Joint Committee on Transport and Communications díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 May 2015

General Scheme of Road Traffic Bill 2015: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

We now come to pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the road traffic Bill 2015. The purpose of this afternoon's meeting is to engage with representatives of the Garda National Traffic Bureau and the Irish Road Haulage Association as part of the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny on the heads of the road traffic Bill 2015. On behalf of the committee I welcome the assistant commissioner, Mr. John Twomey, and superintendent Con O'Donohue of the Garda National Traffic Bureau, and Mr. Gerry McMahon and Mr. Jonathan Molony of the Irish Road Haulage Association.

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise you that any submission or opening statements you have made to the committee will be published on the committee website after this meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now call on assistant commissioner Mr. John Twomey to make his opening statement.

Mr. John Twomey

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the committee on matters relating to the general scheme of the road traffic Bill 2015. In general terms, changes to road traffic legislation have led to a significant improvement in road safety since 2005, when there were 396 road deaths as compared to 195 in 2014, a reduction of more than 50%. Despite recent increases in 2013 and 2014, in 2015 there have been 50 road deaths - a decrease of 13 over the same period in 2014, which is somewhat encouraging. We are all involved in road safety with one aim, which is to make roads a safer place for all our road users.

Over the years a number of legislative changes have been introduced. Mandatory alcohol testing was introduced on 24 July 2006 and that has made a big difference to how the Garda Síochána engages in road safety. There were 78,000 road checkpoints in 2014 with a total of almost 361,000 breath tests. To date in 2015 there have been just under 25,100 checkpoints with a total number of 113,401 breath tests carried out.

In 2014 one in 475 drivers tested were positive, which is a considerable increase on 2006. The Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended, provides for mandatory road breath screening for all drivers either suspected of taking alcohol or involved in a road traffic collision. The Road Traffic Act further provides for discretionary roadside breath screening for drivers who have committed a road traffic offence and are involved in a road traffic collision. The Act was amended on 28 November 2011 to introduce mandatory blood-urine alcohol analysis for drivers admitted to hospital following road traffic collisions.

The Road Traffic Act 2010 provided for reduced BAC levels for all drivers from 0.8% to 0.5% and the Act further provided for the definition of a specified person subjected to a lower BAC of 0.2%. Specified drivers include learners, novices and professional or commercial drivers and the number arrested for intoxicated offences for 2015 is 7,697. Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 relates to preliminary impairment tests and commenced in November 2014. It provides for road impairment testing of drivers suspected of being under the influence of an intoxicant, primarily drugs.

As regards the general scheme of the Bill of 2015, it is noted that road safety priorities have been included relating to intoxicated driving and involve penalty points and other miscellaneous matters which have been developed following a consultation process with the Department. The Garda National Traffic Bureau and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport meet on a monthly basis on all road safety matters, including legislation. We work very closely with the Department on this Bill and we are represented on both the technical and legislative working groups on intoxicated driving, specifically roadside chemical drug testing.

We are committed to engaging with all of our stakeholders on how we improve road safety. The proposed Bill improves the legislation dealing with those who drive under the influence of an intoxicant, in particular drugs, and distracted driving. There is mutual recognition of penalty points. There is legislative provision for the writing-off of vehicles, in particular, and obligations on employers. There are also provisions in the proposed Bill for how we deal with peddle cyclists, with the ultimate aim of improving road safety for those road users as well.

Chairman

I call Mr. McMahon or Mr. Molony of the Irish Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

Like the previous speaker, I thank the committee for extending the invitation to us, as an organisation. I am sure the committee will be aware that a lot of legislation is introduced in the country over our heads and we do not get opportunities to have our say before the event. As far as we are concerned, this is definitely the way forward.

The Irish Road Haulage Association is safety conscious. We work with several safety campaigns with our colleagues, An Garda Síochána and the Road Safety Authority, the competent authority in the country.

Mr. Molony will give the committee our submission and then I will take questions afterwards, if that is okay.

Mr. Jonathan Molony

The Irish Road Haulage Association, IRHA, as Ireland's largest Government-recognised road transport representative body, is committed to tackling head-on the issues affecting its industry. It seeks to build the future of the Irish road transport industry by developing and promoting industry standards, facilitating road transport operator education and training, educating end-users and securing an equitable business environment.

While the contents of a general scheme of a road traffic Bill 2015 are wide ranging, there are a number of specific elements on which the IRHA wishes to provide industry opinion.

The first is the employer responsibility to test for intoxicants. The IRHA is not supportive of this proposal in its current guise. Such a measure will present a significant level of burden and cost on an already hard-pressed haulage industry. The IRHA is not condoning drink-drug driving but a greater level of enforcement in this area from An Garda Síochána, where the core competency lies, would be preferred. The IRHA fears that this proposal has not been thoroughly considered by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in terms of the administrative and cost impact on the sector where the majority of licenceholders are owner operators. It is envisaged that these measures will not affect small business but this claim is not substantiated. Counselling services, disciplinary procedures and an appeals process will have to be put in place by a haulage operator which will place significant operational strain on a licensed haulage company.

On the matter of the second aspect, intoxicated driving, the IRHA supports all of the proposed measures to provide for enforcement in respect of a prohibition on driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. We welcome the expansion of the functions of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. The IRHA supports the introduction of mandatory intoxicant testing which will mirror the established procedures for mandatory roadside testing for alcohol. The association believes that the penalties for drug driving are sufficient and should ultimately act as an effective deterrent to such irresponsible behaviour.

With regard to the third aspect, penalty points, it is proposed that the offence of failure to have a certificate of roadworthiness would become a fixed-charge offence. The IRHA objects to this proposal given the extraordinary difficulties experienced by IRHA members since the introduction of the Road Safety Authority (Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness) Act 2012 in regard to the testing of equipment, in particular, articulated trailers. The association considers this proposal to be disingenuous given haulage operators are not receiving a 12-month test certificate from the date of the test while still meeting increased commercial vehicle test fees. There has also been a failure to cater for equipment genuinely off the road due to a lack of operational or seasonal demand. The allocation of penalty points in this area of road transport must apply to the owner of the equipment, not the driver. It would be normal practice for a driver to draw several different trailers during the course of the day, many of which may not be owned by him or the company on behalf of which he works. Until the above issues are resolved, the IRHA is vehemently opposed to the progression of this particular element.

The fourth aspect is the restriction on the use of electronic communication devices while driving.

The restriction on the use of electronic devices to send or read text messages, use smartphone apps, connect to the Internet or access social media while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road is fully supported by the Irish Road Haulage Association, IRHA, and, therefore, the licensed road transport industry.

The section on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications which provides for an agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom in applying driving disqualifications for a number of specific serious road traffic offences committed by persons normally resident in or holding a driving licence from one state where the offence was committed in the other state is welcomed and fully supported by the IRHA. Such a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom is a positive development and the association encourages the fostering of similar close links, where appropriate.

Regarding the sharing of insurance information by insurers, the amendment to section 78A of the Road Traffic Act 1961 requiring insurers to provide for the Minister, An Garda Síochána and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland, MIBI, details of new policies issued and existing policies cancelled receives a guarded welcome from the IRHA. If the amendment results in greater scrutiny and enforcement of unlicensed, unscrupulous operators within the industry, it will have a positive influence on the collective supply chain. However, if scrutiny only continues of operators within the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport's road haulage licensing net, it will fail to have a collective beneficial effect on tax compliant licensed operators within the sector.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Molony. That was a short but direct presentation, which is to be welcomed. I also welcome the initial remarks on how the Bill is at pre-legislative phase.

Apart from this consultation, has either group had consultations with the Department? From the Garda's perspective, will anything in what has been proposed be difficult to implement? Will anything require extra resources? What are the obstacles? These are my quick questions before handing over to members.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

No, we have not yet had any direct involvement. The invitation extended by the committee probably drew our attention to this issue. In representing our sector, the members of which are small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, in the main, we listen to and read in the media everyday about how the greatest little country in which to work is Ireland and how the SME sector will be helped. This legislation will be cumbersome for SMEs. We cannot say we are not pro-road safety. That is not what we are saying. However, everyone working in an environment must have security of employment. The add-on costs incurred following the introduction of this legislation will be phenomenal. For example, where does culpability lie if someone is not breathalysed and an accident occurs?

Chairman

Mr. McMahon is referring to the random testing of employees.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

Yes, from the employer's point of view specifically. This element causes us major problems. Anyone who is working has a contract of employment. In most circumstances of which I am aware, the first duty of care listed in the contract is that, if someone is found to have consumed alcohol while on duty, he or she will lose his or her job. No one in his or her right mind in the transport sector - we represent many people who are in their right minds - would condone the consumption of alcohol or drugs or allow it to happen. An employer would not allow such a person on the road.

Let us consider our sector. It is mobile. We employ people who work across Europe 24-7. It is not as if everyone arrives for work at 9 a.m. and there is a supervisor who, seeing that everyone looks okay, decides whether he or she should bother with random testing. Drivers in the international haulage sector can be anywhere in Europe on any given day. An owner of a company might not see an employee at the company's premises for four weeks.

Therefore, the employee has a duty of care to himself or herself. The employer places trust in the employee and this has worked to date. I do not know where the precedent for this measure is coming from. I cannot find it, even in the legislation of some of the most safety conscious countries in Europe, including Sweden. It seems to be coming down the line through the Railway Safety Act 2005. Road transport and passenger transport are completely different. This issue has to be perceived in that light.

Without making excuses, I contend the country is aware of the difficulty we are experiencing in the transport sector owing to a shortage of drivers. That is not to say drivers would not take a job if they had to do what is proposed. Every proper professional driver is conscious of what he or she should and should not do, but the amount of new legislation affecting the sector is driving people out of it. It is a difficulty and, as far as we are concerned, just another nail in the coffin of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Chairman

There are two aspects, namely, cost and administration. About what costs is Mr. McMahon talking? He mentioned individual contractors. If I have my own truck, am I supposed to test myself?

Mr. Gerry McMahon

Yes, according to my reading of it. How does one randomly test oneself? This is a grey area. The Bill states specifically that this will not have an impact on the SME sector and that taxi drivers will not be affected by it. That is a very open statement and does not clarify whether my organisation will be affected. We do not know. Direct correspondence with the Department arising from today's proceedings might answer the question. It has not been answered today and there is an open, grey area. The wording in the Bill is vague and has been very badly written.

On the question of costs, how does one quantify a cost when one does not know what the consequences will be? We do not know what the cost will be, but the fear is based on what would occur under the legislation if an employee who was randomly tested for alcohol or drugs on arriving at work were found to be over the limit. If the employee states he or she is addicted to drugs, the employer must provide counselling and take care of him or her, during which process he or she is still in employment. A small company - I am using the example of a small company to get my point across - would have to employ another individual to do the employee's work before he or she was capable of returning to work. The company must incur the cost of that burden. That is not sustainable in any society, never mind our own. It is just not practical. It is very hard to quantify the cost until we know the exact detail of what we will be required to do, but, based on an initial reading, the proposal is a step too far.

Chairman

Mr. McMahon is raising a flag on this one issue.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

Absolutely.

Mr. John Twomey

The two issues raised by the Chairman concern consultation on the Bill and its operability. We meet the Department probably every four to six weeks on legislation and other road safety matters. Therefore, we have been involved in the areas relevant to our area of operation. We are satisfied that the measure is operable in terms of enforcement of the Road Traffic Act on public roads.

Chairman

What are Mr. Twomey's observations on the statement of the Irish Road Haulage Association?

Mr. John Twomey

We are probably coming from different perspectives. Mr. McMahon is coming from the perspective of an employer, bearing in mind the associated complexities. My perspective is based on road safety. Any measure that improves road safety and reduces the number of road deaths is to be welcomed.

Chairman

The Irish Road Haulage Association has agreed on the importance of implementation from the Garda's perspective.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the assistant commissioner and the Irish Road Haulage Association for their presentations. This is probably the one issue that seems to be very contentious. Many issues arise over the considerable emphasis being placed on the employer in the Bill in terms of carrying out tests. It is very difficult because prescription drugs are included. A person could test positive for prescription drugs. Will this make an employer responsible for someone who is taking prescription drugs that are believed to be acceptable? It is a very difficult matter. Even with cocaine, an employer may not see the physical effect.

Some people can take cocaine yet work as normal. In comparison, when a person takes a drink one can see a difference in their demeanour. There are serious issues for employers and employers' rights if we insist on inspections being conducted on a regular basis. The initiative could be problematic because employees could change from one vehicle to another or be asked to use another vehicle at short notice.

I am not sure how we will tackle all of these issues when the legislation reaches us. Concerns have been raised by other groups, not by the delegations present, that have been in here in regard to this matter. As has been said, if an employer deems that someone has a problem then counselling must be sought, etc. That is a big issue, especially for people who work on their own as drivers-owner operators.

The difficulties associated with roadworthiness certificates have been mentioned. For a long time the issue of people having to pay road tax, etc. on vehicles that are off the road due to the cessation of seasonal work, a lack of business or otherwise has been debated. I would like this area examined.

A drug testing initiative has been in operation since November 2014. Are we satisfied that we have the correct equipment? Has it been sourced properly? For a while there have been question marks over the type of equipment used to detect drugs. In my opinion, there is a wider range of drugs available than we realise and a hell of a lot of prescription drugs are being used. The number of road deaths increased for a while but it is now starting to decrease. However, I suspect that some drug-related deaths have gone undetected and it is important we look at the matter.

The Bill also refers to the establishment of a register of written-off vehicles. In the past there was a problem with company cars making their way back on to the streets and, therefore, it is important that a register is enforced. Will we have the resources to compile a register? I worry that we will not.

The issue of penalty points applying to the owner of a vehicle and not the driver was raised. A problem could arise where a person moves from one vehicle to another. In that instance, how does one blame the driver if a problem arises with a vehicle? Someone could change into another vehicle at short notice. How can one put the blame on the driver as opposed to the owner in that instance? I ask the delegations to elaborate on the matter.

My final comment is on the proposed 20 km/h speed limit in housing estates. Does the Garda agree that such a limit would be useful in certain circumstances? Would it be difficult to enforce?

Mr. Gerry McMahon

The first issue is enforcement and the answer is quite simple. We, as employers, should not be requested to become enforcers. We have two good agencies in this State for road transport. Seated beside me are representatives of An Garda Síochána and we also have the Road Safety Authority. Both organisations have people who are competent and trained to be enforcers. I wish to clearly state that enforcement is not part of our brief.

On penalty points, it is very unfair to ask an employee to remove responsibility from the owner of equipment to keep it in a roadworthy condition.

The employee, through their contract of employment, is already required to carry out what is called a walk-around check. Any time a driver takes over a new vehicle, be it a truck, trailer or whatever type of vehicle, they have a duty of care to go around their vehicle and check it. Specific criteria are involved in that respect, and they are documented and agreed by all the agencies.

If a driver does not identify any problem or is not aware of anything on the vehicle being broken and on being stopped at a checkpoint is found to be wrong, it is unfair that the driver should have to take penalty points for that. The employer has the responsibility of keeping their vehicles roadworthy and all the responsibility should lie with the employer only. A tranche of penalty points is provided in our legislation that will cover drivers. I am sure we are all well aware of them, as are drivers. It relates to my earlier point about the difficulty of getting employees to enter our industry. Employees would perceive this to be another thorn in their sides and it is turning them away from the sector. We need to make the sector a better, rather than a worse, place to work. That is not to say we do not honour our responsibilities with respect to road safety. We do, but in respect of the specific penalty point offence only, it must apply to the owner of the vehicle and not the person driving the vehicle.

Regarding the test certificates for vehicles, this has been a bone of contention since the new legislation was drafted with the input of our organisation on behalf of the industry. National car testing was introduced many years ago. It has been a successful initiative and we agree that it has definitely helped matters. We were well used to having our vehicles tested and under the old system we produced our vehicle, be it a truck or trailer, every 12 months at our discretion and we got a test certificate for 12 months from the date of the test. The position changed with the introduction of the new legislation 18 months or two years ago in that the test certificate only covers the period up to date of registration of the vehicle. If one's truck has been off the road for three months and one brings it in for testing, one will only get a temporary certificate for six months. The truck must be produced again for testing after six months and a certificate will be given covering a period of 12 months. A driver has to pay paying for testing covering 24 months for only a 15-month or an 18-month contract, which is very unfair.

We have been dealing with the Road Safety Authority on this issue. It has the main responsibility for it. The process is under review. The members may not understand the process and I will explain it. If a small company owns ten trucks, it could own 100 trailers. We have what is called a drop trailer. If a person is working for a company, it may ask them to leave three empty trailers at its site and it will load them up at its convenience. As there is a great deal of seasonal work, particularly in the agriculture sector, with fluctuations in demand and peaks at busy times, 50% of one's trailer fleet may be off the road for six months of the year. It is very unfair that one should be asked to pay 24 months tax, if one cannot produce a vehicle within a six-month period. We have made that point clearly to the Road Safety Authority. It is considering this in the context of its database and it is building a new database because it did not know what was in place when the new system was introduced. That is reason we are objecting to that requirement in its former guise. It is hoped we will be able to come to an agreeable resolution with the RSA. The best system is that when one turns up for one's test, one would be covered for 12 months from the date of one's test and one would pay for cover for that period. That is workable with everyone in the environment. That covers the three questions that were raised.

Mr. John Twomey

In regard to Deputy Ellis's initial question about equipment, we do roadside impairment testing. Work is ongoing to identify the most relevant equipment we would use in the event that the new legislation comes into force. Currently, we use roadside impairment testing. The new equipment we need is complex because of the myriad and complexity of drugs that are available to people on our streets. Work is still ongoing to identify the most appropriate equipment.

In terms of the writing-off of vehicles that are not registered, we consider that to be important legislation and that it will be of enormous benefit . The Deputy gave valid examples of how it has been used by us.

Resourcing is an ongoing issue.

However, road safety and the legislation's enforcement are organisational matters and are not confined to traffic or other sections. It is a key priority for us and will be given the relevant resources.

As to speed limits, the provisions in the heads of the Bill will streamline prosecutions and be of significant benefit to us. Any proposal to reduce speed limits in pedestrian and residential areas would be welcome.

Deputy Seán Kenny

I thank the Irish Road Haulage Association, IRHA, and the Garda for their statements. A picture is emerging about employers' responsibility for the drivers of their vehicles. Currently, no legislation requires checks like these. When representatives of Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus appeared before us, they stated that they could not achieve an agreement to have these checks because there was no legislation. The only place this system seems to work is on the railway and in airlines. For example, there is stringent testing of airline crews. Despite that, things sometimes go wrong.

I accept that there will be a cost, but safety has a cost. If there is no safety, there could be an even higher host. In an accident, there could be a fatality and vehicles and the travelling public could be endangered. Most people will agree that an employer has a duty of care to his or her staff, be they driving trucks, buses or other vehicles. This duty of care could extend to ensuring that the driver was free from a level of intoxication that would impair his or her capacity to drive.

Besides the IRHA, Mr. Conor Faughnan of the Automobile Association told us that he did not believe that there was great enthusiasm among motorists for random drug testing because many people were on medication of some kind or other for various ailments. The fear is that someone might be stopped, fined or given penalty points as a result. It is important that we tease out these issues at the pre-legislative phase. I accept the Garda's statement that roadside drug testing is already happening, but to what extent? As to the cost, there would be a cost in not having these tests as well.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

I do not disagree with the Deputy. He likened Bus Éireann with small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, but putting the two in the same pot is difficult. We will not shun our responsibilities and have not done so to date. Of course there is a duty of care to employees. We have taken our duty of care seriously. I do not know where else this measure happens. I cannot see this provision being the factor that will solve all of our problems.

I assure the Deputy that there are many roadside inspections of commercial vehicles conducted jointly by the Garda Síochána and the Road Safety Authority, RSA. As an organisation, we 100% agree with that programme and have worked with both organisations to tidy up our act, as it were. For years, there were problems with badly maintained equipment, but that was years ago. We have a modern fleet. When it comes to road safety, we have invested heavily, and continue to do so, in the safest and most environmentally friendly vehicles that can be bought in the market. There is no more modern a fleet in Europe than the Irish one.

In regard to the issue of responsibility, one has to take into consideration the nature of the transport industry, which is a mobile industry. The employees do not work from the same base all the time. If an employee, working from a specific site whom one may randomly test for drugs or alcohol, at some stage works from an alternate site, which happens regularly as I have stated already, he or she may then feel victimised. It is the consequence down the line of what happens if there is a problem. We do not have clarity in this regard and we need it.

Mr. Con O'Donohue

To go back to the Deputy's point in terms of roadside screening, at present, under current legislation, all we can do is carry out the field impairment tests which start in November. The tests being carried out at the moment are to walk in a straight line, finger on the nose and to look at pupils. In terms of drugs the committee has already had a presentation from Professor Denis Cusack of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. He would have given examples of the samples received at the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. Regardless of the opinions of the persons intoxicated, an analysis of those samples would show that there is a sizeable proportion of people with drugs in their system. What we want to do is to be able to screen people better at the side of the road.

The technology is complex. Deputy Dessie Ellis touched on it earlier in terms of how many drugs the equipment will be able to test for. There are variations in the equipment. That is the work that is being done by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. Who will supply the Garda with the equipment to help us enforce the legislation? That is important. The Garda is quite good at recognising the signs of intoxication and that is proven by the samples that go to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to be tested for the presence of drugs. What is happening with the legislation is that we are trying to get to a point where we do not always have to show the full impairment for people. At the moment, if a person has drugs in his or her system, as opposed to alcohol, we have to show that the person has drugs in his or her system and that it has impaired the driving. We certainly want to get to a situation where, if a person is detected with illicit drugs in his or her system, then automatically one has committed an offence. We want to stop people driving with illicit drugs in their system.

Prescribed medicines are just that, prescribed medicines. Guidelines are issued in respect of those. With the help of the pharmacist, the doctor and the person to whom the medicine has been prescribed that can be managed quite well. We certainly have not had issues in the past of people complaining that they had been arrested for impaired driving because they were on prescription medicines. That has never been an issue that has been brought to our attention at any stage. We would not have any fears in that regard. However, the equipment and the technology for screening people at the side of the road will be important and critical but it is much more difficult to tie down than alcohol because of the range of drugs available.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the representatives for their presentations. The numbers of people killed on the roads was mentioned. What percentage of heavy goods vehicles was involved in those deaths and what is the extent of alcohol consumption with regard to the cause of those deaths? Mr. John Twomey mentioned that mandatory alcohol testing was introduced in 2006. From what he said I understand that the percentage of drivers who tested positive in 2014 shows a considerable increase on 2006. What he omitted to say was that the blood alcohol limit has been reduced since 2010. I am correct in saying that?

Everyone agrees that testing for alcohol and drugs on the roadside is a good thing. It is clear from the track record on court challenges to different problems on drink-driving that there is no gadget with which to test a person on the road for drugs. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. When will such a gadget be available? Are we going to go down a road, before we are ready, of testing people for something that will be continually challenged? When we look back on the past ten years at the different problems with drink-driving that is what has happened.

If I sit into a car, even though I am going to or coming from a wedding, because I have a lorry driver's licence I have to be treated differently, regarding my blood alcohol level, from the person who always drove that car. There is something not right about that. The limits should apply to whatever vehicle a person is driving.

The Irish Road Haulage Association is 100% right in what is says about the roadworthiness test. It is absolutely crazy. Either a vehicle is roadworthy for a year or it is not. It should date from the day one brings it in to the test centre. In recent years, a money racket has been going on. If a person is not using a vehicle, they will only get a six-month test certificate.

At one time, the bad word for haulage people in England was VOSA, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, and what they would do to lorry drivers going up and down the motorways. Mr. McMahon can correct me if I am wrong, but the system in England is that if a driver has a leaf crack in the spring of a lorry, they will give out a ticket and a driver has 14 days to replace it. In Ireland, however, we have gone over the top as usual. A lorry will be put on a low-loader and one cannot stir. We need to get some common sense between all European countries in this regard.

I will cite one scenario. If I have a lorry and set up a company, I am a director but also an employee. I will be obliged to get myself tested during the year. I must ring a doctor to do it, but what is the sense in that? When I ring them I know the day they will come to me, so what benefit comes from it if I am a self-employed person? This is no great surprise because I have made the phone call.

We are taking a dangerous route with employment rights. It costs €4,000 to get a youngster up and running as a lorry driver, yet we cannot get them in this country. Everyone who is able to drive a lorry sits a CPC test and is supposed to be competent. In order to be a competent lorry driver one must do five modules, including how one adheres to the rules of the road concerning drugs and alcohol. We are now adding costs for employers which they cannot afford. Road haulage is one of the most cutthroat businesses and we will not benefit by testing someone once or twice a year.

In fairness to the gardaí, they have done an excellent job in marshalling drink-driving on the roads. They are good at that job. When Johnny is coming home with the lorry, however, an employer should not be wondering whether to ring the doctor to take a sample to cover paperwork. That is the reality of what will go on, but who dreamed this up?

Anybody would agree with roadside testing, providing that the gardaí have the gear to back it up. It is a charade, however, to put this on top of employers in one of the most cutthroat businesses. We should look at how Norway and other countries deal with new trucks. We should also do things on a phased basis, rather than trying to drop the hatchet on 1 November.

With brand new lorries, drivers can blow into a gadget and the vehicle will not start if a person has alcohol in their system. That gadget will not add much to the cost of a new lorry. Our committee should recommend the introduction of this system on a phased basis. It is a way of taking the middle ground with everyone and ensuring that they will be aware. However, putting the responsibility on lorry owners, as we do at present, will drive people out of the haulage business. On top of that, it will not work. There is no point in bringing in legislation that will not work.

An employer might telephone their employee and say they will call the doctor tomorrow because one might not be available every day of the week.

Chairman

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The witnesses is right about the trailers he mentioned. Someone could have four or five trailers on the premises. If one is hiring a trailer from someone they should have it tested; the employee should not be responsible.

Chairman

I am conscious of the time. We have only about 25 minutes left. We will take answers now and then group the questions from the remaining members offering.

Mr. John Twomey

The statistic we gave earlier was that in 2014, one in 475 people tested were positive. In 2005, when mandatory alcohol testing was introduced, the figure was in the region of one in 250 so while the figure has increased, compliance has improved over that period.

I do not have the figures for alcohol testing of HGV drivers but there is some research work on that and we may be able to provide a note to the committee that may be of assistance.

Chairman

Thank you.

Mr. John Twomey

In terms of the equipment, research work is ongoing in that area lead by Professor Cusack from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to identify the most appropriate equipment to use at the roadside, an issue we touched on earlier. It is complex because of the myriad of drugs available and the various complexities around that. That is a considerable piece of work we are doing. Currently, we use the roadside impairment test, and my colleague outlined earlier how that works. In terms of equipment, that work is ongoing and it has not been identified to date.

In terms of the roadworthiness issue mentioned, the Road Safety Authority, which issues certificates in that area, is reviewing that matter. What is critical from the perspective of An Garda Síochána is road safety, and our single focus when on the roads is the enforcement of the Road Traffic Act. We continue to do that, and we continue to work with all the agencies and bodies to try to improve road safety.

Mr. Con O'Donohue

On the issue raised about drink-driving levels, when someone moves from their HGV to their private car, the limit increases from 20 to 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. If someone is a HGV driver or a bus driver they do not stay at the lower level. While they are driving those vehicles they are dealt with as a specified driver at the lower level. It is an issue the Deputy raised.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Donohue for clarifying that.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

Deputy Fitzmaurice mentioned the authorities in the United Kingdom being so generous they allowed him to go home with a broken spring in two weeks. He must be joking.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Cracked spring.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

I know, but they take a proactive role in transport enforcement and we are getting to that stage with our new organisation, the RSA and An Garda Síochána. That is why I said earlier that I can tell him vehicle checks on the road now are much more numerous than was previously the case. We are becoming more compliant, and that is not a bad thing. We agree with that but it should be in an environment in which we can all compete fairly.

In terms of the new resource, if we recall the blitz many years ago regarding the new alcohol level and enforcement by An Garda Síochána, people consciously became aware of it and they knew it was not the right thing to do. There is no doubt that there is an attitude change. Giving the proper resources and capability to the enforcement agencies of the State to deal with both problems - drugs and alcohol - is the way forward. We should not put the burden back on the employers.

On the alcolock, the Deputy is right. It is called the alcolock. Some of our transport organisations in the State - I will not name them - use that mechanism where the driver must blow into a contraction and if he or she does not pass, the vehicle will not start. It is as simple as that. I have no problem with this committee making that recommendation with a time span whereby it is introduced over a period of time to allow everybody become compliant. I refer to new vehicles being compliant at a specific date, but it should not be retrospective.

On the certificate of professional competence, CPC, the Deputy is correct. It is one of the road safety modules where drivers are taught that they cannot drive a truck over the limit. It is part of the module, as is the drugs element. I think that covers everything.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I will not repeat what has been said.

I welcome the visible presence of gardaí on our roads over the weekend. When people complain about the number of gardaí on the roads, it is a sign they are doing a good job.

The assistant commissioner referred to an area in which I worked in a previous life. He is correct that alcohol testing is one of the easiest analytical tests that can be administered but testing for drugs requires attention to a range of substances, from benzodiazepine to carboxylic acids. The substances involved can be prescribed or non-prescribed medications, as well as natural and homeopathic remedies. For example, a woman in my constituency is taking morphine through a patch on her shoulder. She would fail a drug test for opiates but she would not fail if a test which set a threshold of X milligrammes of opiates per litre of blood. However, she would be taken to the Garda station for the latter test to be administered, with the result that a suspicion of guilt would hang over her. The same could be said in respect of Xanax, a benzodiazepine prescribed for depression.

I acknowledge that the medical bureau will help to design a testing system but inevitably the people who hang around on the northside of the Liffey in the Four Courts will be four or five steps ahead of us in terms of finding holes in the law. If we introduce a system of roadside analytical testing which subsequently requires people to be brought to Garda stations for blood samples, the results would have to be analysed through chromatography and it would take at least a couple of days to get the results. I have no difficulty with the principle of taking a menace from our roads but a cohort of people might be sitting at home under a cloud of potential guilt for driving under the influence of a prescribed drug or a homeopathic treatment.

The assistant commissioner will know better than me the challenges faced by gardaí in enforcing the law. Similar issues arose recently when a database purchased in good faith to detect vehicles being driven without insurance had to be withdrawn. I agree with the principle of drug testing but if we are the first jurisdiction in Europe to introduce this system, I hope our courts will not be clogged by people who are as guilty as those who evaded a conviction by arguing that they did not receive the penalty point notice. People are avoiding convictions by telling barefaced lies in courts all over the country. I am concerned that people will avoid convictions under the proposed drug testing system due to inadequate technology. I would prefer the testing to be introduced on a pilot basis. It is easy to test for alcohol because it shows up in breath tests but tests for drugs would need to be able to detect a wide range of substances.

Have analytical chemists, who work at the coal-face on these issues, been consulted on the legislation? The chemist who could show me a kit that tested for everything would be a multi-billionaire.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I understand why this legislation is being introduced. The numbers of deaths and injuries on our roads have increased significantly in recent years.

Every time one augments the book of legislation one does two things. First, it becomes easier to detect certain practices, whether it is speeding, dangerous driving or drink-driving and drug-driving. Second, given the fact that when legislation is passed it finds its way into the media, it helps towards generating noise around the whole issue of safety on our roads and that is positive.

However, some issues are potentially problematic. Some studies have shown that death and injury increase when the level of detection and enforcement reduces. The Garda Traffic Corps has been reduced in line with the difficulties we have had in the economy and while there is a lot of fanfare again around an increase in garda numbers the numbers are not at the level they need to be from the point of view of enforcement and detection. Overall I am concerned that, in this legislation, there is an attempt to shift the burden of enforcement from the shoulders of the gardaí onto the shoulders of the employer, in this case the road hauliers. There is some justification in dealing with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in a different manner as there is little doubt that buses go back to the garage every night but this is not the case from a road haulage point of view. Truckers take their trucks home. I am not aware of any bus driver, particularly those in the two State fleets I mentioned, taking a bus home or overseas. As the Irish Road Haulage Association has pointed out, when a trucker who is on his way back from France or the UK decides to have a few drinks on the boat there can be no expectation that a road haulage company can deal with it. It is in such circumstances that temptation is likely to greet a driver. It is not about the times when he goes into the yard on a Wednesday or Thursday morning but in those off-peak times and in exceptional circumstances. There is no evidence that using this legislation to place the burden on the shoulders of road hauliers will in any way impact on driver behaviour.

I have previously taken up the question of drugs with some of the witnesses and I have issues around not having a threshold. I can understand that there is a benefit to having it on the Statute Book, even though it might be challenged, because it tells the more responsible driver not to smoke a joint because he could be caught at a later stage while driving a truck. However, as Deputy O'Donovan and others have said, this will tie up a lot of time in the courts and will make wealthy men and women of a certain sector in society. Ultimately, it may not have the desired effect and we need to tread quite carefully on this point.

I am deeply concerned that the overall thrust of the legislation is about sharing responsibility and moving some of the burden out of the hands of the Garda and towards hauliers and that, perhaps, this is being done for financial reasons. It would be far better if the Government moved to address the shortage in Garda numbers and put appropriate resources in place to deal with the growth in population and the deficit in Garda numbers. We all understand the situation we have come from but before we start dangling the carrot of tax cuts and increased pay in front of the electorate we should look at ensuring the services of the State, and our response to the risk that exists, are appropriate. If we did that we would do ourselves a considerable favour.

Deputy Fitzmaurice's suggestion of an alcolock is the way forward. We have led the way on the smoking ban and we could lead the way in respect of alcolocks in all vehicles. I do not see any reason why the provision should be confined to trucks or why, with mass production, these locks could not be fitted in cars.

ABS brakes and parking devices on cars were a huge cost when they rolled out first. Now, one can scarcely buy a two-wheel motorbike that does not have ABS and a parking assist system such is the proliferation of that technology. That is where we need to be leading the way rather than trying to shift the burden of responsibility around. Really, we are only playing with smoke and mirrors.

Chairman

We are into the last ten minutes of the session. While the witnesses may by all means come back, I ask them to keep their comments brief as I want to let our three final people come in.

Mr. John Twomey

We have touched on the employee and employer responsibility and I would add two points. An Garda Síochána will continue to enforce the Road Traffic Acts on the public roads and we will continue to work as hard as we can to improve road safety. That is not just for the traffic corps, but for the entire organisation. It is not just about the work that can be done by gardaí; we all have a role. The point is well made that education is hugely important and a forum and debate like this raises the profile and awareness of these matters for all people who go out on our roads every day. That is important.

Deputy O'Donovan made a point on the ANPR system, which was in the public domain at the weekend. The ANPR system continues to operate and is fully functional. There was an issue about one data set but the ANPR itself is fully functional and no issues or questions have been raised about it. Prosecutions are still under way in all road traffic areas. That is an important point we wish to make.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

I concur with everything Deputy Dooley said. I do not have anything different to say. The Deputy picked up on my earlier point about where the responsibility lies. It should not encumber the shoulders of the employment sector.

Chairman

Does Senator Brennan wish to come in?

Senator Terry Brennan

Yes.

Chairman

There are three speakers left. I will give them two minutes each, which will allow time for responses.

Senator Terry Brennan

I commend Mr. Jonathan Molony, Mr. Gerry McMahon and the assistant commissioner on their presentations. One of the assistant commissioner's last statements was to the effect that we all have a role to play and that each and every one of us has a responsibility. That is quite true. I commend the efforts of those responsible for reducing the number of deaths on our roads over the last few years and since 2005 in particular. There have been 50 fatalities on our roads to date in 2015, which is decrease of 13 on last year's figures. It is still too high.

Roadside inspections are ongoing and we agree with them fully. The more of them there are, the better. The assistant commissioner said he would provide figures. My question concerns HGVs which were randomly tested at roadside inspections. How many or what percentage did not pass the tests? The issue of the alcolock on new vehicles is to be commended. Is there anything that can be done for existing vehicles? On the question of testing by employers and the costs that would be incurred raising transport prices, my personal view is that if one had a system whereby it was likely that an employee would be tested by his or her employer, it might reduce the possibility of driving. I refer to random tests once a month or every two months. If one had 50 people working, one would test two or three of them and not repeat tests on those people the next month. That would help to improve standards.

My last question is on speed limits and I direct it to the assistant commissioner.

In my honest opinion a person driving at 83 km/h or 84 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, after coming off a motorway when they would have been driving at 120 km/h or in another instance driving into a 40 km/h zone at 42 km/h, is trying to adhere to the speed limits. Is there a discretion or should there be a discretion?

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their contribution. I listened to the opening statements in my office. I am interested in the proposal in the legislation that in effect employers would be liable for their drivers at all times. Hauliers who engage employees are responsible for their drivers but to put a further onus of responsibility on them is neither practical nor sensible and will in effect put people out of business.

We commend the RSA on its work in the past number of years. We are all interested in road safety. There is nobody more responsible for trucks or buses than the man who owns them, but at the end of the day there are activities that are a money making racket. The representatives from the Irish Road Haulage Association will know exactly what I am talking about. Let me give some examples, the testing of trailers. When is a test not a test? If a trailer is tested today, and passes, the result should last for 12 months. If a bus is tested and passes the test today, why can an inspector retest that bus next week? That does not make sense. I am not blaming An Garda Síochána because the role of the Garda Síochána is to implement the legislation and I respect it. If those who are formulating legislation were asked to tip the cab of a truck, it might take them four or five days to figure it out. We have to be respectful when dealing with people, but at the same time we must ensure that we do not put people out of business. I know An Garda Síochána does not want to put people out of business. I also know that the Road Haulage Association does not want their people to go out of business.

We are not all living in an ideal world.

Chairman

I must ask Deputy Healy-Rae to finish.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I am here a long time and I-----

Chairman

Deputy Mulherin must have an opportunity to speak before the committee adjourns at 1.45 p.m. I am trying to facilitate everybody.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

The alcolocks system has been costed and it would be totally impractical to implement it in existing vehicles. It would be fine to apply it to new vehicles.

A Deputy made a statement earlier that thousands were telling lies about fixed penalty point notices every week. Any person or politician who would make a statement at an Oireachtas committee that thousands of people are telling lies every week and has that information should go to An Garda Síochána who will deal with the matter. One cannot make such a sweeping statement.

Chairman

The Deputy is addressing the witnesses.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

The Minister issued recent guidelines on a review of speed limits and proposed slow zones in residential areas. Children will be out in housing estates where there is no through traffic, as opposed to out on the main road where a 30 km/h speed limit is in force. Local authorities need to do more in terms of engineering to slow down traffic. The Garda Síochána will not be in the estates, however, the gardaí who are involved in community liaison can erect signs and flashing lights, but people in a hurry sometimes forget there are children around. We can identify the hazard and I would like the witnesses to respond to the actual need for a uniform response because there is a disparity among local authorities. In my Mayo constituency there are several town councils and, depending on the individual engineer, there were different responses to common sense calls for traffic calming, be it speed bumps or other ways to slow down traffic.

I could not let the opportunity of the assistant commissioner being here pass without saying that I received a letter from the Minister for Justice and Equality about petrol stretching. This goes to the roadworthiness of a vehicle, under which heading I raise it. I do not have figures for the cases investigated in Mayo since July last. I am waiting for those, but I understand there were at least 150 investigated by the Garda. I was told there is not one prosecution pending and nobody has been prosecuted. It seems to be an awful waste of Garda resources and State Laboratory time. I firmly believe there is a problem in the approach to how we prevent contaminated fuel getting into the system. I could not fault the Garda after the fact, but the contaminated fuel is gone. I am quite shocked to hear not one prosecution is pending after all this time and after all the efforts and the priority given to this by Garda and Customs and Excise. I ask the assistant commissioner to tell us what is the way forward in this regard and to hear his view on it.

Mr. John Twomey

On the review of the speed limits, in all road safety they talk about the three Es - education, enforcement and engineering. There are a number of options available to each of the agencies working in that area to reduce speed. Traffic calming is well tried and tested. It involves measures such as speed ramps and speed bumps. These play an important part.

The critical issue for us in all of this is road safety, reducing the number of road deaths. Each of the agencies involved has its role. An Garda Síochána has a role from an enforcement perspective, but engineering and traffic calming is a critical part of it as well. Equally, we are involved in ongoing liaison with the local authorities. We will look at each of these areas with a view to bringing in either enforcement or engineering. A lot of work is ongoing. That point on traffic calming is well made.

I do not have the figures for petrol stretching available to me here. I am aware that following the investigation consideration is being given to this important issue.

Chairman

If the assistant commissioner wants to come back with information, we would appreciate that.

Mr. John Twomey

If we can, that would be fine.

In response to Deputy Healy-Rae, earlier we discussed the important role that alcolocks can play in this area. Other members made the point about the introduction of alcolocks and not retrofitting them. That point was well made. To repeat what I stated at an earlier point, this is all about road safety and trying to make the roads safer. The point made earlier that 50 fatalities on our roads to date in 2015 is too high a number is correct. We must continue to increase our efforts to improve road safety and reduce road deaths. There are many ways of doing so, not only enforcement. From an enforcement perspective, our work continues. It also continues, working with the other agencies to see what we can do in partnership.

Senator Terry Brennan

I asked a question on the speed limits. Is there any discretion on the 30 km/h, 40 km/h, 50 km/h or 60 km/h limits?

Mr. John Twomey

In everything we in An Garda Síochána do, we apply discretion. However, road safety is the key issue here. If somebody is hit by a car at 83 km/h, he or she is more likely to be killed. That is the critical issue of which we should never lose sight.

Chairman

Mr. McMahon may want a couple of minutes to wrap up.

Mr. Gerry McMahon

What I would like to come out of the meeting today is, that our organisation, as the assistant commissioner stated, is pro-road safety. We do not shirk our responsibilities. We are involved, particularly at present. There is a new education process starting between ourselves. We are trying to get a new apprenticeship going for drivers and part of that would involve road safety issues. No doubt the alcohol limits and drug limits will form part of that.

It must be clear that we are employers. I said that earlier. We are not enforcers and we should not be asked to be enforcers.

We all have a duty of care which we will not shirk. In our contracts of employment we take cognisance of the responsibility of the drivers involved in driving our vehicles. Deputy Dooley brought this up before he left. Given the nature of the business we are in - we are a mobile industry - we are not specific to one site. It is very unfair to think that we can, as a body, be held responsible for the introduction of the new legislation in the way it is written.

We would give full support to introducing a proper mechanism involving roadside checks where An Garda Síochána can, as it does for alcohol, test for drugs. We will fully support that and I believe that comes through in our submission. I thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak before them. It is important that organisations such as ours get opportunities at this stage of legislation.

Chairman

I thank the assistant commissioner, Mr. John Twomey, superintendent Con O'Donohue, Mr. Gerry McMahon and Mr. Jonathan Molony for engaging with us today. All of these presentations have been very useful and certain issues are emerging which can only assist with the progress of the Bill. It is important that everybody has had an input. I concur with what the representatives of both groups have said today.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 May 2015.