.

Another issue which is becoming a scourge is the practice of selling cars on the roadside. I am not sure if this Bill should deal with the issue but throughout estates in Dublin and on country roadsides there are signs offering cars for sale and listing mobile phone numbers. I do not know how we are to stamp out this practice.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill. When we debate the Bill in more detail, the Minister should address the situation where a driver can decide when he or she will serve a suspension and take his or her car off the road. It should happen immediately.

Mr. McDowell

In anticipation of this debate, last night I read the Road Safety Strategy 2004-06. It makes for interesting reading and it is quite obvious that many of the provisions in today's Bill are inspired by that strategy. One aspect of the strategy which struck me forcefully — I presume I understood the figures correctly — was the statistics for road fatalities over the decades.

In a sense there are two associated messages in this regard. I agree with Senator Norris that we are somehow inured to the effect of fatalities on the roads — we expect them. However, in the 1970s and 1980s the number of fatalities was dramatically higher than is currently the case. For much of that time, between 550 and 650 people were being killed annually on the roads. The message I drew from that was that recent developments have been quite positive.

We must inform the public that it is possible to improve because we have made significant improvements, and we should not be complacent in accepting that 400 people must die on the roads every year. We can address this matter in a positive way because it is possible to do something about it. It is important this message gets out because complacency and fatalism are serious enemies in dealing with this issue.

In reading the strategy I was struck on a negative level by how little information we have as to what causes accidents and the amount of such information available to the Garda Síochána. We do not know in what percentage of fatal accidents drink or speeding were issues, or whether the cause was the condition of the car or the road. We cannot in any serious, analytical way determine the major contributory factors, which is a great pity.

Mr. Cullen

The Garda can do that now, although the Senator is correct that we have carried out no research in this area. It is a major issue, not only with regard to accidents but as to what drivers were doing in the hours preceding accidents. That level of research would seem to be a key input in being able to target programmes internationally to prevent accidents. The Senator is correct that it is a key issue.

Mr. McDowell

I am delighted with the Minister's comments. Without that kind of information and analysis, we are working on instinct — hopefully, reasonably well informed instinct — but not on the basis of serious research and analysis, which is what we need to make reasonable decisions.

My party supports all the provisions of the Bill. However, I will speak with less enthusiasm on one or two of those provisions because it is my job to do so. It is good that action has been taken with regard to mobile phones. It was always possible for gardaí to prosecute on the basis that using a mobile phone constituted careless or dangerous driving in itself. However, it is good it has been made a specific offence.

I do not have a hands free set at present, although I had one until it stopped working a year or two ago. I am not sure the distinction between hand held and hands free is all that meaningful. I found it was just as distracting to speak into a microphone as to hold a mobile phone in my hand. I am not sure it is possible to totally concentrate on the job in hand, namely, driving, if one is speaking into a microphone. The section would seem to allow the Minister to make regulations to cover that situation at some future time. He will have to do so because, unless there is a total ban, drivers will find some way around the provisions.

Mr. Cullen

As the Senator knows, there are now DVD screens in cars and issues with regard to the use of navigational systems while driving. The Senator is correct that we will have to deal with this issue.

Mr. McDowell

It is not just a matter of ensuring that drivers must have their hands free but that they are not hopelessly distracted by in-car communications.

Mr. Cullen

It is an obvious issue with which we can deal.

Mr. McDowell

Senator Morrissey in his closing remarks made interesting comments about immigrants and drivers on foreign licences who are probably driving foreign cars. It is an issue with which we will have to come to grips. The Bill provides for the recognition of foreign licences, which is a start, but we must reach a position — this is being worked on and may have happened — on the recognition of foreign disqualifications, and we must move from there to recognise the penalty points systems that exist in other countries.

Having studied reports of recent accidents, another issue arises, which I accept is not easily addressed but which we need to address. This refers to the increasing number of immigrants driving left-hand drive cars, which are not suitable for our roads. It is fine that people coming here on holidays can bring their cars. We do the same when we go to the Continent and nobody seeks to prohibit that. However, if tens of thousands of people are driving left-hand drive cars which have difficulty overtaking, which is when many accidents happen, we must deal with this issue. We must regulate this situation so that such cars cannot be kept in the country for more than three months and so their owners have to drive a right-hand drive car. I appreciate it is not something we can deal with unilaterally but it is a problem.

It is clear from a study of the reports of recent accidents that overtaking by drivers using left-hand drive cars, who cannot have had sight of the road ahead, has been a serious issue and has caused a number of fatalities.

Mr. Cullen

There was one particularly bad multiple crash.

Mr. McDowell

It was on a road with which the Minister is familiar.

I agree with the points made with regard to periods of disqualification, which it is right to increase. I used to practice as a solicitor, although I have not been in court for a while. The Minister will be aware that it is common practice that on the earliest day possible, a solicitor or a person who had been disqualified will go to court and apply to get a licence restored. Unless there is some extremely good reason this should not happen, it is normally granted. This makes a mockery of the period of disqualification and reduces it to a period which is too short. The increase to roughly double the current period, or an increase of the four-year period to six years, is a positive development. The restrictions which the Minister has imposed on the capacity of the courts to restore licences early are also positive.

Mr. Cullen

Two thirds of the period will have to be served.

Mr. McDowell

Yes, and a driver can only use that provision once in a period of ten years. The previous system was crazy and the measures in the Bill are an improvement.

I do not have an ideological problem with the operation of speed cameras by the private sector. However, we must be concerned with what may be a potential practical problem. Senator Norris referred to clamping, which has, by and large, worked well in Dublin city. It is driven, from the city council point of view, by the desire to have car parking working in a reasonably efficient way while the company that implements it, frankly, wants to make money from it. I am concerned that if private operators operate these cameras, albeit under the control of the Garda, they will be driven largely by the need to make as much money as possible rather than operating them in places where they would contribute to road safety. It is important that the cameras are used for the purpose for which they are intended and not simply as money making devices.

Mr. Cullen

As a result of the issue that arose with the clampers, and it was raised in this House during some debates, there will be no connection between the number of people caught for speeding by the new cameras and the fee paid to the company. There will be a straightforward contract for that good reason. We want best practice to reduce deaths on our roads. It is not about making money.

Mr. McDowell

The strategy touches on the issue of whether the use of cameras should be overt or covert——

Mr. Cullen

Both.

Mr. McDowell

——and whether the intention is to catch people unawares or to clearly have a camera in place to encourage people to slow down.

Mr. Cullen

I believe they should be seen.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister can deal with these matters on Committee Stage. He will also have an opportunity to reply at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Cullen

I am sorry. We are having a good discourse.

Mr. McDowell

Perhaps we should retire to a public house to discuss it.

I believe the cameras should be visible so people know where they are. They are intended to scare people and to slow them down. There is no harm in that. It is as well that they be seen and that people appreciate that they are there for a purpose.

My party supports random breath testing but I have some concerns, perhaps due to my background as a solicitor. People should appreciate that what is provided for in the Bill is a radical move. We are putting in place a different regime from the one to which we have become accustomed. Prior to 2002 or 2003 there was a requirement that the garda have a reasonable suspicion that somebody was incapable of driving properly. That was a fairly high bar and gardaí on occasion failed to reach it. It was modified quite drastically to a requirement that the garda simply believed that the motorist had consumed alcohol. That lowered the bar dramatically. If there was a smell of alcohol, for example, irrespective of how the motorist was driving the car, it was sufficient to justify taking a test.

In this Bill we are removing any requirement that the garda have a suspicion that the person is incapable of driving. The fact that the person is driving entitles the garda to test his or her breath. I am not sure if we are getting the balance right. I must refer again to the information deficit I mentioned earlier. In so far as we can judge from prosecutions that are taken, the problem with drink driving is not caused by people who have had two and a half pints. Prosecutions in the courts clearly involve people who have consumed up to seven pints. They are not slightly but well over the limit. It is possible, even likely, that if we introduce random testing, there will be a glut of prosecutions and convictions for people who are just slightly over the limit.

I do not have a problem with this provision in the Dublin context. When there is a decent public transport system with taxis and buses readily available and offering a means to get home, the person should stop after two pints. However, if I were an old farmer in the west of Ireland, living a couple of miles from the local pub where I had a couple of pints a few nights each week, I might take a different view. Colleagues in the west of Ireland and in other areas will be faced with a cold wind when this provision is implemented if it is not enforced in a way that is reasonably sensitive to the facts and reality of social life in rural areas.

Let us be aware of what we are doing in this Bill because it is a dramatic change. From a purely legal point of view, it is also a little cumbersome. We will now have, in effect, two parallel regimes for testing. The existing provisions will remain in place. The Bill contains additional provisions which can also be used but only when an authorisation has been issued by a Garda inspector. I am aware of the Minister's reasons for introducing this procedure. However, it could cause difficulties in practice. Let us say a garda on a motorbike stops somebody on a main road in Dublin. Without an authorisation the garda must carry out a test with one standard of proof, in other words he or she must have a suspicion that the person has been drinking. However, if the garda has an authorisation, he or she can do it 100 or 200 yd up the road at a checkpoint under a different provision. That could, in time, cause difficulty in practice.

The process of requiring a Garda inspector or somebody of higher rank to issue an authorisation appears to be over-bureaucratic. I understand the Minister's reasons——

Mr. Cullen

It was on foot of strong legal advice.

Mr. McDowell

——but I am concerned about how it will work in practice. We are not replacing the existing system but adding a new way of doing it or a different and parallel regime.

I support the updating of the penalties. These have lagged way behind for too long. The Minister correctly pointed out that we updated them a few years ago but some of them are still quite low. The lowest maximum fine at only €1,000 is still quite low. Perhaps we should consider giving more flexibility to the courts in dealing with that issue.

The Bill is welcome. It is clearly linked to the road safety strategy. It is important that we remain focused on what we are seeking to achieve and that we do not introduce these as standalone measures but as part of an overall package which is designed to save lives. That is something on which all Members of the Oireachtas can agree.

Mr. Wilson

I wish to share time with Senator Ormonde.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Wilson

As the Minister said, this is the sixth major legislative measure that has been introduced in an attempt to curb the number of deaths on the roads. The Bill provides for the privatisation of the operation of speed cameras, the introduction of mandatory roadside breath testing of drivers for alcohol consumption in a targeted manner and a statutory basis for the control of the use of mobile phones by motorists.

With regard to the proposed mandatory breath testing, I sympathise with the views expressed by Senator McDowell. I am from a rural area and country pubs are the only form of social intercourse for many people in such areas, particularly elderly people. They will travel the few miles to the pub in a car or on a tractor to have their two pints before driving home. That is the only form of communication many of these people have once or twice a week so we must take them into consideration when legislating for mandatory breath testing. I accept that most road deaths occur outside Dublin and major urban centres but they do not occur in country areas between 11 p.m. and midnight. We must take that into account.

Senator McDowell also mentioned that gardaí must have authorisation from a superior officer above the rank of inspector to establish a checkpoint. If that is the case, it should be an airtight, verifiable authorisation. It should be on a computer and be dated, timed and so forth because I can envisage this provision being challenged in the courts as often as the existing legislation is. I agree with the sentiments underlying the provision, namely, that people should not drink and drive. However, account must be taken of rural dwellers, particularly the elderly.

The Bill provides for the length of disqualification for hit and run offences, dangerous driving and insurance offences to be doubled. I agree with that provision. I have long advocated in the House that there should be a mandatory period of disqualification of up to two years for a first offence, for people caught driving without insurance. It is a serious offence and should be dealt with seriously in the legislation by way of strict penalties.

I do not agree with the suggestion by Senator Morrissey that the practice whereby young people pay their insurance on a monthly basis be discontinued. While the cost of insurance has been reduced in recent years, due to Government policy, it is still relatively expensive for young people and the only way they can pay for their insurance is on a monthly basis. Perhaps there is some mechanism for only providing them with a disc on a monthly basis. It might add to the administration costs of the insurance company in which case it would have to be paid for by the driver.

I agree that mobile phones are a cause of accidents and dangerous driving. Even the hands-free mobile phone is a distraction when one is concentrating on a conversation and trying to drive at the same time. They should be banned altogether and give us all some peace while driving.

There is genuine concern that the privatisation of speed cameras will be a revenue generating scheme by the Government. I am glad the Minister clarified the issue. I also compliment the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, with whom I communicated in regard to the detention of uninsured, untaxed and unlicensed vehicles. While Irish citizens have been subject to this law, foreign nationals have not. The reality, without sounding racist, is that foreign drivers are bringing in cars that are not roadworthy and not subject to any tests. I agree wholeheartedly with the section of the Bill dealing with same.

Sections 10 and 11 deal with driving licences. Those who allowed their licence to lapse for 12 months or more can incur a penalty of up to €1,000. The local authority from which the licence was issued should have to notify the person that the licence is out of date. There are a few other items but I will leave them to my colleague, Senator Ormonde.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and compliment the Government and the Minister, Deputy Cullen, on bringing forward these new measures. As one who constantly drives up and down the country I welcome the fact that speed cameras will be put in place. I also welcome the prohibition on the use of mobile phones, particularly by truck drivers. While on the mobile phone they do so many things other than concentrate on the road. I am concerned as to whether the speed cameras will detect those drivers using a mobile phone.

There are a huge number of vehicles on the roads today. Given the new programme of road construction and road design how will it be possible to reduce speeding? I do not know whether the roadside breath testing will work. The Departments of Education and Science and Transport will have to co-ordinate their efforts to bring in initiatives. Most accidents involve young people on the secondary roads. When driving up and down the country there are some side roads where I slow down to approximately 20 mph because I am terrified of what may come around the corner on the other side. I am not watching myself all the time but the other person. Last weekend seven people lost their lives on the roads. I cannot understand the mentality of young people.

There is a need for a programme of education that will take control of responsibility on the road. Schools have a big role to play here. I ask the Minister to enter into dialogue with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, with a view to bringing forward the best programmes. As soon as 18 year olds leave school they get a banger that will take them to college or whatever. That is the way they live today. Every one of them can find a car, even though it has to be tested. Nevertheless they have freedom. I am concerned also at the number of off-licences appearing all over the place. Young people buy their drinks and get into the car.

I hope the Bill works. Responsibility and respect for the road are the key issues. Rules and regulations and a public relations campaign are important. We are all familiar with billboards reminding us of penalty points. On every couple of miles of road there should be a reminder of all the new measures that have been introduced to ensure people are aware of them when driving. It is great to hear the theory but we have got to get it into practice. I suggest a public relations campaign where billboards across the whole of Ireland will display the new measures. I appreciate that I have been given some leeway for which I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before calling Senator Bradford I welcome to the Visitors Gallery the pupils of Mount Pleasant national school, better known as Ballyglass national school, and their teachers Mary O'Reilly and Mary McLoughlin on their first visit.

Mr. Bradford

We all join in the welcome. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this long-awaited legislation which is of significant importance and, hopefully, of long-term benefit. I see this legislation as not being a crackdown on drivers or driving but as a support to the 90% or 95% of careful drivers who take driving seriously and do not cause accidents.

The number of deaths, following road accidents, in Ireland during the past decade has been shocking. Perhaps the position has improved somewhat during the past year or two but it is still a national tragedy of enormous proportions when hundreds of people are being killed on our roads every year bringing despair and tragedy to many families and involving a huge economic and social cost. It is important that the issue is tackled and, hopefully, the Bill will help in that regard. It is ironic that on the day we are debating the Bill there is the difficulty with the driver testers and instructors. That issue has been with us for some time and is one to which I will refer later.

We have debated road safety on numerous occasions. I hope the Minister of State is listening and will continue to listen to us. I have regularly addressed the issue of signposting on our roads, which is not only inadequate but useless. Much more dramatic signposting is needed, ranging from "slow down" signs, "dangerous bends", "junction ahead" and so on. We are using the type of signposting that existed 20 or 30 years ago and it is not having the desired impact on the public. I ask the Department to commission a study on better and more dramatic signposting which will grab the attention of the driver. I know this is part of the driver testing system, but people are no longer taking notice of signposting because it is so out of date.

I ask the Minister of State to bring the issue of inadequate signposting on national routes to the attention of the National Roads Authority. Take the road from Dublin to Cork, for example, a road the Minister of State probably has little cause to travel. Traffic from Dublin to Cork begins on the Dublin-Limerick route then takes the turn for Cork at the Portlaoise bypass. Traffic can travel at 70mph, using the old terminology, on this section of road yet one almost reaches the turn before one sees the signpost for Cork. I have seen people go 50 to 100 yd beyond the Cork turn then try to reverse back along the motorway which is treacherous. If the road was better signposted this problem would not exist. It is not rocket science to suggest there should be adequate signposting two to three miles before that major turn off, with further signposting every mile until one reaches it. This is a small point that I have raised here previously and relates not just to the Dublin-Cork road but also other roads. Dangerous driving could be averted by proper signposting.

We must support the ban on using mobile phones while driving, yet I support the assertions of Senator McDowell. It is difficult to see, in terms of danger posed, the difference between hand held phones and the car kit. It is politically correct to ban the use of mobile phones and insist on the use of the car kit while driving, but when one is taking or making any call while driving one cannot concentrate at the requisite level. This situation should be kept under review.

On a related topic, is the Department of Transport examining the use of Dictaphones while driving? Hundreds of people use Dictaphones every day and I often see them being used by drivers. How does this differ to the use of a mobile phone in the same situation?

Many of my colleagues have expressed concern at the use of left-hand drive cars in the State and I support them on this issue. The statistics showing the number of people killed while driving such vehicles in the past 12 months are frightening. Many of these drivers are new to the country, they are entitled to stay and drive here and we welcome them. However, carnage resulting from people driving left-hand drive cars and not knowing the roads requires attention. We may have to consider banning the use of such cars in this country. I acknowledge that this could adversely affect tourists and perhaps we could introduce a system with a two to three week permit for a visitor to enter the country and use a left-hand drive car if he or she is a genuine tourist. However, we could not allow this in the case of a person living and working in the country for, perhaps, two or three years. Left-hand drive cars cause many accidents and this issue should be studied in detail and requires a response from the Minister. This response may necessitate a ban on the long-term use of left-hand drive vehicles. The statistics show we cannot close our eyes to the many serious and fatal accidents involving such drivers.

I welcome the introduction of fixed speed cameras and more mobile patrols. When speed cameras were first introduced a number of years ago they had a real impact in the initial weeks and months, but then a mentality of "out of sight, out of mind" set in. As mentioned by Senator Ormonde, we cannot ignore road death statistics. The vast majority of drivers involved in accidents are young, the vast majority of accidents occur late at night or early in the morning, and a significant number of those accidents occur on secondary and county roads. Speed cameras, no matter how many or where they are placed, will not resolve this issue.

The issue of the speed limit requires consideration. It is bizarre and dangerous that some of our narrow, inadequate county roads allow drivers to travel at up to 80 km/h yet stay within the speed limit. The speed limit must be reduced on some of these roads due to the number of accidents and our inability to improve the road network.

If we had better quality cars, roads, driving and road manners we would have far fewer accidents. However, these issues will not be solved overnight so the issue of speed limits on rural roads must be considered.

Driving skills and etiquette are in short supply and I therefore support the previous speaker on the role that schools can play in tandem with the Department of Education and Science. I have written to the Minister for Education and Science on this issue on a number of occasions. There should be driving instruction of some sort in secondary schools, presumably during transition year. If our young people grasp the concept of responsible driving, significant progress will have been made. Over the past decade we have succeeded in imparting, to young people in particular, the dangers of drink driving but we have not succeeded in the same way on speeding, modified cars and boy racers. At 16 or 17 years of age, in secondary school, young people should receive limited instruction on driving skills, manners and the concept of road safety. This is the best long-term measure we can take to stem the tide.

I support the concept of mandatory breath testing. However, I have a question regarding the Second Stage contribution of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, when he said "following lengthy consideration of this issue, which included a very significant engagement with the Office of the Attorney General supported by independent legal advice" and so on. We have had discussions on the Office of the Attorney General in recent days and weeks but why is it necessary to seek independent legal advice above this office? Who sought such advice and who provided it? Was there a difference between the legal advice supplied by the Office of the Attorney General and this independent legal advice? Perhaps the Minister of State could comment on this or supply the information at a later stage.

This is an important day for the Seanad and the Oireachtas as we commence this debate. This Bill is in all of our interests. It is not a political football, we must support it, debate it in full and try to improve it if necessary. We should return to the old adage of the three Cs of driving that were espoused in the relevant booklet when I sat the driving test, namely, care, courtesy and consideration. We should get back to that route, if you will excuse the pun. We need better driving manners and a better understanding of the issue. The speed cameras and mandatory checks on the side of the road will not work on their own. This should be about promoting better standards of driving and the concept that the driver is not merely responsible for himself or herself, and the car, but for the wider community using the roads. We must try to get involved at an earlier stage. Some input in second level schools could be crucial in this regard. I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to the response of the Minister of State.

Ms White

I welcome the Minister of State and I am pleased to speak on the Road Traffic Bill 2006. The spectre of road deaths looms larger than ever, which is disturbing, given that cars have never been safer and Irish roads have never been in a better condition.

As we all know, in 2005, there was an average of more than one death per day on our roads, while 2006 looks set to be worse. More people have died on our roads in the past nine years than died in the Troubles in Northern Ireland since 1969. It is in this context I welcome the Road Traffic Bill.

I draw the attention of the Minister of State to the newly-founded group, Public Against Road Carnage, PARC, which according to the Irish Independent of 29 May this year has collected more than 14,000 signatures in support of a campaign to make breath testing at the scene of an accident mandatory. I urge the Minister to consider making such a provision in the Bill.

In addition to addressing the problem of drink driving, I urge the Minister for Transport to consider immediate action to detect incidents of people driving while under the influence of drugs. I call the attention of the Minister of State to a recent UK drug driving survey by the RAC and Max Power magazine, which found that one in five young motorists drives in Britain every day while under the influence of illegal drugs. The study found that 59% of those surveyed had driven after smoking cannabis, and 37% after taking cocaine. Meanwhile 67% of them believed that drink driving was worse than drug driving and 46% thought they were unlikely to get caught.

A major UK road safety campaign in 2005 found that one in seven drivers stopped had tested positive for drugs — twice the number found to have been drinking. Drug driving must be addressed. Already we are lagging behind other countries. The South Australian Government has recently passed legislation for mandatory random drug testing for amphetamines and THC, and these tests are already performed regularly in other countries, and in Northern Ireland.

Ireland must not be left behind when it comes to drink and drug testing of drivers. It is a matter of life and death, and I implore the Minister to act now to stem the tide. I intend to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage which would legislate for mandatory alcohol testing at the scene of an accident and allow a garda to conduct a test for illegal substances should he or she have reasonable grounds to suspect the driver is under the influence of such substances.

I heard the plea made this morning for sympathy for people who are socially disconnected in rural areas. I have sympathy, but in my own personal experience, drinking and driving do not go together. Alcohol and driving do not go together. I know where Senator Wilson is coming from but this simply does not work. Once one takes a drink, one's reactions are influenced.

Mr. Wilson

I was talking of people who only take one or two pints.

Ms White

One cannot say that one or two pints have the same effect on everybody. Alcohol has a different effect on different people. It does not suit me, and there must be many people like me. I am probably lucky that alcohol does not suit me.

Mr. Wilson

Some people do not need alcohol.

Ms White

Senator McDowell made a point about left-hand drive cars. I drove up and down to Cork on Monday and saw a foreign-registered left-hand drive car overtaking about six or seven cars. The driver was pulling out to pass and could not see anybody coming against him on the other side of the road. Such people create a hazard. We have a serious problem with left-hand drive cars. I do not know what the solution is. We need and welcome to Ireland people coming from abroad. However, many accidents have involved people from abroad, and left-hand drive cars are an issue which must be dealt with.

In Dublin city, the clamping is brilliant. I have had my car clamped three times and it will not happen to me again. On one occasion my car was clamped on Good Friday, which I thought was a bank holiday or a semi-bank holiday. I parked on a side road in Rathmines and was clamped. Nevertheless, clamping works. It creates more parking spaces and people are better behaved on the roads.

I fully support the privatisation of speed cameras. The bottom line is that morning, noon and night, people are breaking speed limits. Up and down the country, speed limits are continually broken. Speed limits must be implemented and until that happens, there will be no decrease in the numbers being killed on the roads.

As I said, I drove up and down to Cork on Monday. While I kept to the speed limit of 120 km/h, and stuck with it, my car was being overtaken non-stop. It is farcical that the speed limits are not being implemented. The sooner more cameras are installed, the better. I support the privatisation of this operation.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Mr. Gallagher)

On my own behalf and that of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, I thank the Senators who made contributions on this important Bill. I thank the Opposition Members for their co-operation because we are all anxious that this Bill get through both Houses and be enacted before the summer recess.

The interest in and concern of this House in particular in the broad area of road safety is very evident from the contributions on this Bill and on the previous Road Safety Authority Bill. I welcome the overall positive and constructive responses of the Senators. Over the past four years, several pieces of road traffic legislation have been enacted. This demonstrates clearly that the Oireachtas is aware of the ever-evolving nature of traffic law and the need to ensure appropriate legislative supports are in place to promote road safety.

The debate this morning raised many issues and I will address as many as I can. I will first refer to the update on the ministerial sub-committee on road safety. That committee is chaired by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and other Ministers are represented on it, including the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Education and Science, along with the Attorney General. While the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, chairs the committee, I represent the Department of Transport. It meets regularly. The Taoiseach, who has a particular interest in this issue, attended the last meeting and intends to attend them at regular intervals. His support in this is very important. The Minister for Education and Science also attended the meeting. The issue of road safety being included in the transition year curriculum was discussed but no recommendations or conclusions were arrived at.

Several Members visited Australia and have returned with various ideas such as that regarding a booze bus. Mandatory alcohol testing is an operational matter for the Garda and it will devise guidelines as to how it will carry it out. Some speed cameras will be mobile and others will be permanent. The micromanagement aspects of the system will be decided by the company involved, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda. There will be no link with the fee paid to the private operator and the numbers apprehended by the camera system. I hope it will be the converse of what some Members thought in that less income for the State would be a fair indication people are seeing sense and observing the speed limits.

Senator White raised the issue of mandatory breath testing at the scene of a traffic accident. If one considers the practicality of this, a person may, for example, be unconscious and require immediate medical attention at the scene. The Garda can request a test to be administered in the hospital a short time after the accident. I accept driving under the influence of drugs is becoming a problem. I do not doubt the statistics referred to in the UK. The Bill refers to intoxicants which can be either drink or drugs.

Senator Bradford referred to the use of Dictaphones while driving. Section 3(9) refers to "a portable communication device, other than a two-way radio, with which a person is capable of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function". A Dictaphone will be covered by this provision. It is important to include them as they can be a distraction to drivers. The Attorney General has put much work into the legislation with the Parliamentary Counsel. The Attorney General can call on independent legal advice if there are concerns about a big brother approach in the legislation. I believe people want us to introduce mandatory alcohol testing. If it saves one life, it is well worth introducing. It is open to the Attorney General to seek advice on this matter.

Questions were raised on instruction for novice drivers. Section 11 will facilitate the introduction of requirements to undergo driver instruction. If such a requirement is to be introduced, the Government will seek the views of the road safety authority as to how best proceed. Education and the three Cs was raised. I recall the three Es — enforcement, engineering and education, integral factors to road safety. Senator Wilson asked for a system to remind people to renew driving licences. This is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Already an on-line process is in place. A renewal system is being arranged with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which manages the national driver file.

Regarding the driving test backlog, proposals by Kieran Mulvey relating to the outsourcing of tests will be considered by driver testers today. If it is accepted, it will ensure 45,000 tests will be outsourced. It will not resolve all the problems but it would put a major dent in the long waiting list. We are anxious to see it reduced to ten weeks or lower. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, took this initiative after his appointment. It was an innovative solution but under Sustaining Progress the Minister's representative and the unions had gone into a binding agreement which meant it could not be implemented. Discussions were pursued and after today's vote it is hoped to appoint a company to deal with the backlog. This, along with the seven staff redeployed from the Department of Agriculture and Food, the additional 11 employed by the Department and the bonus scheme for driver testers to deliver an additional 40,000 tests, will significantly reduce the backlog by 2007. No one is proud of the long delays and backlog in driving tests. This is the first time a realistic and tangible approach has been taken.

Other issues will emerge on Committee Stage. Mar fhocal scoir, a Chathaoirligh, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl dos na Seanadóirí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach anseo inniú ó thaobh trácht ar na bóithre. Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go ndéanfaimis cinnte de go mbeidh daoine níos ciallmhaire agus sásta cloí leis na rialacha a bhaineann le luas, mar shampla. Ní ceart go mbeidh daoine ag tiomáint faoi thionchar alcóil. Ní ceart go mbeidh duine sásta tiomáint gan crois shábhálta, rud nár luaigh mé, ar ndóigh. Tá pointí píonóis ann anois for those who are not wearing safety belts. It never ceases to amaze me that people are still not prepared to wear a seatbelt. Our best guardians in this respect are young people. I hope they will take it upon themselves to ensure that no car should move until the driver and all passengers have fastened their seatbelts. I also hope people will observe the law in terms of speed, drink driving and the wearing of seatbelts. It is their duty to do so, and if not, they will be penalised.

Senator Bradford referred to signposting. That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Over the years many of us drove roads we did not know on the basis of the old signs that existed. They indicated bends on the road and were quite helpful. I will bring the views of Senator Bradford and others to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to the National Roads Authority in the coming weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 8 Jun 2006

Road Traffic Bill 2006: Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jun 2006