Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 2017

Vol. 961 No. 4

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017: Second Stage

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Shane Ross)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is about saving lives. I am introducing to the House a short but very important Bill. It is designed to address a specific failing in our current legislation on drink-driving. We all know that alcohol and driving do not mix. Drink driving is one of the most serious causes of collisions, injuries and fatalities on our roads. No one disputes that. There is also general agreement that the law must be firm on drink-driving. It must take drink-driving seriously and it must be seen to take it seriously. It is now seven years since the law on drink-driving was comprehensively revised and updated. The legislation involved - the Road Traffic Act 2010 - has generally served us well. It provides a framework of graded offences. At the most serious are cases where people are, as the law states, under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of controlling the vehicle. These are cases where a person has drink or drugs taken and can be proven to be impaired and unable to control the vehicle. Also serious, but a lesser offence, is being over a specified limit of alcohol. In this case, the offence is driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while over the alcohol limit. There is no requirement to prove impairment. One of the big controversies in 2010 was that the alcohol limit was being lowered. We were told this was excessive and that it would destroy social life in the country. It was not and it has not. On the contrary, lower alcohol limits have contributed to saving lives and have helped to impress on people the dangers of drinking and driving. Even a small amount of alcohol can impact on driver’s reaction time and hazard perception. While drivers in this situation may not have obvious impairment, the impact of alcohol on their reactions could be the difference between life and death.

The law on drink-driving which we introduced in 2010 contains a significant flaw. There was a general principle which was supposed to apply to drink-driving and to all serious road traffic offences. Committing a serious offence was destined to lead to a period of disqualification from driving. In spite of this principle, it was decided in 2010 - to appease publican lobby groups - to allow some drinkers found over the legal limit to escape disqualification. This is a tragic mistake. Such appeasement of a powerful lobby, such as the publicans, cannot be right. Either any drink-driving over the legal limit is a serious matter or it is not. If it is, how can we not have a disqualification? We disqualify people who drive dangerously or carelessly. We disqualify people for driving dangerously defective vehicles. We disqualify people for dangerous parking during lighting up hours. Ireland has had a mixed record in recent years. We even disqualify people for driving without insurance. What possible rationale can there be for saying to some people who drive while over the legal alcohol limit that we are not going to disqualify them? Do we really mean to say that a person driving on a road while over the alcohol limit is less of an immediate danger to public safety than someone who is parking dangerously? Are they posing less of a danger to public safety than someone who has no insurance? The fact that it is only some people in this position who get the exemption from disqualification serves to underline the fact that driving when over the limit merits disqualification. The law already recognises that this offence should normally attract disqualification. There is no logic to the proposition that in some cases some people should get a waiver on the disqualification and be allowed to pay a €200 fine, get three penalty points and drive on as if nothing had happened.

I will put this issue in a broader context. It is almost a cliché in the area of road safety that there are many factors involved and many different measures needed in order to promote road safety. It is a cliché because it is true. Ireland’s current road safety strategy, as its predecessors, sets out actions across a whole range of areas which must be addressed if we are to achieve what we all want, which is to make our roads safer and to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. Deputies will know that Ireland has a mixed record in the last few years on road safety. For a good many years road deaths were dropping from the peak of 472 in 1997 to the historic low of 162 in 2012. Since then, we have seen fluctuations. There was a significant increase in 2013, a smaller increase in 2014, a drop to 162 in 2015 and an increase again in 2016. Current indicators are of a very welcome drop in the number of deaths for 2017 with today’s figure standing at 133, which is 31 fewer fatalities than the same period in 2016. That is still 133 too many.

Many of the major issues to be addressed have been addressed. The NCT has helped to ensure vehicle standards are higher and driver training has improved. The introduction of penalty points in 2002 and the strengthening of the penalty points system have all had an impact on people's behaviour. Many more measures are in train under the road safety strategy and will continue to be so in the future. Road safety, as I have said many times, should not be a matter of politics or of ideology. It should be an issue that crosses party lines. We all agree on the goal of making our roads safer and most of the time we agree on the means. There are debates and disagreements, but they are over practicalities, whether a particular measure will work, or how it can be made to work better.

For the many factors involved in road safety and in road deaths, we must have many measures, which we do. The road safety strategy continues to address vehicle standards, driver education and enforcement. In all of these areas we need and do have continuing efforts, not least because as the number of road deaths has gone down, the causes behind those remaining deaths are more intractable.

Drink-driving has always been one of the major factors in road traffic collisions. The RSA has found that alcohol is a factor in 38% of road deaths, a figure which is based on coroners’ reports into road deaths. We should think about that figure of 38%. In spite of what we know about drink-driving and all of the public awareness campaigns, alcohol is still a factor in more than a third of road traffic deaths.

Last year when the Irish Examiner and the ICMSA commissioned an opinion survey on this issue, almost 23% of those polled admitted to driving after three or more pints. I believe anyone would conclude that the real figure must be higher, if we include those who drink and drive but do not admit it. Even a figure of nearly 23% is disturbingly high. Particularly worrying is that research by the RSA and separate research by the AA have shown that drink-driving is increasing among younger drivers. That is a surprise but it is the truth.

Drink-driving is not just dangerous; it continues to be a significant factor in road deaths in Ireland. It is a problem which is growing. Not many years ago it had become commonplace to say rather smugly that we were witnessing a culture change, that drink-driving was no longer socially acceptable. If that was true, it is not any longer. The trend is reversing and we need to get it back on course. How can we do so if the very law we make treats some drink-driving cases as not being serious enough to merit the smallest disqualification?

The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 deals with one very specific and very important amendment. It will remove the provision of the Road Traffic Act 2010 - a provision which should never have been introduced - which allows some people who drive while over the alcohol limit to get away without any disqualification. This provision is bad in itself, because it treats a serious offence as if it is not serious. It is worse if we remember that it sends a message that the law does not take "a little drink-driving" seriously.

Let me remind the House what the provision in section 29 of the 2010 Act states. Section 29 deals with drivers other than learners, novices, and professional drivers. Offences concerned with alcohol limits divide in seriousness according to the amount of alcohol a person has in his or her blood, breath or urine. Section 29 applies to people who have up to 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or are in the equivalent brackets for breath or urine. Under section 29, these people are first served with a fixed-penalty notice, rather than with a summons to court. This offers an administrative system as an alternative to court proceedings, with which I have no difficulty.

The problem arises with the consequences for drivers. Under section 29, if a person is between 80 and 100 mg per 100 ml they get a six-month disqualification. If they are between 50 and 80 mg per 100 ml, they can choose to accept three penalty points. Let us consider what this means. It takes 12 penalty points for someone to get a six-month disqualification. I am quite happy to accept that the consequence of being in a lower bracket of alcohol should be lower but the law as it stands provides that a person in the lower bracket is not automatically disqualified and gets three points, or a quarter of what it takes to reach a disqualification under the penalty point system. How can that be justified as a consequence of driving above the legal amount of alcohol taken?

The Bill will remove this anomaly. In place of the relatively trivial three penalty points, there will be a three-month disqualification. This is a short period but it is a disqualification. It is short because it is in the lowest bracket of those over the alcohol limit. Anything less would simply say - as the law so regrettably does at present - that a little alcohol over the legal limit before driving is not a serious matter.

The Bill has provoked a great deal of comment. It has been strongly supported by road-safety advocacy groups including the Irish Road Victims Association and the PARC Road Safety Group. The Road Safety Authority, the Automobile Association and Drinkaware have also been strongly supportive. A survey of public opinion conducted just after this proposal was announced found that 91% of the public supported the view that there should be automatic disqualification for all drivers detected driving over the limit. Deputies may be interested to note that these figures broke down into 93% in rural areas and 89% in urban areas.

While there has been support from victims groups, road safety advocates and the public at large, there has also been criticism. Some of the initial criticisms were based on a misunderstanding, which has hopefully been cleared up. Some people seemed to think that the Bill would lower the alcohol limits further. That was never the intention and hopefully that message has been made clear. The Bill will not lower the alcohol limits; it will ensure proper consequences for people who breach the existing limits.

There have been those who claimed that this Bill will not save a single life. They could not be more wrong. To give an idea of the scale of the issue, in the years from 2012 to 2016 inclusive, 3,003 fixed-penalty notices issued to drink-drivers in the 51 mg to 80 mg alcohol concentration bracket. This is the number of people facing the prospect of penalty points instead of a disqualification. Not only is it a significant number but there was a notable increase during 2016. This fits with other evidence of a reversal in the previous trend towards people seeing drink-driving as unacceptable.

There is also the question of actual deaths. The RSA has found that between 2008 and 2012 at least 35 people died in collisions where drivers had alcohol levels at between 21 mg and 80 mg. Of these, 16 were in the 50 mg to 80 mg range. If we had taken drink-driving, even at what we call low levels, more seriously, these 16 people might be alive. How can people claim that ensuring proper consequences for drink-driving at these levels will not save lives? They may say that drink-driving is not the only issue, or that this Bill does not address every aspect of drink-driving, but no one ever claimed that it did. What it does is address a serious flaw in our current law. It will make sure that what is already illegal will carry the consequences it should.

There is also the question of how we address the culture change we so badly need. This Bill alone will not solve the problem of drink-driving as a growing phenomenon but it will help a great deal to underline that drink-driving is never acceptable, and if we leave the law as it is, that law will continue to puncture arguments against drink-driving because the law of the land will continue to say that a little alcohol before driving is no great harm.

Most of the opposition to this Bill has, as Deputies will by now be aware, come from people who argue that it will somehow undermine social life in rural areas. The Bill has been presented as an urban versus rural issue. None of this stands up to examination. I have already mentioned the survey which found overwhelming support across the country. This is not surprising; rural Ireland has suffered disproportionately from alcohol-related road deaths. Some 81% of alcohol-related road deaths occur in rural Ireland. Those who portray this Bill as an attack on rural Ireland are missing the point. We want to save lives in rural Ireland. When the alcohol limit was being lowered in 2010, many of the same arguments were put.

The fundamental mistake of those critics who say that this Bill will damage rural Ireland is that they are conflating two very different issues. One is drink-driving, which is a public safety issue, and an issue on which I want to protect the public everywhere, in all areas, rural and urban. The other and entirely separate issue is the problem of social isolation in rural Ireland. These two issues are different and those who would treat them as one issue do a disservice to both.

We know that rural Ireland does not have the concentration of public transport that more densely populated areas do. The Government fully appreciates that there is a particular problem as people get older in socialising in rural Ireland. The Government has decided to explore ways of addressing social isolation in rural areas. I invited a wide range of organisations, State, private and voluntary, to meet me in September to explore ways in which we can address the problem of social isolation in rural Ireland. I am happy to say that there was a broad shared agreement on the problems and that a number of initiatives in this area are now being explored. I have already invited the stakeholders to a second meeting this month.

I wish to bring to the attention of Deputies my intention to introduce on Committee Stage amendments to strengthen the law with regard to learner drivers who are driving unaccompanied by a qualified person. There is strong support in the House for the strengthening of the law in this area and for the commencement of section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 2016, which for legal reasons I have been unable to commence. I am confident that I will finally be in a position to commence this section with the amendments I am proposing and to introduce a law which is robust and enforceable. I want to bring to an end the all-too-common practice of learner permit holders driving unaccompanied by a qualified person.

I shall also bring forward an amendment to assist An Garda Síochána in dealing with unaccompanied learner drivers by amending section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, which allows the Garda to detain, store, release or dispose of vehicles in certain circumstances. These include cases where the vehicle is untaxed or uninsured or where the driver has been disqualified. I intend to propose adding to these cases circumstances where the driver is an unaccompanied learner. This will be an effective tool in removing the immediate danger from the roads and will also be a strong deterrent to unaccompanied learner driving.

I urge the House to support the Bill and in so doing to make our law on drink-driving more robust and our roads safer. It really is as straightforward as that. I ask the House to listen to the voices of the road-safety experts and the road-safety advocates and victims groups who have all strongly supported this proposal. Many of them are in the Gallery and I salute them.

Some may say that there are other matters which need addressing and, of course, there are. Road safety is a goal we must and do pursue on a range of fronts and numerous initiatives are under way in line with the road safety strategy. However, how can we address any issue properly if we make laws which do not apply serious consequences to seriously dangerous behaviour?

How can we expect drivers who would risk their own safety and that of others to be deterred if they know that the consequences would not be serious?

In the months leading up to the debate today members of road safety advocacy groups, people who have lost family members and friends in road collisions involving alcohol, have contacted many of the Members of this House to ask them to support this Bill. They know, from sad experience, that every life matters, that there can be no acceptable level of collateral damage where drink-driving is concerned. Their bravery in putting their own losses aside in order to work for the safety of others can only be hugely applauded.

We talk of a need for culture change in regard to drink-driving, and rightly so. We cannot expect a change if the law itself does not step up to the mark. In an ideal world we would not have anyone acting so selfishly or so thoughtlessly as to drive after taking alcohol. Unfortunately, we do not live in that kind of world. There are people who would put themselves and others at risk. We already make that behaviour illegal. It is time the law made the consequences of that dangerous behaviour match the seriousness of the offence, and that is why I am asking all Deputies to support the Bill.

Deputy Robert Troy

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate this evening. Before I begin my contribution, I, as my party's spokesperson for sport, would like to wish our national team the very best of luck in Lansdowne Road as it hopes to bring some goodwill and cheer to our country in its endeavours against Denmark. I acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of families who have been bereaved as a result of fatalities on our roads. I salute their courageousness in the manner in which they have lobbied on this and on many other issues related to road safety, improving our legislation and reducing fatalities on our roads. We are all at one when we say we want to reduce the fatalities on our roads and reduce the number of people who have incurred serious injuries on our roads. That is the reason I welcome the opportunity to debate this legislation. It gives us an opportunity to improve our laws and to help reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. The increase in the number of road fatalities in recent years is worrying and it needs to be addressed. In the period from 2015 to 2016 alone, we saw a 16% increase in the number of road fatalities. We had become accustomed to a downward trajectory in the figures and an element of complacency may have set in.

Some have sought to portray my party as somewhat soft on drink-driving and on road traffic offences but let me be very clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, as a party, we totally condemn drink-driving. We are the party that in 2001 introduced the penalty point system, in 2005 introduced mandatory alcohol testing on our roads, in 2006 set up the Road Safety Authority, in 2009 introduced safety cameras on our roads, in 2010 introduced a graduated driver licensing system for learner drivers and in 2011 lowered the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg, a point which is sometimes lost in commentary. It is currently illegal to drive a car with a blood alcohol limit in excess of 50 mg and in excess of 20 mg for specified drivers. The reason it is illegal is that my party reduced that blood alcohol limit in 2010, which came into effect in 2011.

I accept the Minister's bona fides and that he believes what he is proposing is the right measure and that it will reduce fatalities. The figures from which we are working and with which we were presented at the committee at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage date back to 2008 and to 2012. There is only one year in that period where the new measures introduced in 2010, namely, the imposition of a €200 fine and three penalty points, came into effect. In that same period over 50% of the fatalities on our roads were the result of drivers being found to be over four times the legal limit. We have no way in this Bill to address that. In that period a significant number of motorists were found to have had a blood alcohol level of over 80 mg. We are not addressing that nor the issues concerning pedestrians or cyclists.

When I sought up to date figures from the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, in March, July and most recently in a parliamentary question in September, they were unavailable. The reason they are unavailable from the Garda Síochána is that unfortunately its members cannot stand over the figures they would produce today. That is not right or proper. It is certainly not right when we consider that more than 1 million fake breath tests are alleged to have been carried out. What we are being asked to support is a Bill based on figures that predominantly predate the introduction of the reduced blood alcohol limit in 2011. The up to date figures we have been given are preliminary and the other figures we have tried to get from the Minister when he appeared before the Oireachtas committee and by way of parliamentary questions are not available.

What the Minister and my party differ on is not the fact it is illegal, because currently that is what is in law, but on the sanctions that apply to motorists found to have a blood alcohol level in excess of 50 mg. The Minister tells us, and other people advocate, that an automatic disqualification from driving is one way to go, that this is the only way we can get impaired drivers off our roads. The question I have asked the Minister repeatedly, which he has been unable to answer, is that if automatic disqualification is the only way to go, why in 2016, according to the figures he gave when he appeared before the Oireachtas committee, were 8,063 people arrested for driving while intoxicated. Of that 8,063, 7% were found to be in the category of having a blood alcohol level of 50 mg to 80 mg, 93% were in the category of having a blood alcohol level where they would have been liable to automatic disqualification straight away. If automatic disqualification was a deterrent, one would imagine those figures would be reversed. The real deterrent to people not taking a chance in this regard is to ensure we have a significant Garda presence on our roads. Unfortunately, this Government and the previous one have allowed a situation to transpire where the number of gardaí in the traffic corps have decreased by 40% since 2010. Unfortunately, the only way we can get impaired drivers out from behind the wheel of the car is the chance of them being caught, that is, by a car with a blue flashing light coming up behind them or at a checkpoint. That has not been happening.

In 2016, the Garda initiated the Gillian Treacy campaign.

In the month leading up to Christmas, there was a 34% reduction in the number of deaths compared with the corresponding period in 2015 and a 27% reduction from the corresponding period in 2014. If we had a greater Garda presence on our roads, I firmly believe we would get our impaired drivers off the road. I must ask the Minister the question as to who is running An Garda Síochána at present. It is a leaderless organisation. The Commissioner has stepped down and the acting Commissioner has indicated he does not want to be the Commissioner. In fact, he has already gone on a pre-retirement course. Who is in charge and who will ensure a sufficient number of people are working in the traffic corps?

I understand the Crowe Horwath report has been presented to the Cabinet and that it calls for a review of the road traffic legislation with a view to streamlining and simplifying it where possible. The Garda Inspectorate also called for this in 2014, yet it has not been done. I also understand the report states it should not be used in any future process in respect of performance or disciplinary matters. Surely to God, the Minister, as a member of Cabinet, will ensure that senior members of An Garda Síochána will be held responsible for 1 million fake breath tests. I hope he does. This report also reveals that the five-shift system will be examined and that the hours of overtime will be cut by 33% in 2018. If that happens, we will see a smaller Garda presence on our roads, not a greater one. I believe that will lead to more fatalities.

The Minister portrays this legislation cynically in suggesting it will make a huge difference. He portrays Fianna Fáil as being soft on the issue. For this small category, we do not believe it is proportionate, in that somebody who has done the right thing and who took a taxi home the night before but who may be marginally over the limit the following morning, having done everything right, could potentially lose his or her driving licence for three months. As a consequence of this, such people could lose their job, which would have a huge impact on their family. I listened to the Minister last Thursday night on "Prime Time", when he was questioned about the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, and the call for him to resign from his position. The Minister said that what Deputy Halligan did was wrong and could not be condoned but that we must have proportionality in all aspects. We believe we need proportionality in this regard. I believe we need to send a strong message that this will not be tolerated and anybody caught in this category should be liable to a €500 fine and five penalty points.

I will make a number of other comments on the Bill. All Members will be afforded the opportunity to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage that will improve road safety. The Road Safety Authority has conducted an in-depth study on the role of alcohol in fatal road deaths. In eight out of ten cases, the blood alcohol level was over 100 mg. Nowhere in this legislation are we tackling that. In five out of ten cases, the blood alcohol content was over 200 mg. Nowhere in this legislation are we tackling that issue. I will table amendments on Committee Stage to ensure Irish law is brought into line with penalties that are in force across the Border in Northern Ireland and across the water in the UK. At present, it can take six months to notify the District Court of an offence. That is simply too long and should be reduced to a maximum of four weeks. People who are found guilty of breaking the law should be taken off the road immediately. That is an amendment that we will be proposing.

I mentioned the need for greater enforcement. In his contribution today, the Minister did not allude to the fact that a great number of people were involved in fatalities when they should have been off the road in the first instance. Why is the situation allowed to pertain whereby disqualified drivers continue to drive a car? We do not have sufficient penalties in place. I am told that even though disqualified drivers are obliged to return their licences to the Road Safety Authority, 98% of them do not do so. That is a disgrace and it is no wonder we have so many disqualified drivers on the road. How can that be allowed happen in this day and age? People in that category should also see their penalty increased.

The Minister was right to mention the worrying number of young people who are involved in fatal collisions and who feel it is okay to take the chance. We are not doing enough at an early stage to ensure that young people are educated on the dangers of drink-driving. While it is an optional module in transition year, we should engage with the Minister for Education and Skills to ensure that it is not optional but is a mandatory module to prepare children for when they take up driving at 17 or 18.

This is an opportunity to tackle the scourge that is cyclists and the significant number of cyclists involved in fatalities this year. I intend to table an amendment that will ensure there is a minimum required passing distance for cars overtaking cyclists. I hope the Minister will support it. It should be mandatory for all cyclists to wear a helmet at all times. I have already discussed with the Minister the need for pedestrians to wear high-visibility jackets on unlit roads. That is another amendment which I will bring forward on Committee Stage. The Minister shares my concern and supported me when I raised the matter previously. This is an opportunity to address the issue.

As we indicated last year, Fianna Fáil will support the amendment in respect of unaccompanied learner drivers. We indicated that we would do so 12 months ago.

It has taken 12 months for the Bill to come to where it is but we will support it. Originally, the Minister anticipated the legislation would be brought before the Oireachtas in March or April 2017, it would be stand-alone and would be enacted without delay. I do not know for what reason the Minister was not able to bring it before the Dáil at that time. However, the intervening period has enabled our party to look at sensible amendments which can only enhance and improve road safety, as well as helping to reduce collisions, fatalities and serious injuries on our roads.

As much as we can on this side of the House, we will support the Minister bringing this Bill to the next Stage. The only area on which we disagree is the proportionality of the offence. We will bring forward an amendment to ensure we signify it is wrong to commit an offence with a blood-alcohol concentration of over 50 mg per 100 ml.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017. My colleagues in Sinn Féin and I will support it. The Bill is designed to change the penalty for those found to be driving with a blood alcohol level above 50 mg and below 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. This is already an offence and the penalty is a fine along with three penalty points. The Bill does not propose to change the legal limits for drinking and driving. Only the penalty will change. We support the Bill because it sends a message that drinking and driving is wrong, dangerous and unacceptable.

The State has a poor record of deaths on our roads. We have come a long way in the past decade in this regard. However, there has been a worrying trend in the past few years with the numbers of annual deaths due to road traffic accidents creeping up. One life lost on our roads is one too many. Sadly, over the past several years, the number of people dying on our roads has increased. There are many reasons for this, including poor roads, careless drivers, drink and drug driving and, perhaps most importantly, the slashing of the Garda Traffic Corps.

In recent years, drinking and driving has become less acceptable. We need to work towards a society where drinking and driving is universally condemned. We are not there yet. This was clear in recent months from the attitude of public representatives, most notably from Fianna Fáil Deputies and rural Deputies in other parties, including the Minister's Government colleagues. This Bill is another step towards that aim. Drinking and driving is reckless and dangerous, and should be recognised as such under the law. A punishment of three penalty points does not relay that message. A short suspension of a driving licence does.

Some Members have been jumping up and down over this Bill, claiming they are concerned about protecting rural Ireland. A Bill which seeks to impose harsher punishments on those caught drinking and driving is not an attack on rural life. Indeed, those most at risk of being killed in a collision where alcohol is a factor are those living in rural areas. I am sympathetic to those who live in rural and isolated regions of the State who do not have adequate access to transport links. It is an absolute disgrace and I have raised it on several occasions with the Minister. At the very least, 93,000 households do not have access to any public transport. There are parts of the State which do not have trains, public buses, local links or even a regular hackney or taxi service.

These problems do not mean we should fill in the gaps with drink drivers. It is worth repeating that the matter at hand, namely, being found with between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml of blood is already an offence. Essentially, my colleagues are calling for the current situation where it would appear drink-driving in some areas is considered to be acceptable. It is never acceptable. If the current laws give the message that this is a reasonable situation, then we need to change them. The current penalty of three penalty points and a fine is apparently not getting the message across.

The Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny at the transport committee. That process was hijacked by some committee members, as well as non-committee members who oppose the legislation, in their attempt to discredit the evidence presented by the Road Safety Authority. Those on both sides of the argument appeared before the committee. The only interest groups who gave evidence against the legislation were vintners' groups. Their reason for having an interest in this is obvious. To my colleagues who claim they oppose these matters because of rural decline, if the best method they can come up with to address that issue is to argue that rural people should receive a softer punishment for drink-driving, then to be quite frank, I despair. We can do much better than that. The only reason I can think for Fianna Fáil's and others' opposition to this Bill is that it is politically popular to do so. We know Fianna Fáil will take whatever position is politically popular at the time and its position changes as soon as public opinion does.

It is quite disturbing that elected representatives care more about the votes of their constituents than they do about their lives or safety. We need to take a wider view of this. Politicians need to show leadership and do the right thing. There are many other measures which we can introduce to help people in rural areas. For years my party has called for an increase in spending on road maintenance in rural areas and expansion of the rural transport programme. The Bill is the only measure which the Minister has proposed, which is disappointing but not surprising. He needs to take an interest in rural Ireland, improving transport links and infrastructure. To date, he has shown no interest at all. Rural people are entitled to be able to travel safely and efficiently. These measures will not solve any of the problems faced by those who do not have access to adequate services. It may help to reduce drinking and driving, however.

The Minister might be smiling but the fact is that 93,000 of rural households do not have access to any form of public transport whatsoever. Bills like these are not the most pressing issue facing the Minister. A more cynical person might even consider this to be a diversionary tactic. The Minister has busied himself with this matter, along with judicial appointments, since he took office. We all can agree there are bigger issues facing the Minister. If he is concerned about road safety, his first port of call should be to invest in infrastructure. Our roads have been underfunded for the past decade. This means that essential maintenance and repairs have not happened. At the Committee of Public Accounts some weeks ago, Transport Infrastructure Ireland stated the deficit was approximately €100 million. If our roads are not safe, then the people using them are not safe. Investing in our roads would be beneficial to those living in rural areas and would make our roads safer for everybody.

I hope the Minister will take this matter seriously. When he first took office, he was told €3 billion was required to bring our roads to a steady-state condition. I have yet to see any significant movement on that. Over the past decade, personnel numbers in the Garda traffic corps have been halved.

The Minister announced that additional personnel would be added to the corps but the increase was pushed back to the end of this year. Can the Minister indicate the number of new gardaí who have joined the corps in 2017? Has the 10% target been reached? Earlier in the year, he gave a commitment at a meeting of the transport committee that there would be a 10% increase in the number of gardaí in the corps. He pressed the issue in the latter part of the year. It is now November and Christmas is almost here. The usual road safety campaign will be rolled out for the Christmas period and things will go back to normal on 2 January. We do not only want optics this year. Can the Minister indicate whether he has yet allocated the 10% increase in the number of officers serving with the Garda Traffic Corps to which he committed?

Last June, there were 663 members of the corps. In 2007, there were 1,200. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, need to address that as a matter of urgency. All Members know how effective Christmas road safety plans are. They are successful because personnel and resources are deployed in respect of road safety for a period of weeks, with checkpoints, safety messages and advertisements to beat the band. If people know there is a good chance of coming across a Garda checkpoint, it is an effective deterrent to drink-driving and, therefore, an injection of resources into the traffic corps would ensure roads are safer for everybody. That is common sense. I raised with the Minister on several occasions that there are places in County Louth and across the State in which many people make a deliberate choice to drink and drive in the full knowledge and comfort that there is no chance of their meeting a checkpoint on the road. They go from home to the pub and from the pub to home without ever coming across a Garda checkpoint and, therefore, there is no deterrent. I appeal to the Minister, if he is serious about the issue, to roll out measures not just for three weeks over Christmas but to have them sustained throughout the year because the Bill alone is not sufficient.

We still do not know the full truth of how the Garda breath test scandal came about or who was responsible. There has been no accountability whatsoever. Formulating legislation of this nature in a climate of what appears to be complete dysfunctionality is not ideal. To properly formulate legislation, we need access to correct information and data. At no stage have I heard the Minister put the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, under any pressure in a public arena to produce the data or, more importantly, to press for accountability and to hold those responsible for the scandal to account. It also appears that those who drafted the Bill did not have the data to hand.

Introducing harsher penalties at a time when there are very serious questions to be answered by the Garda in respect of breath tests is not ideal. However, despite the Minister's many failures, I accept that this does not fall under his remit but, rather, that of the Minister for Justice and Equality. I support the Bill and hope the Minister will take my comments on board when he considers future steps regarding road safety.

Deputy Brendan Ryan

The Labour Party will support the legislation as it passes through the Houses. This is a short Bill that has been the subject of long debate in recent months. That is understandable because drink-driving elicits strong and passionate responses from people across the country.

The Labour Party supports the Bill. I say that plainly because it is important that there be no ambiguity about the matter. There can be no condoning or making excuses for drink-driving or impaired driving due to alcohol intake. However, our support should not be taken as a signal that we believe the legislation is the silver bullet it has been presented as by the Minister. There is considerable scepticism as to whether legislation such as this is likely to have a significant impact, in particular if it is regarded as a stand-alone solution that will end drink-driving on our roads. The Minister should listen to such scepticism rather than painting as a defender of drink-driving anyone who dares to question his logic.

Drink-driving is not the only cause of dangerous driving. Speeding is a major problem, as is using a mobile phone or tablet device while driving. Driving a car that is not roadworthy is an almost overlooked cause of accidents and poorly maintained roads contribute significantly to the problem. Those are all major issues that need to be further tackled in order to make our roads safer and to minimise the carnage thereon.

The scepticism to which I referred exists because many Members do not believe there is sufficiently robust existing enforcement of road traffic legislation. Members know statistics produced by the Garda Síochána on the matter cannot be trusted, which further feeds such scepticism. The Labour Party believes there should be more enforcement of existing legislation but we need to be able to trust the enforcement, the statistics and the Garda. The breath test scandal has ruptured the trust in Garda traffic enforcement. It reinforced the view that the Garda is after figures and targets rather than apprehending those who are breaking the law and driving over the blood alcohol limit.

One of the biggest bugbears for many is the placing of speed vans in areas with low speed limits, such as 50 km/h zones, to try to catch people driving at perhaps 52 km/h, 53 km/h or 54 km/h. I know of places in Balbriggan and Balrothery in north county Dublin, to name only two areas, where such speed vans are regularly located. Those locations are not speeding or accident black spots and local people know that. It seems the locations are strategically chosen to catch people driving at slightly over a very low speed limit. Local people believe the speed vans are placed there to raise revenues and meet penalty point targets. When we hear about scandals such as the breath tests, such negative views are reaffirmed in the public mind. Trust is broken and the ability to enforce existing legislation, let alone new traffic measures, becomes even more difficult.

Many people have an increasing lack of trust in the Minister and the Government. There is great scepticism that the vague commitments the Minister gave to Fine Gael regarding the enhancement of rural transport will be acted upon. Improving rural transport is vital in order to sustain all elements of rural life, including the ability for rural people to socialise in their local town and perhaps enjoy a couple of drinks in their local pub. There are real problems of social isolation in rural communities. These are real problems, not imagined or exaggerated ones. Large parts of my constituency of Dublin North are rural and in them I see the effects of rural isolation. Many who live in rural isolation have few social outlets and no transport available to them other than their cars. As a nation, we do not do enough to connect people with their communities. There are pockets of Roscommon and Leitrim where communities have organised themselves to provide transport options for those living in isolation. Rural transport initiatives to bring people to a pub or community centre for an occasional night out or older people to do their shopping could meaningfully strengthen our communities. The Minister should reflect on the role his Department might play in achieving that goal. The State could do much more, we should do more and it is vital that the Minister does much more. We want the Minister to articulate more details of those plans before the Bill passes Final Stage and provide greater clarity.

I have spoken to the families of people who have lost their lives as a result of drink-driving and many of them are in the Gallery this evening. Their pain is evident and their desire to reduce the number of such deaths on our roads is entirely understandable. That desire is genuinely felt by all Members. My party and I have been convinced by speaking to the families and hearing from the Road Safety Authority that this legislation may help to save some lives.

It will change the existing link between being over the limit and receiving penalty points to a link between being over the limit and disqualification from driving. This has the potential to further alter people's behaviour, which, it is to be hoped, will save lives. As I said previously, the legislation is not a silver bullet. Those reckless individuals who drink to excess and get behind the wheel of a car, leading to tragic consequences and carnage, will probably not be dissuaded from their criminal actions by the Bill. They are not dissuaded by the existing sanctions of disqualification attached to blood alcohol levels greater than 80 mg. However, any measure which might prevent even one death on our roads is a measure we support and, accordingly, we will vote in favour of the legislation. However, we do not accept that this legislation alone will fix the problem the Minister is determined to fix. I appeal to him to resist the urge to continue belittling anyone who questions his approach and instead to try to work in a more meaningful, cross-party manner to try to tackle some of the most challenging social issues we face.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 and to support it strongly. However, on reading the Bill, it is a little like a jigsaw, amending different sections and subsections of the many Road Traffic Acts, with deletions and substitutions also provided for. The Bill therefore reinforces the urgent need for a consolidation project for all Road Traffic Acts back to 1961. The number of Acts and the complexity of legislating in this area have led to so many loopholes and lacunae over the years, which weaken what should, in practice, be very strong road safety legislation. It is unfortunately typical of this piecemeal Government that whereas Deputy Paschal Donohoe committed to consolidation of road traffic law when he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport a few years ago, the current Minister told me at the beginning of October:

The consolidation of existing road traffic legislation is a significant project, requiring the allocation of resources specifically to deal with such a project over an estimated two to three year period. In light of the fact that my officials are currently working on a number of Bills, most of which are primarily focused on road safety, it is not possible to commence such a consolidation project at this time.

However, just last week I asked the same question of the Taoiseach, who was the predecessor of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, in the very same Department, and he said:

[Consolidation] is, it is fair to say, a longstanding project in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I am not sure how much progress has been made on the legislation as yet ... A consolidated Bill would be a very good step forward.

The Taoiseach went on to refer to the fact we have consolidated company law and taxation law over the years to very good effect. The question for the current Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is, where exactly does he stand on consolidation? Is he committed to it, or has it again been put on the long finger? During debate on the Road Traffic Bill 2016 last December, the Minister, Deputy Ross, told me:

My Department is working on consolidation, as has always been the case. I understand it is being worked on quite aggressively at the moment.

I would like the Minister, Deputy Ross, perhaps in his reply, to indicate whether or not there is a consolidation project. Since 1961 there have been something like 16 or 18 Road Traffic Bills and a whole plethora of other Bills which also affect the courts system and transport generally.

However, after that initial caveat, I commend the Minister for bringing forward this important legislation and for his determination in the past 18 months on different matters to improve road safety for road users. I am delighted to support the Bill. The Minister has certainly faced much opposition to the Bill from lobby groups such as the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, the Fianna Fáil Party and some rural Deputies, and I note the weasel words from Fianna Fáil again tonight. Rural Deputies wrongly state that the Bill is anti-rural. In fact, as the Minister already said, 81% of alcohol-related road deaths occur in rural Ireland and, therefore, the Bill will undoubtedly save rural lives.

The legal blood alcohol content, BAC, limit is 50 mg for most drivers and 20 mg for certain drivers, namely, learners, novices and professional drivers. However, due to an anomaly inserted into legislation by Fianna Fáil, drivers over the 50 mg limit but under 80 mg receive just three penalty points and a €200 fine, whereas drivers with blood alcohol levels between 80 mg and 100 mg are disqualified from driving for six months and fined €400. The Bill addresses this anomaly. The disqualification penalty has been shown in the past to be a very powerful deterrent. This is the reason the Bill is fundamentally worth supporting. The Bill amends the relevant subsections of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, removing reference to penalty points and substituting references to disqualification.

As I mentioned, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in April and May showed the strength of the alcohol lobby, with many Deputies disregarding the huge numbers of lives lost and the families tragically affected by drink-driving. As the Minister knows, I have worked very closely over the years with Ms Susan Gray and her colleagues in the excellent civil society group Promoting Awareness, Responsibility and Care on our Roads, PARC. I warmly welcome some of our guests to the Gallery, including Susan and other members of PARC and the Clancy family and others whose lives have been tragically affected by loss of lives on our roads. I pay tribute to the heroic work of Susan Gray, Ann Fogarty, Noel, Fiona and Declan Clancy, James Regan Snr. and James Regan Jnr., Louise Doyle, Marie McElhinney, Jo Petford and the many other campaigners for saving lives on Irish roads over the years. Susan lost her husband, Stephen, very tragically a number of years ago on St. Stephen's Day. The unaccompanied learner driver in that crash had been drinking that evening.

The Road Safety Authority, RSA, has compiled data on alcohol's involvement in fatal crashes which show that between 2008 and 2012 alcohol was a contributing factor, as the Minister said, in 38% of fatal crashes. In her appearance before the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport on 17 May to refute disingenuous claims by the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, RSA chief executive Ms Moyagh Murdock stated, "A total of 25 drivers and motorcyclists with a confirmed BAC between 21 mg and 80 mg were responsible [...] for killing themselves [tragically] and-or others because they consumed alcohol." Based on statistics available from the RSA, the Minister has estimated that at least 35 people could possibly be saved on our roads over a period of five years. Those 35 precious lives are well worth saving, and this is one reason we should bring this legislation forward. However, we know for a fact that the figure quoted by the Minister is an under-representation of the extent of the problem because for three and a half of these five years there was no compulsory testing of surviving drivers in fatal crashes. We also do not have the figures for those with serious injuries due to road traffic collisions where alcohol is a factor because of the dearth of accurate information in this area.

Since the Road Traffic Bill 2011 there is supposed to be mandatory alcohol testing at the scene of all road traffic collisions, RTCs, where someone has died or been injured. Early questioning by me on the matter in 2012 showed that more than half of the drivers involved in RTCs were not being tested despite this legislation having been passed. In January 2015 the Tánaiste replied to a follow-up question on this, saying that up to 19 November 2014 there had been 161 fatal RTCs and that just 97 drivers, or 60%, were tested at the scene, six of whom tested positive for being above the legal limit. I then asked why the other 64 drivers were not tested and at the end of May 2015 I received an answer. At that point the information available from An Garda Síochána was that of the 181 fatal collisions in 2014, 82 drivers involved could not be tested "due to fatal injury" and a table indicated reasons for a further 51 drivers. However, 51 plus 82 equals only 133, and an explanation was never given for the remaining 48 drivers. Many other reasons were given for not testing drivers at the scene, but these figures do not seem acceptable. I submitted questions on this matter again recently and again received "holding" replies.

Section 3 of the Bill relates to the transitional provision for the period prior to commencement of section 1 of the Bill. Disqualification from driving for the offence of driving with a BAC of between 50 mg and 80 mg will only apply after the commencement of section 1, so I hope the Minister will this time indicate that we will have an early commencement of this section.

We have experience of the Road Traffic Act 2016 where a number of sections were not commenced despite the fact this House took on board amendments from Opposition parties and Independents. The Minister has effectively ignored them and refused to commence sections. The Minister said in a reply to a parliamentary question earlier in October that he would add an amendment to address the need for section 41 of the 1994 Act to give powers to An Garda Síochána to seize the vehicles of unaccompanied learner drivers. Last week saw much discussion in the media about vehicles owners being responsible for unaccompanied learner drivers. Will the Minister indicate whether there are one or two Government amendments being brought forward relating to unaccompanied learner drivers on Committee Stage? They relate to the power of gardaí to seize cars and making vehicle owners responsible. Both provisions are to improve road safety which the Minister promised this time last year to Mr. Noel Clancy and his family. The Dáil passed a section of the Road Traffic Act 2016 to this effect. Unfortunately, the action by the Minister then turned out to be an empty promise. We want to know for definite this time when the commencement orders will be signed for the various sections.

I welcome the provisions in section 2 which amend the Road Traffic Act 2002 to provide for the pausing of penalty point timing during a period of disqualification. Therefore, penalty points and reaching the threshold for penalty points will run consecutively rather than concurrently with any period of disqualification, as in other jurisdictions.

As always, the library and research service produced a very useful and informative Bill digest. It discusses the Bill and includes an interesting section on what works to combat drink driving. I note the RSA talks about the three Es, education, engineering and enforcement. We know that greater enforcement of road safety legislation is key. More mandatory intoxicant tests, MITs, and visibility of gardaí on the roads are the most important aspects of increasing road safety and reducing deaths and serious injuries. There are also some technical and practical things that the relevant industries, the motor insurance industry, for example, could be involved in championing. The ignition interlock is an area that is of interest. It is a device linked to the vehicle which would prevent the vehicle from starting if any alcohol was detected in the driver’s breath. Queensland state in Australia, for example, uses these locks for drivers who have already been convicted of drink-driving and interlocks are also used in some European countries. Drink-driving is an international issue and organisations, including the World Health Organization, WHO, have published reports and strategies on how to reduce drink-driving. Disqualification for driving over the limit is one of the WHO’s recommendations, as is lowering the blood alcohol content, BAC, limits. It is in line with the legislation before us. The 2010 North review in the UK stated that "the threat of a substantial period of mandatory disqualification has proved to be a potent weapon in combatting drink driving.” I believe that vehicle manufacturers and EU vehicle standards, in other words, the whole car industry, need to focus on driver safety most of all. For example, why do many saloons not have a rear window wiper and why is speed limit warning technology which one finds in many new vehicles, such as the Toyota Avensis, not mandatory for all vehicles?

In Ireland, 615 drivers were arrested in January for driving while intoxicated, 672 in February, 711 in March, 903 in April, 801 in May, 750 in June, 723 in July and 776 in August. This represents an increase of 14% on the same period last year. It would be interesting to see how many of these, depending on the BAC levels, have taken their penalty points and paid their fixed charge notices to avoid a court appearance and how many have decided to challenge the matter in court. We know that because of a mistake by the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, while he was the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, large numbers of drink-driving cases have been thrown out of court due to the loophole around the breathalyser reports being printed in only Irish or English. That was SI 541. The Minister at the time and the Department seemed to misinterpret the rule about two copies being given after a breath test, one for the driver and one for the Garda Síochána. We await the opinion of the Supreme Court on this. The previous Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, closed the loophole arising from Deputy Varadkar's mistake in 2015.

In January this year, the RSA conducted a national survey on attitudes to drink-driving and, as the Minister of State said, found that 91% of people surveyed supported automatic disqualification for those driving over the limit. As the Minister of State said, this equates to 93% in favour from rural Ireland and 89% from urban areas. I do not buy the argument that the Bill is anti-rural. The figures I have mentioned here today show that, statistically, more rural lives will be saved given that alcohol is a factor in such a high percentage of road traffic crashes, RTCs, around the country. Saying that rural pubs will suffer is a totally unacceptable argument against this Bill. Using social isolation as a reason for rejecting the Bill disrespects the thousands of friends and families who have lost loved ones or suffered serious injuries in road traffic crashes due to alcohol over the years on Irish roads.

As a transport spokesperson in the past for the Labour Party, I was always a strong supporter of local and community public transport companies. I remember an impressive local transport company, OK Transport, a brilliant public service for Offaly and west Kildare, and other similar bodies from Kerry, Cork and various parts of Ireland, presenting to the committee which covered transport. Local taxi and hackney services should also be encouraged and measures should be brought forward to support them. I note the Minister, Deputy Shane Ross, responded sympathetically to Deputy Heydon's proposal that we should support local rural transport providers. Like my Sinn Féin colleague, I would like to see evidence of that as soon as possible.

Besides the number of tragic deaths and the horrendous suffering of families following deaths of family members, there is a simple and powerful argument against drink-driving. A motor vehicle is a complex machine where the driver's absolute and full attention is always necessary when the vehicle is in use. No employer would permit an employee to operate machinery if he or she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Why should the operation of a vehicle be any different?

Already this year, as of yesterday lunchtime, we have lost 130 people on our roads and while this is 33 fewer than last year, it is still far too many. We are not giving enough attention to serious injuries caused on our roads. I was invited recently to a very informative briefing by Dr. Jack Short from Trinity College Dublin on a paper he published in October 2017, Traffic injuries in Ireland: a neglected problem, for the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society and he has found a very serious problem with the reporting and recording of serious injuries caused by road traffic crashes. His initial conclusions seem to be that serious crash injuries may be underestimated by a factor of three. He gives interesting statistical evidence from what he has been able to gather from the health system and justice system that this is indeed the case. I believe the Department is currently examining Dr. Short's paper and I would certainly encourage it to do so.

We know that conviction rates for drink-driving remain low and even if the court figures are believed, the number of those who have lost their licence on conviction is shockingly low and worse still are the recorded figures of those who have been disqualified from driving returning their licences to the RSA post office box address in Cork.

On 29 May 2017, I visited the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, on the invitation of Professor Denis Cusack, its director. It was a very informative and useful visit. It would be very useful for all Deputies to visit it. Professor Cusack, his colleagues and the chief analyst showed us breath-testing and drug-testing devices. We were informed that the tender for the new breath-test Draeger devices had gone out two weeks previously and was due back before the end of June. Professor Cusack said that these would then be selected and tested for months before being sent out for use. Professor Cusack also stated that he would expect the new devices to be available to gardaí in early 2018. The new breath-test devices will have a chip to record the location, time and number of each test. That visit and the information we received is positive and will hopefully return the breath-test mechanism, process and legal measures that flow from it to being a process that will become accountable, given revelations that breath-test figures may have been inflated by more than 2 million.

The road safety group, Promoting Awareness Responsibility and Care, PARC, has done extensive research and analysis of figures supplied by the Minister for Justice and Equality following parliamentary questions I raised on drink driving. As the Minister of State is aware, PARC has attended court cases around the State to monitor the outcomes of road traffic offences and in particular those relating to drink driving and disqualified drivers. PARC also regularly completes analyses of parliamentary questions data from the Department of Justice and Equality. From PARC’s analysis of drink-driving court cases during 2015 and 2016, an average of 20% of those convicted in court had their licence numbers recorded. This figure reduced to 7% in Kerry and 8% in Limerick. The Road Safety Authority, RSA, is in charge of driver licences since 2013 yet, on its own admission to RTÉ this year, 98% of persons who are disqualified are not surrendering their licences to the RSA. It appears there are huge gaps in the information and the administration of road traffic law that we need to address urgently.

I warmly welcome the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 and urge all my Dáil colleagues to support it. Hopefully, it will be a major step to end drink driving and to save many lives annually.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Connolly)

Bogfaimid ar aghaidh anois go dtí na Rural Independents. I wish to inform Deputy Collins that I will stop the debate at 8 p.m. and I will ask him to move the adjournment of the debate.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank the Acting Chairman. I commiserate with anyone who has lost a loved one in any road tragedy. I have seen quite a lot of it down through the years through my work. I see the devastating effects it has on the family and the community.

I must be honest and say that I have a conflict of interest when talking about this Bill because I have two brothers who work in the pub business in rural Ireland. My brother John has Chaplin's Bar in Bandon and my brother Danny has the Boston Bar in Bantry. My daughter works in two pubs, the Long Boat Bar in Durrus and Arundel's in Ahakista. There are some 25 jobs in those establishments. It is important to think of that. These are rural jobs, part-time and full-time. Every publican I know acts very responsibly and tries to care for his or her customers. If publicans do not care for the customer there is a long-term implication.

Where is the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, going with this Bill? It is a very anti-rural Bill as far as I can see. I remember a number of years ago when the Minister for Finance at the time came to the House with his budget and said he was giving an increase in children's allowance for the first two children but not the third child. There was an outcry. People asked what the Minister had against the third child. I want to ask the Minister, Deputy Ross, what has he against the people of rural Ireland. He certainly has a set on the people of rural Ireland with this Bill, and with a number of other issues I could mention. This matter, however, is the one we are speaking on today.

The Minister, Deputy Ross, is responsible for roads. There are many other factors resulting in people being killed on our roadsides. I do not agree with excessive drinking. I do not really drink much myself and if publicans had to depend on me, they would be pitied. There is, however, no talk about the Minister bringing in a Bill to shut the bar in Leinster House. In my view, it should be shut because we should not have a place of drink in Dáil Éireann. I will not drink alcohol in here. It should not be here. The Minister, Deputy Ross, should start leading by example. He should start by not bringing this Bill that will, obviously, damage rural Ireland. A Deputy across the floor of the House said earlier that rural Deputies were jumping up and down. Shame on any Deputy who would say that we would not stand up for our people. Shame on someone telling Deputies and the nation that it is the vintners who are against this measure. Of course, the vintners have livelihoods to protect; their own and those of their staff. They have young people who are depending on the job and the community depends on their service.

There are many other issues the Minister is forgetting, which are the cause of loss of life in the State. I can name one of them. Why has the Minister not issued a report, or instructed the local authority to carry out a survey, on every roadside tree in the State that has caused a roadside death and which will continue to kill people? Two years ago, when I was a local authority member, I pushed as hard as I could to make sure that our local authority would do a report on trees that were falling over the roadside. We are lucky to have a great company in the ESB because the cables and the poles are holding up most of the roadside trees in west Cork. The Minister, however, will not worry about this issue. Do not worry about the loss of life if a tree falls on a person. These are the matters he should be looking at instead of picking on this issue, but this issue is popular. It is a highly emotional topic for many people.

I am aware of the lack of funding for roads in my constituency. The Minister is in charge of roads. That lack of funding is a cause of deaths on our roads. There is no funding whatsoever for roads such as the N71, the R581 or the R582. I get details of little bits of funding, such as €20,000 or €30,000. This is nothing as such. The Minister of State should try to travel the road from my parish of Goleen to Cork city some time. I can tell him it would be the rockiest spin he would ever have. There is no funding for our roads and the roads are in severe danger of causing loss of life.

The Government talks of rural-proofing Government policy, but that is the biggest cod that was ever mentioned in this Dáil. It is a mockery to the people of rural Ireland. I raised the issue last week in regard to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. I asked the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, about rural-proofing. He said that he was speaking to people about it. However, people are being told what the Government is going to do. That is not rural-proofing. This is the same. If the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport wants to go ahead with a measure such as this what has he put in place to help the people of rural Ireland come and go within their community? He has put in place nothing. He will talk to them again. The Minister speaks of social isolation but I am afraid he does not have a clue what it means. Before this Bill ever reached the Dáil the Minister should have resolved that issue but he did not. He is failing in his duty to the people of Ireland. Our Constitution does not say it looks after the people of urban Ireland, its states that it looks after the people of Ireland. With this Bill the Minister is failing in his duty to do that.

There are many issues causing upset, annoyance and frustration in this regard. The Minister was in west Cork during the summer and he will not deny the number of people he met to discuss roads and tourism issues. I accept he has a big brief. Every group he met, however, told him not to go ahead with this Bill. They were not all publicans and brewery people, they were people from rural Ireland who understood what rural Ireland means. The Minister listened to them but still he went ahead with this.

Another issue that applies in this respect is driver licences. There is frustration among young people on this matter. There is a complete lack of public transport where I live. The bus leaves at 7 a.m. and comes back at 8 p.m. Is that the way to treat people? Is this the way to bring forward Bills that cause further isolation, further mental health issues and further difficulties? The way the Minister, Deputy Ross, has gone about it is certainly wrong. One needs to look at the rural-proofing and resolve the issues before bringing forward another measure that might have catastrophic consequences for quite a lot of people. There are many people pleading for driver tests but there is a backlog for months. This leads to more frustration. There are many people who are returning to Ireland from all over the world. I met a gentleman over the weekend who has brought considerable employment to Ireland and yet he cannot get an Irish driver licence. Last week he could drive in Manhattan but he cannot drive in west Cork this week because he does not have an Irish driver licence. This is another way of making life more difficult for a person in a rural community.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Connolly)

I must adjourn the debate as it is 8 p.m.

Debate adjourned.