Vol. 608 No. 1
84 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport the extent to which he has examined the cause or causes of the various fatal traffic accidents that have occurred over the past 12 months; if he will address the issue in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29495/05]
The primary immediate investigative role with regard to road accidents is vested in the Garda Síochána. Priority in such an investigation must be given to the determination of the causes of road accidents, including whether a breach of the road traffic laws contributed to the occurrence.
Garda reports are forwarded to the National Roads Authority and subsequently to each local authority for the purpose of the establishment of accident trends and causes generally and to facilitate the carrying out of remedial works relating to road infrastructure where such action is deemed to be necessary. I have no current plans to propose alternative arrangements for investigating road accidents.
I defer to Deputy Olivia Mitchell, but will ask a supplementary question.
When I made inquiries recently about the causes of accidents and what investigations are done, I was horrified to discover that depending on the type of accident and whether a criminal prosecution was likely, a certain line of investigation took place, but if there was no criminal prosecution, even in a case where there was a fatality, a different type of investigation took place.
There does not seem to be any clarity about the causes of accidents. A newspaper has reported today that many accidents may be caused by the use of cocaine and other drugs; that may well be the case. Criminal prosecutions do not result from accidents in many cases if toxicology tests are not done — I refer in particular to fatal accidents.
Given that this country's road death figures have exceeded any kind of acceptable level, we need firm information when we are drawing up policy. Everybody can suggest solutions to this problem, but we need to ascertain exactly what causes accidents. Is legislation needed to allow drug testing to take place at roadsides? I appreciate that it can be easier to breathalyse someone than to test someone for drugs. Does the Minister believe that drug testing at roadsides is necessary?
I agree with the Deputy that this is a difficult issue. The accidents on our roads throughout October have been appalling. I extend my sympathies to the families of those involved in the tragedies. The answer I gave to Question No. 84 emphasised the primacy of the gardaí but I agree with Deputy Mitchell that the information we need to assemble if we are to make legislative or policy judgments is too thinly spread. The entire body of such information is not available in the cohesive and detailed form we would like.
When the House discussed the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004, I mentioned that I intend to amend the Bill to provide for the establishment of a new road safety authority, the remit of which will include the gathering of the various details I have mentioned. That single body will be given responsibility for assembling all information.
As Deputy Mitchell correctly stated, there is increasing evidence that drugs play a part in many of the desperately unfortunate road accidents in this country. I accept that legislation would probably be needed to provide for drug testing but I am not sure how the testing methodology would be worked out. I have had many discussions on this issue within the Department of Transport. I have asked my officials to discuss the matter with their counterparts in the Office of the Attorney General.
While we are familiar with the link between alcohol abuse and fatal road accidents, it should be borne in mind that alcohol is not the only cause of the deaths of young people on our roads. It is clear that the abuse of drugs is a major second aspect of the problem.
Does the Minister accept that he should take the initiative in this regard? It is clear that some accidents are caused by substance abuse and others are caused by road conditions. There is no information about many accidents. The Minister for Transport is in the best position to take the initiative by gathering information, making recommendations to the local authorities and the various other relevant bodies and taking the legislative action that is required.
I agree with the Deputy. I conveyed to Deputy Olivia Mitchell that I accept that information on road accidents is somewhat scattered at present. I am addressing the lack of a single fulcrum of information by establishing a road safety authority. I have outlined to the House my approach for dealing with the apparent increase in the use of drugs by young people, who then get involved in road traffic accidents. I will tease out that aspect of the matter with Deputies when the House considers the Bill again. I will be happy to take on board the views of my colleagues.
Does the Minister accept that there are two major gaps in the information that is made available about the circumstances in which road accidents take place? We are not given any information about the status of drivers who are involved in accidents. We do not know whether accidents are more likely to involve unlicensed drivers, for example, or drivers with provisional licences. It is important, given that almost 400,000 people are driving on provisional licences, that such information be made available. It stands to reason that driver status is an important aspect of this matter, especially as so many young people are involved in serious accidents.
Does the Minister accept that there is a lack of information about the quality of the surfaces of roads on which accidents take place? The Health and Safety Authority does not have a role in examining road accidents. Who is policing local authorities to ensure that they provide adequate signage and set speed limits when road works are ongoing or have recently been finished? It does not seem that anybody is considering whether such factors contribute to accidents or policing the precautions being taken in this regard.
Such analysis is being done. Many investigations take place on foot of serious road accidents. I would not like to diminish the strong role of local authorities in that regard, not only under the Department of Transport but also under the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I was surprised to find, after Deputy Shortall raised this matter on a previous occasion, that records are not kept of the qualifications or lack of qualifications of drivers who are involved in road accidents. We need to have such information at our disposal as a matter of urgency because it would indicate clearly rather than notionally the level of driving competence of young people and others involved in accidents. As the information that has been made available is sketchy, one cannot make an absolute assessment on the basis of it.
This issue needs to be considered in the context of the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004. I look forward to tabling amendments to the Bill and I will be open to any amendments which will be proposed by other Deputies. I do not disagree with Deputy Shortall, who has raised this matter previously, in this regard.
Does the Minister agree that our society's utter dependence on cars, which is demonstrated by the fact that Irish cars travel twice as far as German cars each year, is the fundamental contributory factor behind this country's high level of road fatalities and injuries? It is inevitable that our dependence on car transport, which is much more dangerous than rail transport or bus transport, will lead to a high level of deaths on the road. Therefore, every policy pursued by the Minister for Transport, whose job involves trying to prevent road deaths, should lead to a switch where possible to modes of transport which are safer and which save lives. Is the saving of lives the central plank of the Government's transport policy? If so, does the Minister agree that it behoves us to invest massively in rail and bus transport, rather than encouraging this country's dependence on cars?
Deputy Ryan has made an extraordinary assertion. I agree that one of the reasons for this country's high level of road fatalities is its extraordinary network of small roads scattered throughout the country. The Government is pursuing a policy of constructing motorways on the major interurban routes to try to improve the road network, but the Green Party is opposing that every step of the way. I have consistently argued that this country needs more roads of a better standard and fewer of the traditional smaller roads. I do not understand, bearing in mind Deputy Ryan's correct assertion that our society depends on road transport, why the Green Party does not support the Government's road construction policy. It is unrealistic to suggest that everybody can be switched from cars to public transport — that will not happen.
There were less than 750,000 cars in this country a few years ago, but that figure has increased to 1.6 million today. It is interesting that Ireland's level of car ownership continues to be below the European average. Many important matters can be considered as part of the debate on road accidents, but the most telling statistic that can be used is that driver behaviour is the cause of 86% of accidents. The most fundamental issue to be confronted is the need for Irish people, individually and collectively, to take responsibility for their behaviour on the roads. An improvement in driver behaviour would reduce the current tragic level of deaths and injuries overnight without any need for legislative proposals. I reiterate that 86% of the tragic fatalities and injuries on our roads can be attributed to driver behaviour.
Is the Minister saying he does not think there is a need for a change in society's attitude to cars?
I agree with the Minister that a comprehensive body of data is collected when an accident that causes a fatality or serious injury takes place. I have examined the manner in which information is collated by Kildare County Council. Local authorities often respond to accidents by funding low-cost remedial measures or by initiating a major project. There does not seem to be any significant middle ground. Has the Minister considered a different funding response to deal with accident locations which require more than a low-cost remedial response?
I would not disagree with the assertion that we must consider every method, no matter how new, to improve the quality of surfaces, signage and markings on our roads. That is unquestioned. Many accidents occur on what would be termed regional roads and non-national roads, which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, testing continues all the time and all the authorities have in recent years examined surfaces and new materials to ensure the standards of road safety can be increased. When we have finished upgrading the road network throughout the country, not just the major inter-urban routes but all the connecting major roads, I have no doubt the situation will improve dramatically. We must remove bad roads with bad bends, which are used by powerful cars being driven too fast, some by drivers who have taken drink or drugs.
It is a process. We are doing anything we can. We have improved the situation but we need to do more. However, we need the understanding and assistance of the public in terms of individual responsibility to have a big win on this.
85 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Transport if the recruitment process under way for new driver testers will fill all vacancies in the driver testing service; if he will increase the number of driver testers once these vacancies are filled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28820/05]
The normal complement of driver testers in my Department, excluding the chief tester and supervisors, is 119. Currently there is a number of vacancies in that complement, although by and large these are being covered by the retention of retired driving testers. In normal circumstances I would be satisfied that the normal complement of 119 was adequate to maintain a high level of service to those seeking to do tests. However, as the Deputy is aware, there is an unacceptable delay in providing tests at present and I am progressing a number of options to supplement the testing capability in the short term to eliminate this backlog. This includes recruiting ten further testers on a fixed term contract. The competition for this is under way and is being managed by the Public Appointments Service. This will fill all existing vacancies. I also intend to continue to use the services of retired driver testers in the short term, although this could put the number on the Department's payroll above 119 for a short time. I expect the number to return to approximately 119 once the backlog is cleared.
In addition, and for the express purpose of eliminating the current backlog and restoring a reasonable level of service to our customers, I am seeking to outsource a limited and defined number of tests to an outside contractor. I have also proposed an incentive package to our existing driver testing staff. If this package is delivered the backlog will be cleared within 18 to 24 months, hopefully within 18 months. My expectation is that by then a cohort of 119 testers should be sufficient to deliver the service and the testing function should have transferred to an independent agency under legislation currently before the House.
I am not satisfied with the delay that exists in driver testing, from a road safety perspective or in terms of basic customer service standards. As outlined, my plans to address this include a very attractive incentive package for existing driver testing staff, the recruitment of additional contract staff and the limited use of outsourcing. I am looking for the support of all those involved in meeting this challenge. I ask them to agree this extremely generous package and to assist us in looking after our customers in this regard.
I agree with the Minister that driver behaviour is the single biggest cause of most accidents. However, driver behaviour is influenced by official action and particularly by official indifference. The message going out to drivers must be that there is official indifference to road safety given that there are 335,000 drivers with provisional licences, most of whom have failed their driving test. That is the background to the discussion on road accidents.
Testing is critical. The Minister stated he has advertised for ten additional testers. He also stated that legislation to set up an independent body is imminent and will be back before the House shortly. It is critical that this authority has the budget to provide a sufficient number of testers. I do not want to wander into the area of industrial relations difficulties, and I wonder why these difficulties were not resolved during the benchmarking process and why we are now offering further incentives for increased productivity. Nevertheless, I imagine the background to this is the fact that the testers will probably all be switched to an independent authority, for which the Minister will not be answerable to the House. Therefore, I must ask now whether that authority will have the budget to recruit testers when required to clear backlogs.
The issue does not only concern backlogs. If the authority has the new road safety remit the Minister promises, driver testers will be responsible for retesting and further activities in regard to ongoing education. In addition, the population is increasing. The budget of the authority is critical in ensuring it can recruit testers when required. The Minister must agree that Ireland is the only country in Europe where road deaths are increasing per capita and where one third of a million people drive on provisional licences. The situation is unacceptable.
I do not disagree with the Deputy.
The Minister is in charge.
I agree the situation is unacceptable. The Minister for Finance has been very supportive of me in providing the financial resources to achieve the outcome we need, namely, an end to backlog. I never want to see backlogs recur and it is undoubted that this proposal will end the backlog. When the backlog is out of the way, we will be have the capacity to keep the full complement of driver testers in place. When the new authority is established, resources will be fully available to it to meet demands.
The existing Civil Service structure is not the right one for the reasons outlined by the Deputy, namely, the system needs flexibility within a public service mandate. This is the best approach. It is a win-win situation for everybody and, above all, it is a win for the young drivers and others who need to get their driving licences. I do not want a position sustained whereby huge numbers of young people are driving on their second, third and fourth provisional licences. That is not the way we should operate the driving licence system.
It is difficult to follow the Minister's logic. There are huge backlogs, with a current waiting time of up to 60 weeks.
In some places.
This situation has not just occurred overnight but has been the case for several years. Moreover, the backlog does not include all the people who have simply ignored the system and drive without any form of licence. It is an awful situation. The Minister talks about providing incentives to get existing driver testers to work longer hours, recruiting temporary testers and outsourcing the work. If he accepts that all this work needs to be done, how can he believe the complement of 119 testers is adequate? The Minister noted the rate of car ownership is increasing and that people are beginning to drive at a younger age. Surely we need to increase tester numbers in line with the growth in population.
The problem is that the backlog is so large, at approximately 130,000. I have examined this issue in detail with the testers and have been told by them that they would have no trouble dealing with a normal, average number of applications for driver tests. In fact, it was only two or three years ago that waiting times had reduced to a few weeks. We know what happened then and the reason it happened.
The former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, opened his mouth.
The Minister, Deputy Brennan, made a complete mess of it.
It was an issue then that people decided——
If the backlog is growing, how will it be cleared?
I am answering the question.
The logic of what the Minister is saying is completely wrong.
The testers feel that the full complement of 119 is more than adequate to meet demands, although the system has always operated with less than a full complement. However, to give the system the flexibility to bring in extra testers on occasion, or more permanent testers, will make it possible to reduce backlogs. I can only operate on the basis of what I am told by the experts — the driver testers — who are at the coal face. They tell me how they operate and what they can cope with. If they deliver and this process delivers, and the backlog is cleared in approximately 18 months, drivers will be able to apply for and get their driving licence in just a few weeks. That is the position that must be sustained into the future.
Does the Minister accept there would not be a backlog if the system had worked efficiently with 119 testers? Given that a backlog has arisen, there is obviously a problem. By what date does the Minister expect to have the backlog cleared? How does the Minister propose to appoint those who will do the outsourced work? Will the positions be advertised? Is a firm of consultants required to advise on the issue and all the associated costs?
That process is complete.
Tell us about it.
It has gone out to public and international tender. I have not seen the final results but the process is almost at an end, which I am happy to report to the House. If we had agreement, the Department would be in a position to appoint a major company for the outsourcing on a very fixed-time contract.
Is it the NCT?
I believe it is one of the companies. The file has not come to me to sign, so I do not want to speculate on it. There has been speculation.
I am not in a position of having to go into all this because it has been done. I would be ready to roll it out if we could get agreement on the process. We must go to the Labour Relations Commission. I do not believe that is necessary given the quality of the package in place but if we must go through that process, we will do so. If we get agreement there, we could start the process on 1 January. It will take about 18 months to clear.
Is it cost effective?
It is very cost effective.
How does the Minister know?
I know the figures involved.
Why does the Minister not give us them?
The Deputy did not ask me for them.
Is the Minister being bashful? I asked the Minister for them.
In June 2003——
On a point of order, I asked that precise question. The Minister has misled the House. He said I did not ask him.
I have no problem giving the information. The information was not sought in the question. I do not carry all that information in my head but I have no issue giving the Deputy the costs. I would be happy to make them available to him.
86 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Transport the transition period he envisages for Shannon Airport maintaining its stopover arrangement following the introduction of any open skies agreement between the EU and the US. [29498/05]
In 2003, the Transport Council gave the European Commission a mandate to commence open skies negotiations with the USA. It had been hoped that a deal could be reached by June 2004 and Ireland clearly indicated that the current Shannon stop requirement should be phased out over a period of years. As it happened, it was not possible to reach agreement in 2004.
Following a series of technical discussions, the recent EU Transport Council authorised the Commission to resume formal negotiations with the US authorities with a view to concluding a first stage EU-US open skies agreement by the end of this year. I have strongly supported the resumption of the EU-US negotiations. An EU-US agreement will be good for Irish aviation, tourism and business generally. It will also be good for consumers who can avail of greater access to the US and the lower prices that the increased competition should bring.
If the talks succeed and if an agreement is ready to be approved by the Transport Council in December this year, it is my clear intention to ensure that it contains an appropriate transitional arrangement for Shannon. The details of the transition arrangement will be a matter for negotiation with the US in the lead-up to the conclusion of the EU-US deal. I do not propose to compromise my negotiating position by giving details of what I might seek at this stage. However, I can confirm that I will seek a transition period of a number of years.
The Minister spoke about speculation. There is speculation that he has already done a deal for a three-year lead-in period. Will that be the lead-in period? Why has the Minister decided to sell out on Shannon? He is going against the EU and the US because they were happy to have an agreement in place. What advantage would it be to Shannon to have an open skies policy? Experience has shown that where there is an open skies policy, the capital city benefits to the tune of 90% to 95%. With 50% of US industry located in Shannon, can the Minister guarantee there will be year round transatlantic services? A transition period of three years has been mentioned in the mid-west but there should be a greater transition period because the infrastructure in the area is not ready. Will the Minister opt for a longer lead-in period?
I do not know whether the Deputy is enunciating policy on his own behalf or whether it is Fine Gael policy that Ireland should not take advantage of a huge open skies policy to seek out 22 new destinations in America which would result in considerable tourism business to the benefit of this country. These are routes we would have dreamed about a few years ago but which we cannot access because we have an agreement in place.
The national carrier is dropping routes, including Orlando.
No deal has been done between me and the US. There was unanimous agreement at EU level about the conclusion of a deal. The Deputy is wrong to suggest we are somehow alone in this. Agreement to close a deal was unanimous between all 25 countries.
Did that include the UK?
Yes. The UK is in the chair; it holds the EU Presidency. In fact, I think I am going to the UK to meet the British transport minister next week. I have already had a number of meetings with him at Council level and I have met the European Commissioner on a number of occasions. My officials have gone to the US. Meetings were again held this week. The US is no doubt about Ireland's position. However, the US is not in the mood for messing about. It wants an open skies deal with Europe and is not interested in side bar deals. We will have to work very hard to get a transition deal on Shannon but we have kept communications with the US open and it knows the Government's position in this regard. We want to give Shannon opportunities but the real challenge for Shannon will be Cork Airport. Cork is not prohibited from opening up a range of new transatlantic routes.
The Minister is moving away from the issue.
The Deputy is talking about protectionism which is over. Cork could open up a range of transatlantic services to the US tomorrow. It is in no way prohibited from so doing under the deal. People like the Deputy who have a leadership role in their region must look at developing Shannon into the future and should not stick their heads in the sand and cause damage to Shannon.
We are not sticking our heads in the sand.
That is the type of policy the Deputy enunciated.
The Minister is selling out on Shannon.
I would be interested to know if that is Fine Gael policy, which I hope is fundamentally different.
The Minister said he is negotiating a transition deal for Shannon. A transition deal is not only one for Shannon but is one for Ireland. Is it in Ireland's interest in the context of an open skies policy, given that new destinations are being sought by airlines on both sides of the Atlantic, throughout Europe and America? New routes, destinations, airports and countries are being sought. If that consolidation takes place and these new routes are sought out within the transition period, will we not be effectively putting ourselves off the pitch for three years and hugely disadvantaging Ireland? Is the Minister satisfied that will not happen?
The analysis from Deputy Olivia Mitchell is a very interesting and totally contradicts what her colleague said.
I asked the Minister a question. It was not an analysis.
I agree a delicate balance must be struck. I want to ensure Shannon has an opportunity given its new mandate and regime. For the first time in its history, it is doing extremely well with 3 million passengers this year.
That is a European issue.
It is a great compliment to the new board, management, staff and unions in Shannon that it is happening.
A delicate balance must be struck. Deputy Olivia Mitchell is right about an immediate open skies policy with America and the major benefits which would accrue. However, we are trying to manage a transition for Shannon. I think with an EU-US open skies deal that one will see quick, incremental growth in a short number of years. I want to marry that incremental, natural growth on both sides with the transition. If an open skies policy were to be in place from tomorrow, I do not think one would necessarily see immediate change, rather it would be incremental.
However, we must position Ireland and Aer Lingus to ensure they have the opportunity to win many of those new routes for the benefit of Shannon, Cork and Dublin. The opportunities are immense. The focus should be on maximising the opportunity of open skies.
What is forgotten in this debate is that 15 of the 25 EU member states already have open skies with America and are well ahead of us.
Where do all the flights go?
We are one of ten caught in this particular arrangement, which needs to be resolved.
The Minister and the Government gave us an umbrella when the sun was shining. Now that it has started to rain, they have taken it away. Why has the Minister refused to carry out an impact study on the bilateral agreement for Shannon Airport? Before telling us everything is so rosy in the garden, why will he not have an impact study done on the abolition of the bilateral status of Shannon Airport? It will do much damage to Shannon and the mid-west region. Will the Minister guarantee transatlantic flights to Shannon Airport for 12 months of the year? I do not believe he can. The Government has sold out on the mid-west region. When we had the benefit of the Celtic tiger, the Government did nothing for the west. I am surprised the Minister, coming from the south, supports the Dublin lobby against the rest of Ireland. He can shake his head but it is so.
This is a new accusation. I have been accused of many things but not this.
It is sticking out. Why has the Minister refused the impact study for Shannon Airport? What is he afraid of?
I am not afraid of anything.
So why will he not do the study? What guarantees will he give if he does the study?
I am ensuring a future for Shannon Airport. There is no question of this, particularly on the transatlantic routes. The future is to go and get new business. Unfortunately, with all due respect to Deputy James Breen, if one follows the logic of what he and others are saying, they will crucify and kill Shannon Airport, ending its future. They are trying to hold on to some form of protectionism which is over and done with. They must have confidence in Shannon, working with me to get a deal and encourage the airport to get into new American city routes. The opportunities are there to expand into America. Are Deputies telling me that Knock Airport is in a better position to expand into America? The Deputy would want to get into the programme and come into the future. He should stop trying to crucify Shannon on an issue that will finish it.
Aer Lingus cannot last. It has already dropped the Orlando route.
Why has the impact study not been done?
Yesterday Delta Airlines announced more seats on its US routes to Dublin and Shannon in the summer. Many US carriers have noted their domestic market is slack and are examining transatlantic routes. More US carriers will come into Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus, because it is a small airline, will be gobbled up by them. Orlando has been dropped as a route by Aer Lingus. The international agreement is there to protect Shannon Airport and Aer Lingus.
That is the difference between the Fianna Fáil and the Fine Gael attitude to Government. To me the glass is always half full, to Deputy Pat Breen it is always half empty. The opportunities for Aer Lingus are huge. It has one of the finest chief executives any airline in the world would have been happy to get.
I do not doubt that.
It is an important point. He is charged with expanding Aer Lingus. I am certain the airline will expand into the US. The Deputy was right on his initial assessment. All airlines now realise the profitable routes are long haul.
They will only be going to capital cities.
It is clear that future long haul routes for Aer Lingus will be not just to the United States, but to the Middle East, South Africa, the Far East and Australia. If Aer Lingus is to survive and be a larger airline, it must be done. A hub can be created in Dublin Airport to develop a redistribution of long haul passengers into Europe to enhance Aer Lingus and other airlines in that network.
What about a hub for Shannon Airport?
The opportunities are there. We must take them and stop prevaricating.
What about the impact study?
The Minister is just evading answers.
That is not the case for Aer Lingus.
That concludes questions for today.
The Minister does not want a hub in Shannon Airport.
Give us an impact study.
That concludes questions for today.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
