I thank Deputies from all sides for their positive and constructive contributions to an open and interesting debate on this subject. I am particularly happy to note that 30 Deputies contributed to the debate and that there is general welcome for this important and innovative legislation which will directly influence the safety of all road users. I listened with great care to the many thoughtful contributions which we have had over the four days of the Second Stage debate and I will endeavour to respond as positively and constructively as possible.
In the time available to me it will only be possible to address the main themes of the debate. However, the forthcoming Committee Stage debate will afford the opportunity to give detailed consideration to the specific issues in the legislation as many points have been raised here. I am please there is, in general, agreement on the proposal to introduce the penalty points system. There was only one voice demurring from that position. There is also agreement on the need to continually support and enhance the enforcement of our road traffic laws.
A number of issues have been raised by Deputies in relation to the proposed system which will be, I am sure, the subject of detailed consideration during Committee Stage. There have been suggestions that there was undue delay in bringing this Bill forward. That is a constant theme from Opposition parties. Most of the criticism centres on the penalty points system. Deputy Gilmore, whose overall support for the Bill I welcome, made particular reference to this point and stated incorrectly that the system was copied from other states.
I cannot accept that contention and I reiterate that the design of the penalty points system provided for in the Bill has been the subject of careful and detailed consideration. This was necessitated by the overriding need to ensure that the penalty points system will operate successfully within the overall administration and enforcement of road traffic law and against the background of the constitutional provisions, unique to us here, which apply to offences generally.
I have consistently acknowledged that while I would like to bring this proposal before the House as quickly as possible, great care has to be exercised to devise an effective penalty points system.
Deputies raised a number of issues relating to the operation of the penalty points system. Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to the fact that there is no intermediate appeal provision included in the Bill in relation to penalty point offences. In addition, Deputies Mitchell and Keaveney inquired about the possibility of estab lishing reciprocal arrangements between the system to be operated here and that applying in Northern Ireland. Deputy Kenny stated that the system does not provide for differing levels of penalty points depending on the severity of an offence.
I wish to advise the House that the focus of the penalty points system and the fixed charge system, which underpins the operation of penalty points, are both based on the understanding that the right of an accused person to allow a particular matter to proceed to court is not compromised. When a person considers that he or she is not guilty of an offence, he or she has the option to go to court. This understanding reflects not just the current arrangements applying under the Road Traffic Acts, but it is also the case that court intervention forms part of the practice in other states that operate penalty points systems.
Penalty points systems in all the jurisdictions in which they operate are applicable following a conviction for an offence in court or alternatively following the payment of some form of administrative charge or penalty, which results in the avoidance of court proceedings. The level of penalty points associated with the making of such payments is invariably lower than in the case where a person is convicted in court.
The penalty points system set out in the Bill has been designed so that it can be accommodated within the existing provisions applicable to the enforcement of road traffic law in this State and, in that context, it exhibits significant differences from the separate systems that operate in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It would not be possible in the short term to provide for full mutual recognition of those systems.
However, following a period of experience with the operation of the system here, the question of achieving such recognition will be pursued.
A particular example of the difference between the practice in Northern Ireland and the system proposed in this Bill can be found by reference to the fact that in Northern Ireland and also in Great Britain a court intervention is required before a person can be disqualified from driving as a result of the accumulation of penalty points. This means that where a person pays a fixed penalty so as to avoid an appearance in court in respect of a particular offence, the record of that payment must be opened to a court at a future date so that the disqualification can be put into effect. Under the proposed scheme in the Bill, there is no question of a record of the payment of a fixed charge and related endorsement of penalty points being opened to a court. In addition, the proposed system provides that there will be no direct court involvement in the application of a disqualification arising from penalty points. I understand that the current arrangements relating to court involvement in the United Kingdom in applying disqualification as a result of penalty points is under review at present.
As regards the question of applying differing levels of penalty points on the basis of the seriousness of an offence raised by a number of Deputies, I point out that the primary purpose of the new system is to instil a greater precautionary approach to drivers so as to prevent recurring breaches of traffic laws. It is not intended just to put people off the road. In addition, it must be recalled that the system has been designed to operate primarily on an administrative basis. In such a system the scope for graduation is very restricted and there are grave practical problems associated with determining the particular levels of seriousness of any particular incident. The system does, however, provide for different levels of penalty points for different categories of offences.
Deputy Mitchell also referred to the prospect that there will be a greater emphasis on the potential guilt of a registered owner under the new systems provided for in this Bill. In regard to that, I point out that the concept of registered owner liability is well established in traffic law here.
The operation of administrative charges and associated penalty point systems in all states where they apply is critically dependent on the registered owner being the first point of contact for the instigation of proceedings. This in no way compromises the innocence of the registered owner where he or she is not involved in the commission of the alleged offence.
The concept that the registered owner may be held responsible for the commission of offences under the Road Traffic Acts has been in place since the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. This reflects the reality that it is not always possible to determine the identity of the perpetrator of an offence at the particular time of its commission.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the introduction, as he sees it, of new powers for the Garda to directly impose penalties on motorists. This is not the case. Care has been taken in preparing this legislation to ensure that the exclusive role of the courts in the administration of justice has not been affected.
The proposal set out in sections 11 and 12 reflects practice in many other states, in particular those that make extensive use of cameras and other technology to detect the commission of offences.
As is the case in many other states, the only person who can be associated with a particular vehicle at the initial stage of an investigation is the registered owner. That person is entitled to name another party who may have been using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. This is precisely in line with provisions in place since 1961.
Deputy Mitchell referred to the information technology developments which are necessary for the introduction of penalty points. It is essential to the administration of the system that it is supported by the computerisation of the national driver file. The central database of drivers or national driver file will be available this month. By next Monday, 16 out of 29 licensing authorities will have on-line access to the national driver file in Shannon, which means that the file will be instantly updated by these authorities as driving licence applications are processed. All authorities will have the system rolled out to them and will be on-line by June 2002. In the meantime licensing authorities who are not on-line will update the system by means of electronic file transfer at regular intervals. The necessary software amendments to the national driver file to record penalty points and administer the system have been made.
The successful operation of the penalty points system will also depend on information technology improvements being developed by the Garda Síochána and by the Courts Service in relation to fixed charge payments and court convictions for penalty point offences. Developmental work on the relevant information technology systems for the Courts Service and the Garda Síochána is proceeding. It is likely that the required interface between the three systems will be fully in place and capable of dealing with the recording of penalty points before the end of next year.
I would like to refer briefly to the question of the overall levels of road casualties in this country. Deputies Naughten, Currie and others indicated that Ireland has the worst casualty rate in the European Union. This is not the case. It is surprising that Deputies and commentators outside here continue to make this allegation. It is important that they should have the facts and know them. The latest data for international comparison show that Ireland's rate of road deaths per 100,000 population, based on the situation in 1999, was at 11, the eighth highest of the 15 European Union member states. Therefore, we are in the middle range. However, it is the Government's intention, as I mentioned last week, that Ireland will rank among the best in the European Union in terms of road safety performance. We want to move up from the middle range and we are certainly not the worst.
Deputy Naughten will be pleased to note that section 18 provides for the introduction of a new system of quality control on driving instruction by commercial enterprises. Many Deputies did not seem to be aware of the changes we have introduced. It is intended that driving instructors will have to undergo a compulsory test of their competence to instruct if they wish to continue giving instruction for reward. Where driving instructors are already registered with a recognised body/register, which meets certain agreed criteria, they will be exempt from this test.
There has been much research, examination and media comment on the vexed question of the involvement of young people in accidents. Research carried out in Ireland in 1997 shows that young drivers aged under 25 years of age were held to be responsible to a large extent for 55% of the accidents in which they were involved compared to 39% for older drivers. Our experience in relation to this issue is not unique and what is clear from international comparison is that in some states the problem of young driver accidents is of a greater depth than is the case here. In relation specifically to the question of formalised training, experience internationally does not show uniformly positive returns resulting from such schemes in terms of the involvement of young people in accidents.
Particular reference was made to the position of provisional licence holders. The House will be aware that the new theory test is already in operation and that steps have been taken to reduce the number of people holding such licences by significantly increasing resources in the driver testing service.
Deputies Gilmore, Keaveney, Clune, Smith and others referred to the issue of drugs and driving. I assure the House that it is currently illegal here to drive while under the influence of drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a vehicle. This is set out in section 49(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. The Government Strategy on Road Safety 1998-2002 recognises that the influence of drugs on driving behaviour is an issue of increasing concern. Identification of the presence of drugs is, however, more complex than of alcohol. Consequently, considerably more work is needed to develop a more detailed regulatory regime in relation to drugs and driving. A number of research programmes are being carried out internationally in this area and the strategy commits the Government to monitoring and assessing these developments. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is at the forefront of this research and is currently engaged in a two year programme of drug analysis of blood and urine specimens which will be completed next year. The results of the research will be examined in the context of future road safety strategies so that specific measures can be identified to address this significant problem.
Deputies Naughten, Gilmore, Durkan and others referred to the National Roads Authority and the role it plays in relation to road safety. Road safety issues are addressed by the NRA, in conjunction with local authorities, as part of the overall road project planning and design process with an emphasis on minimising the risk to road users. An important element of the road safety strategy is the carrying out of safety audits at various stages of the process, including prior to the opening of a scheme.
The road type utilised must have regard to current and future projected volumes. In line with long established policy, the NRA is determining the appropriate type against the background of a level of service objective for road users corresponding to an average inter-urban speed of at least 50 miles per hour. A higher level of service objective applies to the five major inter-urban routes, which are to be developed to the level of motorway high quality dual carriageway. In the case of these routes, the national development plan provides for a level of service equivalent to at least 58 miles per hour.
Travel on all roads, irrespective of the type of road involved, entails a risk to road users. Analysis of Garda road accident reports consistently shows that driver error is the major contributory factor to road traffic accidents. In excess of 80% of road traffic accidents in 2000 were attributed to this cause. In the case of two vehicle accidents where specific contributory actions were identified, the main driver actions responsible were going to the wrong side of the road, exceeding safe speed and driving through stop-yield signs followed by improper overtaking.
Some Deputies referred to the possibility of introducing a dedicated traffic corps. The establishment of a separate traffic corps independent of the Garda Síochána has been proposed from time to time. There is a traffic corps in every Garda division with special responsibility for traffic law enforcement. In addition, all uniformed gardaí throughout the State are involved in traffic law enforcement as required. Responsibility for the Garda Síochána rests with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He has stated in the House that the establishment of a dedicated traffic corps, independent of the Garda, would not be as beneficial to the community as the existing arrangement, which allows traffic corps members to deal with crime other than traffic related crime.
Several Deputies expressed a view that the use of mobile phones while driving should be banned. It is not the intention at this stage to regulate for a specific prohibition on the use of mobile phones by drivers. However, the matter is being examined. The regulation of their use by drivers is being examined by the high level group on road safety and we await its views on that matter.
I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. We will have time to discuss the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage, but I am pleased to inform the House of the heartening news that as of today, road deaths are down by 18 on the same date last year. I will give the House a thought-provoking statistic. If road deaths had remained at the 1997 levels, which existed before the strategy, another 130 people would not be alive today.