Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

The Ceann Comhairle's predecessor used to extend a loquacious céad míle fáilte to all visitors from abroad in his own unique style.

One of the characteristics of the Government, now in its ninth year, has been consistently to break its promises. I want to ask the Taoiseach about road safety and the carnage on our roads. Does he recall the promise he made in 1998 to roll out speed cameras nationally within two years? Does he accept that seven years later only three cameras in 20 locations in the greater Dublin area are in operation at any one time? Does he recall the Government's commitment to have 69 penalty points offences in operation by the end of 2003? Does he realise that two years later, only three penalty points offences have been enacted? Does he accept that on average only one garda in major stations is trained in the use of breathalyser equipment?

The result of that failure is that road deaths continue to occur at a terrifyingly high level. This year 352 people have been killed on our roads, which is 21 more than at this time last year. I accept that behaviour on the roads is the responsibility of individuals. However, individual temperament is conditioned by a perception of whether they might get away with it. The National Safety Council has appealed to the Government to introduce random breath testing in an attempt to curb road deaths and speeding while under the influence of alcohol.

In the past week the Minister for Transport has pointed to legal difficulties with this proposal. In the same week the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who continually amends the criminal law, said that he had no difficulty with random drug testing for prisoners. Can the Taoiseach explain why the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can say it is possible to introduce random drug testing without any difficulty and the Minister for Transport can say there are legal difficulties with introducing random breath testing?

The Taoiseach

I acknowledge that unfortunately the number of road deaths in 2004 increased to 370 compared with 335 in 2003 when the lowest number of road deaths in 40 years was recorded. The number of fatalities resulting from road collision this year is a major cause for concern. So far this year there has been an increase in the number of road deaths to 353 as of 21 November compared with 331 for the same period last year. A total of 26 people have lost their lives on our roads in the past 14 days. This is a serious matter and the numbers are not heartening to anybody.

While it does not give any great satisfaction to the matter, in the period since 1998 mentioned by the Deputy there has been an increase of 40% in the number of road vehicles, which is an enormous increase. There is disappointment that the impact of penalty points has waned in the period since they were first introduced. However, if we did not have penalty points, the situation would be worse again. We will move to reinforce the penalty points regime by expanding it to cover more traffic offences. The important message is that on road safety it is not possible to argue with the facts. The facts show that 86% of deaths on the roads are caused by driver error with speeding the main killer. This has changed over the years from when it was drink driving, but people must show their part in it.

We now have a dedicated road safety strategy. We have introduced penalty points for speeding, not wearing seat belts, not having insurance and careless driving. This is being rolled out. As the Deputy knows, it is based on the full implementation of the technology system. Admittedly, we have had a few false starts on that. It is meant to be running by next spring.

Mr. Durkan

More than a few.

The Taoiseach

We have established a dedicated traffic corps, headed by an assistant commissioner, and invested in a huge roads programme. The Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill will lead to a fully resourced body for driver testing and training. The adoption of changes in the circumstances of random breath testing, where the driver of a vehicle can be made the subject of preliminary roadside breath testing, has been the subject of considerable debate and consideration. The road safety regulations will be amended to deal with those issues, which have now been finalised.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach did not answer the question. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said there is no problem with mandatory drug testing for prisoners, but the Minister for Transport said there are legal impediments to mandatory breath testing. Will the Taoiseach explain what they are? Will this issue be dealt with in the amendments to the regulations he mentioned? Does he intend to introduce mandatory breath testing and, if so, when?

What has the Minister for Transport done about the backlog of 100,000 young drivers waiting for driving tests? The wait is costing them €50 million a year extra in increased insurance. Nothing has been done about the banning of mobile phones while driving. I have seen many drivers on their phones while driving in town centres, some of them truck drivers, and they do not seem to have hands-free sets. Nothing has been done about basic training for motorcyclists. Only 34 extra gardaí have been allocated for traffic corps duties this year and the corps is not a dedicated unit but is used for other purposes. We have the second worst record in Europe for drink driving checks.

Tackling road safety needs strong political will and leadership. President Chirac of France has taken a personal initiative in this regard and road deaths there have reduced because of the perception of individual drivers that the state is taking a real interest in seeing that drivers drive safely. As Ministers do not appear to be prepared to do so, is the Taoiseach prepared to take a personal initiative and lead this charge so that we will not have tragic and unfortunate circumstances weekend after weekend on Irish roads?

The Taoiseach

Based on the figures I provided, this issue is a major problem. I do not want to say anything that takes away from that. I and all my Cabinet colleagues have spent an extraordinary amount of time recently trying to resolve some of the issues, for example, the PULSE system and the extension of the penalty points system to more areas. The traffic corps is a dedicated group. The Minister has given the figures in the corps for this year and next year. An assistant commissioner now has charge of the corps, with no other responsibility.

The Deputy asked about random breath testing, and that will be reflected in the changes. There are difficulties concerning how it is legally dealt with, but both the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Transport have been meeting to resolve the issue and bring it forward in the road testing legislation. They believe a resolution can be found. There are legal issues with the current practice, which I find quite extraordinary. What can be done at night time cannot be done in daytime. I do not believe this stands up, but that is current practice. Gardaí have powers to do things in the evening that they cannot do in daytime. If somebody is drink driving, there should be no difference in applying the rules and the Ministers are trying to resolve these issues.

A campaign announced today will cover issues associated with the Christmas period such as drink driving. Unfortunately, I know the public is upset at times when there is more stringent enforcement of the law through more check points and breath tests etc., but I see no alternative. We cannot allow a situation continue where hundreds of people, more than one a day, die. Although people feel abused and do not like the checks, there is no alternative except to take tough action, and that is the way the Cabinet is proceeding.

Mr. Rabbitte

I refer the Taoiseach to the legislation being put through the House of Commons today by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of what are known as on-the-runs. A decision seems to have arisen from a side deal between the British Government and Sinn Féin to greatly broaden the ambit of this issue. This now seems to suggest that those responsible for over 2,000 murders can, if the law ever catches up with them, no matter where they have been or where they now live, avail of the amnesty and be released on licence. While the institutions are in suspension, is it not the case that in matters such as this the Government is free and is expected to make an input? Has such an input been made into the Hain Bill? Did the Taoiseach use the British-Irish Council to offer an Irish position in terms of the Hain legislation? Will he inform the House of the Government position?

There are obviously major differences between the Irish and British approaches to this issue. For example, in this jurisdiction there is no legislative overpinning of these arrangements. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Irish numbers appeared to be approximately half a dozen and that these relate to people outside this jurisdiction. The British releases will be on licence, whereas the proposed Irish pardons will be absolute and irrevocable. Has the difference in approach between the two Governments resulted from the exclusion of the Irish Government from the negotiations on the recent concessions to the republican movement? Is that the explanation for the differences?

I accept we must draw a line in the sand on this issue, but it is critical, given the number of people who lost their lives and the numbers maimed and injured, that the process is open and transparent. What is proposed in the Hain legislation means that what goes on will go on behind closed doors and there will be no victim impact statement, as requested by the SDLP. The impression is being left that the British Government, if not with the collusion of the Irish Government, is doing more for the perpetrators of violence than for the victims.

The Taoiseach

The legislation being discussed in Westminster today arises from a commitment given as part of the Weston Park talks in the summer of 2001. The reason the commitment was given then was that there was an anomaly, arising from the 1998 decision on the Good Friday Agreement to allow prisoners who had committed offences before that date to be released. The anomaly was that people who were not arrested or who had never been charged were still being followed and pursued even though others who had been charged were being released. The issue was examined in 2001 and the proposals were included in the joint declaration of May 2003. This was part of the discussions that led to what was known as the acts of completion document.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct with regard to the proposals. The way the matter is being dealt with in Westminster is very different from our system. Their numbers are far more extensive than ours. I cannot be precise on our figure or whether it is half a dozen, but we believe the number is very small. The arrangement here is that an examination eligibility body will be set up to decide whether an individual is eligible for pardon. The eligibility body will have to be satisfied of the circumstances of each case. It will have to be satisfied that the person in question is not associated or affiliated in any way with an organisation that continues to engage in crime, or to threaten to engage in such activity. The eligibility body's findings in each case will be forwarded to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who will have to be satisfied of all the circumstances before referring the matter to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet is satisfied, the case will be presented to the President so that a pardon can be issued. That is the process that will be followed. A different system is being put in place in Britain.

The Government has asked the British authorities some questions about a number of aspects of the Hain Bill, mainly to get clarification on what they are doing. They have made some changes to the Bill. The Government will examine those changes to see how they will operate.

The British and Irish Governments have agreed that the process will not commence in this jurisdiction until the British legislation has been passed. I think the British system will take some time to complete its consideration of the Bill. Some of the reasons for the delay were mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte and some of them were not. The arrangements will not apply here until some time next year.

Mr. Rabbitte

I gather from what the Taoiseach has said that he raised with the British authorities some points of clarification relating to the Hain legislation. It seems this is a matter of such gravity that it requires more than simply seeking clarification. I would like to give the Taoiseach another opportunity to say whether the Government has a position on the proposals in the British legislation. He is well aware of the concerns of the SDLP, for example? Did he make the Government's position known in the normal way — directly to the Secretary of State, Mr. Hain, or the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair — or did he simply ask some questions to seek clarification?

I would also like to ask about the different approach, which involves a presidential pardon, being taken in this jurisdiction. Can the Taoiseach cite any precedent of such a pardon being offered in a case in which there has not been a trial or conviction? Can he outline circumstances in which such a pardon should be exercised, other than as a remedy for a perceived miscarriage of justice? Is there any precedent of people being exculpated even though they have admitted they are guilty? Is it not the case that the Government has proposed this method of dealing with this matter in the hope that it will fireproof its approach from judicial review on the basis of Article 13.6 of the Constitution, which relates to the President's discharge of her functions? The President is subject to judicial review in respect of other decisions, such as judicial appointments.

I put it to the Taoiseach that the Government has pursued this approach because it is not possible to introduce legislation to deal with this matter in this jurisdiction that would exclude those who are wanted and are still on the run for the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. The Government has adopted the presidential pardon approach for that reason. There is a necessity to be open and honest with people about this major decision. For example, is there a commitment in any of the side deals which have been done that those intimidated and caused to flee Northern Ireland will be permitted to re-enter that jurisdiction? Such a commitment is necessary if we are to draw a line in the sand.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Rabbitte has made a number of points. There are a number of extensions to the Hain Bill. I am not sure of the point being made by the Deputy in that regard. He is probably referring to the extension of the legislation to cover the British army. Such extensions, which have been included in the British legislation, were not discussed with the Government. They are of concern to Nationalists. The SDLP's proposals are well known to the Government, which has made them well known to the British authorities. The Bill has been extended beyond the areas about which the Government had been informed. The British authorities have to deal with a wider situation as they see fit. It is obvious that they believed they had to deal with certain matters by including the extended provisions relating to the British Army. We will see how that works as the debate progresses.

The agreements which have been reached in respect of those known as on-the-runs are far from side deals. I am not sure if that was the point being made by Deputy Rabbitte when he referred to side deals. When the 1998 agreement was reached, it was clear to the world that prisoners on all sides who had been sentenced for major crimes — murder in many cases — would be released. That agreement created an anomaly, however, in that people who were on the run because they had not been caught were not cleared and could still be charged. It was agreed at Weston Park, in a blaze of publicity that the anomaly in question had to be dealt with. The matter was also mentioned in the joint declaration and the acts of completion document.

The arrangement that will be used in this jurisdiction, which involves a constitutional pardon, is as transparent as possible. The President, who will issue the pardon, will be able to do so only after the eligibility body has received and examined a request for a pardon and passed it on to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department will have to be satisfied that it is appropriate to pass such a request on to the Minister, who will bring it to the Cabinet, which will decide whether to refer it to the President. The various decisions which will have to be made as part of the process will not be taken lightly. Deputy Rabbitte has rightly stated that it is believed that the process I have outlined is the best and most proper way for the Government to proceed legally. Difficulties could arise if the matter were to be dealt with in some other manner — that is a fact. The details of the proposals contained in the Hain Bill will become clearer as the debate continues. I will be glad to answer questions about such details at a later stage.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Does the Taoiseach recall the events of 14 October 2005, which was the date on which he last visited Monaghan town? Mr. Patrick Walsh bled to death in Monaghan General Hospital on that day because the surgical staff there were not allowed to perform a straightforward procedure to save his life. The doors of the operating theatre were quite literally barred to Mr. Walsh. Is the Taoiseach aware that yesterday the Health Service Executive published proposals from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and the national hospitals office which, if implemented, will set in stone the scandalous conditions which led to the deaths of Mr. Walsh and others? Is the Taoiseach aware that the people of Monaghan, who have seen many services taken from Monaghan General Hospital, face the prospect of the hospital becoming just a day clinic of Cavan General Hospital? As emergency procedures will no longer be carried out at Monaghan General Hospital, ambulances will have to pass its doors even though it has all the resources needed to carry out emergency surgical procedures. As ambulances will be unable to deliver patients in need of stabilisation to Monaghan General Hospital, they will instead have to bring them to Cavan and elsewhere.

Does the Taoiseach recall that he stated in the wake of the tragic death of Mr. Patrick Walsh that no protocols would prevent medical staff from doing their work? Does he recall further that the Tánaiste referred to the policy of a hospital, as if the ban on emergency surgery at Monaghan General Hospital had been imposed by its consultant staff? Will the Taoiseach demand that the Minister for Health and Children heeds the call of the consultant surgeons in Cavan and Monaghan, who called in September for resources to be made available to Monaghan General Hospital to allow it to return to full on-call status and for the restoration of the hospital's accident and emergency unit?

Does the Taoiseach appreciate that the case of Mr. Walsh is not an isolated one and is not being raised as a parochial matter? What is happening in Monaghan General Hospital today will happen in hospitals in other communities tomorrow. Does the Taoiseach appreciate that the result of this approach is that more pressure is being placed on the facilities at Cavan General Hospital, which is already over-burdened, and other hospitals? People are lying on trolleys in the over-pressed accident and emergency units in such hospitals.

The Taoiseach

I will not have time to respond to all the points made by Deputy Ó Caoláin, although I will bear them in mind. In November 2004, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland issued a report on surgical services at Cavan General Hospital which, it said, were "dysfunctional". The Health Service Executive has since been addressing the issues identified in the report, in consultation with the college of surgeons, with a view to ensuring patient safety, higher standards of clinical care, maximum utilisation of all resources on both sites and local accessibility. The HSE has recruited three new permanent consultant surgeons to replace locums at Cavan and Monaghan, bringing to five the number of surgeons employed in the hospital group. It is intended that all emergency and major elective surgery should be carried out at Cavan General Hospital. Monaghan General Hospital will become the centre for all day cases and diagnostic surgical work in the Cavan and Monaghan hospital group. A consultant surgeon is to be available on site at Monaghan General Hospital on a five-day basis from Monday to Friday. General practitioners in Monaghan are to be facilitated in gaining immediate access for urgent cases to the outpatient department facilities at Monaghan General Hospital.

The Health Service Executive is satisfied that implementation of these recommendations will result in a significant increase in the level of surgical activity at Monaghan General Hospital and more efficient use of the personal facilities available on the site. Subject to approval by the HSE, it is anticipated that the additional beds and a theatre planned for Cavan General Hospital will be commissioned by 2007.

I have not had a chance to examine this report other than to read quickly through the major series of recommendations concerning surgical services at Cavan and Monaghan announced by the National Hospitals Office and the Royal College of Surgeons. I understand that this has long been discussed by them. It is the view of the hospitals office of the HSE and the unanimous view of the Royal College of Surgeons that this is the right thing to do for patient safety, and they have made that decision.

Mr. J. Breen

Look at this newspaper heading.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 23 Nov 2005

Leaders’ Questions.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 2005