I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on it. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill 2013: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, between lines 19 and 20 to insert the following;
"(c) in section 38(5) by the insertion of the following paragraph:
"(c) a person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand Euro, or at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment," ".
I welcome the Minister. The number of fatalities on the roads up to yesterday was 21, an increase on the 15 in the same period in 2012 and a decrease on the 27 last year. I am not sure how the figure for this year is shaping up in that regard, but it is a year in which the Minister will have our full support in addressing this major problem, particularly in terms of the deaths of young men. Anything we can do to assist him and his officials in achieving their goal will be forthcoming from this side.
The amendment deals with penalties and seeks an amendment of section 38(1) of the 1961 Act which states: "A person shall not drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place unless he holds a driving licence for the time being".
The penalties mentioned on the following page are a fine not exceeding £100 in lieu of punishment mentioned in section 102 of the Act. Section 102 refers to fines of £20 and £50, and a term of imprisonment. On Committee Stage, I expressed concern that the penalty for driving without a driving licence seemed inadequate for dealing with the problems the Minister is confronting. The value of a pound in 1961 is now down to a little more than 5% of the pound or the euro - the CSO presents it in both forms.
We discussed some numbers, which indicated there was a considerable amount of driving without driving licences. The Minister clarified the point and it pertains to amendment No. 2. If the value of money has declined by a factor of 20 and there are such fines on the Statute Book, they are not acting as a deterrent. I presume we are just as anxious not to have dangerous driving and driving without a licence in this time as was the case back in 1961.
Regarding the stress on the fine, I have some qualms about disqualification. If I go into somebody's shop and engage in a crime there, people do not regard being disqualified from visiting the shop as being an appropriate penalty - it is necessary to do something else. Is disqualification sufficient and are these fines too low? The fine we have proposed is less in real terms than the Minister's predecessors set back in 1961. While I know the Minister will revise this legislation later in the year, it raises a general question as to what we do when inflation, as in this case, dramatically erodes the fines set by the Parliament. Even over such a relatively short period, that fine seems to have been seriously eroded.
Those were the points I put to the Minister. While I can appreciate why disqualification happens in this case, it is not normally considered a deterrent in itself. Should there be a fine attached? Has the value of the fines not deteriorated by 19 units out of 20 as a result of inflation since the fines were written into the legislation in 1961?
I second the amendment. I know the Minister's heart is in the right place. The debate two weeks ago was very useful. Senator Sean D. Barrett has made the point that the fine effectively has been reduced by 95%. I do not believe it represents a threat to have such a fine. People who drive without a licence deserve a fine and probably deserve disqualification. The objective is clearly safety on the roads and that objective will not be achieved if people continue to drive without a licence. I believe this is necessary and urge the Minister to consider it.
I take it the amendment is a proposed change to the penalties for driving without a licence. Section 38(1) of the principal Act makes it an offence to drive unlicensed. Under the law, as it stands, the penalty for unlicensed drivers is split into two categories as set out in section 38(2) of the principal Act. If a person had a licence that expired in the previous 12 months, the maximum penalty is a fine of €1,000 and in any other case the maximum penalty is a fine of €2,000. Section 38(5), into which the amendment proposes to add a new penalty, currently contains penalties for driving unlicensed in specific circumstances such as where the driver has been disqualified from driving or penalties for the owner of a vehicle where the owner has hired an unlicensed person to drive.
The amendment would add a new penalty structure for driving without a licence, without apparently removing the existing penalty as set out in section 38(2). It would ignore the split between the different categories of people unlicensed for less than and more than one year and proposes a maximum penalty in all cases of €1,000 or six months in prison.
The maximum fine is €2,000.
If we wanted to make the changes proposed, we would need to redraft the amendment. The current penalties are set out in section 38(2) of the principal Act, with additional penalties for specific cases in section 38(5). This amendment would add a new generic penalty for driving unlicensed without removing the existing penalty in section 38(2). Such an amendment should, properly speaking, substitute a new section 38(2). As it stands, the proposed amendment would leave two different sets of penalties in section 38. However, that is a minor matter. The issue raised by the Senators is important. Driving without a licence is a serious offence, which makes a mockery of all the legislative changes designed to improve driver training and set higher standards for obtaining a licence in the first place. It should, therefore, attract an appropriate penalty.
From a policy perspective, there are two points at issue with the amendment. The first is whether we should retain the existing distinction between unlicensed drivers who have held a licence within the past year and other unlicensed drivers. I am open to being convinced on this point. If someone had been a licensed driver until recently, it means that he or sh e cannot have been driving unlicensed for long. Where the person's licence is only a couple of weeks out of date it may even be that he or she forgot to renew it, an innocent mistake, perhaps. Some allowance probably should be made for recent versus long-term unlicensed status. Whether a year is too long a period is a question open to debate and discussion.
The other question relates to the appropriate level of penalties. Senator Barrett has proposed halving the maximum fine available. It is currently €2,000 for people caught driving after being more than one year unlicensed. At the same time, he proposes adding the option of up to six months imprisonment. We should always be careful about providing for custodial sentences. Section 38 currently provides for a fine of up to €5,000 and up to six months in prison for people driving unlicensed while disqualified, when they should have a certificate of competency or a medical fitness certificate or where they hired an unlicensed driver. Under the new proposal we would be associating a maximum fine of €1,000 with a six month sentence, something which I believe would fail the proportionality test.
I accept that unlicensed driving is a serious matter and should be thoroughly discouraged. We should remember, however, that the penalties already present in section 38, which include fines of up to €5,000 and up to six months in prison in the presence of certain aggravating circumstances, are related to driving unlicensed alone. We should bear in mind that many cases of unlicensed driving come to light following an incident of some kind. In such cases, where the penalty for the incident is more severe than that under section 38, generally there will be prosecutions relating to the incident rather than the unlicensed driving. In sum, the current graded penalty structure is appropriate; therefore, I call on the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“7. The Minister shall require the Road Safety Authority to publish the breakdown of penalty points by licence type to show separately drivers with full licences, learner permits, no licence, licences from outside the jurisdiction, non-appearance in Court and unmatched penalty points from previous years.”.
This arose from an analysis of penalty points by the Road Safety Authority which we discussed the last day. The figures indicated that a total of 794,019 penalty points were distributed with 56.1% to full licence holders, 3.8% to learners and 40.1% to those with no licence. In the course of the proceedings the last day the Minister gave the correct numbers. The purpose of the amendment is that the data should inform to the degree that the Minister's statement did. The category of people with no licences in the documents circulated to us comprises the category which I took what from the Minister said to us on Committee Stage. He said:
That is something we must deal with because that number will increase every year as they continue to accumulate.
The figures we have indicate that approximately 12.5% of events in any one year cannot be matched. The figure is 12.5% because 75% of the 12.5% are foreign drivers.
The Minister goes on to list the categories where the penalty points arise. We do not dispute the data relating to full licences or the learner permits but the other categories brought to the attention of the House by him in his response are not in the official data, although they should be.
I am almost seconding the Minister's amendment to produce the data we have, which include no licence, licences from outside the jurisdiction, non-appearance in court and unmatched penalty points from previous years. It would give us better data from which to inform policy, because what appeared in the RSA data, given to the Library and Research Service, had people with no licence accounting for 40.1% of the penalty points and the Minister broke it down into categories which I find much more useful and much more valuable to us when trying to frame policy to respond to these situations. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I second the amendment. I was impressed the last time when the Minister said this was something we must deal with. I know he also said he planned to have a second Bill later in the year, but it seems that this is an opportunity to make the Bill healthy, capable of being operated straightaway and without seeming to be a major change. I urge the Minister to accept it.
This amendment would place an obligation on the incumbent Minister to require the RSA to publish certain classes of statistics on penalty point offences. While I appreciate the importance of the kinds of figures to which the Senator refers, I do not believe that Acts of the Oireachtas are the appropriate place for such a level of detail. We already have a provision in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006 – the Act which established the RSA – relating to statistics. Section 8 of that Act empowers the Minister of the day to "direct the Authority to collect, compile, prepare, publish or distribute to such persons (including the Minister) such information and statistics relating to road safety and the functions of the Authority, as the Minister considers appropriate". The same section also gives the RSA the power to "require a person who holds records relating to road safety or matters relating to the functions of the Authority, to give to the Authority such information and statistics" in order for the authority to carry out its functions.
It would be out of line with the character of the legislation to require the RSA in primary legislation to publish one particular type of statistic out of all the data it might conceivably collect. It would also imply that there was something exceptional about these particular statistics which set them apart from all other information published by the RSA such as statistics for road deaths and serious injuries. Besides, if we went down this road and moved from general RSA responsibilities for statistics to specifying what statistics to publish, I can fairly safely predict that it will become an open-ended matter of amending legislation to add the kind of detail which is really not appropriate to primary legislation.
There is already power for a Minister to direct the RSA to do what the amendment asks. I am willing to consider directing the RSA to do this. The debate we had the last day in the House caused me to go and look for that information. It is welcome that it was brought up in the debate, but I would first like to consider it a little more. In any case, I would prefer to do it on an administrative basis, by order of the Minister from time to time, because the kind of statistics we want published or collected will change quite a lot from time to time. That would be a much better way to do it than putting it in primary legislation.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The numbers he brought before the House the last day were most valuable to us and these were the figures we included in the amendment. It is always important that we have the best possible data to inform policy. This is a major issue in which 290 people lost their lives during the year. Having the kind of information the Minister is considering would be of value to us. As to whether this amendment is the way to do it, I accept his judgment as he is closer to the administrative system than Senator Feargal Quinn or I, but it would be a useful starting point to get beyond the statistic that they have no licence and get the means by which we can tackle this problem. I thank the Minister because he was the person who brought these data before the House and that was a good example of what Parliament should do.
If we have policy informed by data that are not exactly what it says on the tin or do not reflect what is actually happening on the roads, we could make mistakes and draw the wrong policy conclusions. The fact the Minister raised these issues and is cognisant of them - we will be talking to representatives of the RSA on how to address these problems - makes me more than happy to withdraw the amendment, in the light of what he said. I again thank him for raising these issues the first day we discussed this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 16, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"14. (1) All mechanically propelled vehicles where the operator is-
(a) the holder of a driving licence licensing the holder to drive a vehicle in the category C,C1, D, D1, EB, EC, EC1, and W while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of such a vehicle,
(b) the holder of a licence to drive any type of public service vehicle granted under section 34 of the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 or Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 or a person in charge of such a vehicle, when the vehicle is being used in the course of business, or
(c) the holder of a licence to drive a heavy or light goods vehicle as defined under EC directive 2007/46/EC or a person purporting to be such a holder while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of such a vehicle, when the vehicle is being used in the course of business, shall be required to install an alcohol interlock within one year of the passing of this Act. The absence of an alcohol interlock under this subsection after 31 December 2015 will be considered an offence.
(2) (a) All mechanically propelled vehicles where the operator is the holder of a driving licence licensing the holder to drive a vehicle in the category B while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of such a vehicle shall be required to install an alcohol interlock within 24 months of the passing of this Act.
(b) An exemption exists to paragraph (a) where the mechanically propelled vehicle was built prior to 1 January 2000
(c) The absence of an alcohol interlock under this section after 31 December 2015 will be considered an offence unless the vehicle is subject to the exemption in paragraph (b).
(3) All mechanically propelled vehicles sold in the Republic of Ireland after 1 July 2015 will be required to have an alcohol interlock installed prior to sale.
(4) All mechanically propelled vehicles sold in the Republic of Ireland after 1 July 2016 will be required to have an active Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) unit installed prior to sale.
(5) All mechanically propelled vehicles sold in the Republic of Ireland after I January 2016 will be required to have pedestrian air bags.
(6) The Minister shall convene a body expert in science and technology to report to the Oireachtas on contribution to road safety from the application of science and technology to the enhanced driver and vehicle performance.".
This relates to a debate we had about technology and its ability to assist the Minister and everybody in reducing accidents and activities in road transport that caused 290 people to lose their lives last year. We have made various proposals in the amendment. Since our discussion on Committee Stage, I have become more impressed by what the technology can do, and impressed by it as a low cost method of doing things. We got evidence of more of this technology being put into cars although the price of cars was falling at the same time. It appears that to implement this technology in vehicles would provide big bonuses on the safety side and does not involve the taxpayer in any cost, which would be good news to our friend and colleague, the Minister for Finance. It can be incorporated within a system whereby the price of vehicles incorporating these technologies has been falling. According to the CSO, there has been a slight decrease in car prices overall and the cars are incorporating more of these safety features.
We got in touch with Matthews bus company which installed the alcohol locks. The estimated cost of installing a lock on a coach costing €270,000 was about €1,200 and the installers were fairly sure that if it was more widely used, the cost could be brought down to about €800. That seems to be a win-win. Presumably, if we had an astute insurance industry it would reward the companies which installed those alcohol locks, which involves an insignificant increase in the cost of the vehicle, with a reduction in their insurance costs. When we got into this further we found pedestrian air bags had been added to cars for which prices are declining, as had lane-keeping aids to stop people drifting out of lanes - the Volvo researchers indicate that about a third of crashes are caused by people veering between lanes. Other developments include pedestrian detection systems which will stop the vehicle, systems to enhance blind spot information, cross-traffic alerts, a city safety system where if the car in front stops the car coming behind will stop automatically, an auto detection system and an intelligence speed adaptation unit.
Since discussing the issue on Committee Stage I do not know if I have been converted to it, but we have calculated that the alcohol lock added 0.44% to the cost of the vehicles concerned. We think there is an avenue to be pursued here. We admire what the Road Safety Authority has been doing in terms of trying to influence driver behaviour and improving the testing. The testing of vehicles is the next stage. It could take a leaf out of the policies of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, of Ireland promoting itself as a smart and a high-tech economy. As this technology is available, can we move towards having it implemented here? We pushed out the dates somewhat from the previous day's discussion about when we would seek to have this technology adopted.
It is low cost and has great possibilities. It may be the next stage where we can get the kind of improvements that we all seek in this area.
To develop the subject further, we have described the various technologies and subsection (6), in addition to the ones that I have read, states: "The Minister shall convene a body expert in science and technology to report to the Oireachtas on contribution to road safety from the application of science and technology to the enhanced driver and vehicle performance". Generally, we are impressed by the possibilities. The intelligent vehicle may be the next step forward in dealing with problems such as lapses in concentration, people falling asleep and single vehicle accidents. With regards to knocking down pedestrians, there seems to be technology to deal with the problem. Perhaps one of the bodies that already advises the Government on technology would be able to assist in the matter.
Safety legislation can boost the process. For example, the alcolock provision seems to cost remarkably little. Again, based on the discussion that we had on the last occasion when mention was made of the one bus company that installs these safety features, I put the amendment before the House. It seems that the next stage in terms of a big breakthrough in road safety that we all seek could be happening now.
I second the amendment. I am amazed at how fast technology has developed. Recently I described to one of my children that when I learned to drive one had to put a little arm out of the window in order to turn left or right and there was no flashing light. As I am speaking of an era before the Minister's time, he would not know about such things. It made me feel very old when I realised that so many people did not remember such a time. When I spoke to my child, we talked about how great an advance it was to have a flashing light to indicate which way one wanted to travel. Indicators, in retrospect, were a minor technological development but what a good job they did and the technology greatly improved safety.
The most important point made by Senator Sean d. Barrett was that the investment is likely to be accepted by insurance companies as an incentive. If they can manage to encourage various developments in safety technology then it will pay them, the car owner and the manufacturer to install such technology. The provision is worthwhile, will save lives and also has the ability to improve the situation, with encouragement by the Minister and the State. We could set an example and be one of the safest places in the world to drive if we take such steps.
I thank the Senators for raising the issue. Since we were here last year I have seen interlocking in operation. It happened when I was on a Matthews bus to launch the CTCC roadshow or trade show that will take place later in the year. I saw the device on that occasion and it is very simple and straightforward. I was not asked to test it, but I can assure Senators that I had not been drinking on that day and would have passed.
A few points were raised. The amendment proposes to make alcohol interlocks compulsory on vehicles on a phased basis. As it was also proposed on Committee Stage, I do not propose to restate all of the points that I made then and shall confine myself to the key issues.
We all agree about the seriousness of intoxicated driving. There have been many changes in the law in recent years that reflect this serious offence and strengthen the provisions available for dealing with same. We have, thankfully, seen a significant culture change in attitudes to drink driving which has now become widely recognised for the danger it is and is no longer socially tolerated in the way that it was. The Bill includes further measures in the area of intoxication impairment testing and testing of incapacitated drivers for intoxicants.
The use of alcohol interlocks tends to be considered internationally in terms of sentencing rather than as a universal prophylactic or preventative measure. Both the Road Safety Authority and my Department have considered them in this context. The installation and monitoring of alcolocks would be costly. The RSA is planning to undertake a cost-benefit analysis on their use in sentencing during 2014 and I make a commitment to Senators that the analysis will be done. I believe that the future of alcohol interlocks will be found in the area of sentencing rather than general application.
For example, if somebody is barred from driving for being over the alcohol limit or gets penalty points for that purpose, it would be open to the courts to require that he or she has an interlock when he or she resumes driving. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are many types of alcolocks on the market and we would have to be clear about the technical specifications before considering imposing their use either on offenders or all drivers. We need a little time to get it right.
In the next Bill - the autumn-winter Bill - I propose to give the power to the courts to require that somebody has an interlock installed in his or her vehicle under particular circumstances. I will also consider the possibility of extending it to all buses, given that they carry a large number of passengers, and trucks, which can cause catastrophic road accidents. I am sceptical as to whether it should be a general requirement for all vehicles. I am really not sure if that is necessary or if the evidence stacks up to benefit that move.
It is an evolving technology and it is still relatively new. It is only being used by a small number of transport operators. I am not aware of if being used in a single vehicle. We do not really know what sort of issues might arise and it is premature to prescribe it in legislation. Pursuant to the debate here and the road strategy which was adopted by the Government some months ago, the Road Safety Authority will do that cost-benefit analysis in 2014 with a view to taking the first steps to including it as a sentencing option in the next Bill.
I am with the Senators in the sense that it may well be the next quantum shift in terms of technology and making our roads safer, but I do not believe this is the time to impose it across the entire fleet. We at least need the time to try it out in a few other instances.
I suppose I have a difference of emphasis in that I would not see it as a punitive measure but rather as a preventative one and that people should embrace the technology enthusiastically in that regard. I was trying to think of an analogy. Only when one first falls off a bike does one buy a bike with safety features. If this technology is available and it does not add to the cost of vehicles, it might change the way this House and society approaches this. These are sensible things one does. One does not wait to have a conviction to be told that part of one's penalty is to adopt new technology. That is a point of emphasis.
I commend the Minister's openness to this as possibly the next great leap forward in terms of safety. The purpose of the amendments was to open up that possibility and complement everything that has been accomplished in reducing the figure from 600 plus to the 190 figure last year. The question is about what should be in the next strategy.
We praise the Ministers travelling abroad on 17 March and say Ireland is a hi-tech society and a great place for start-ups and so on, but let us bring that mentality into what we are doing here. Let us use the technology and encourage that sort of get up and go kind of mentality. It is not just for when we go abroad with Enterprise Ireland or IDA Ireland.
I mention the possibilities for the dialogue between the Road Safety Authority, the National Roads Authority, people in those research institutes and the makers on the margins of this. We could send a message to those in the vehicles business that we like people who are doing this safety research and incorporating those safety features into cars and vehicles and ask why they do not follow suit and raise the game in that way.
I thank the Minister for his insights into where we go next and for conducting the applied experiment on the Matthews bus. I will not push the amendments. I am very glad we had the discussion on them because by talking about them, we have opened up the possibilities in the Legislature in that this is something important and is the way to go.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 16, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"Safety of Road Infrastructure
14. In accordance with Section 17 of the Roads Act, 1993 and the EU directive on road infrastructure safety management, the National Roads Authority shall issue guidelines on road safety matters. The Authority may issue a direction to a road authority, being a local authority, and shall make regulations for the carrying out of road safety impact assessments, road safety audits, safety rankings of the road network, safety inspections, repairs and the conduct of road works and the impact of local authority planning on national roads, and approach roads and their adjacent areas. The NRA will publish annually an analysis of collisions in which the safety of road infrastructure was a contributory cause.".
This also arises from a point made by the Minister on Committee Stage. Up to 6% of accidents can be traced back to road factors and they have contributed to the deaths of 12 people in recent years. This must be considered in this context. As he said the last day, responsibility for that aspect of safety rests with the NRA. Technology is available to take measurements regarding these factors. One calculates the polished stone value, PSV, of roads, which relates to a car's liability to skid. Design faults in roads can also be attributed to the 6% of accidents believed to be caused by roads. The NRA annual report and accounts for 2012 says that as it took on these duties, it produced a document, Road Safety Management Procedures for National Roads in Ireland, which was submitted to the European Union in May 2012. The report reads: "It is anticipated that the first round of road safety inspections, in compliance with the directive, will be completed by the end of 2013". We would like to bring that report forward to tackle the cases where roads are judged to be the cause of an accident.
The amendment reads:
The Authority may issue a direction to a road authority, being a local authority, and shall make regulations for the carrying out of road safety impact assessments, road safety audits, safety rankings of the road network, safety inspections, repairs and the conduct of road works and the impact of local authority planning on national roads, and approach roads and their adjacent areas. The NRA will publish annually an analysis of collisions in which the safety of road infrastructure was a contributory cause.
There is some way go to in this regard. The reference in the NRA report covers approximately one page in a 51 page document.
If roads are a contributory factor in 6% of accidents, that must be investigated. I gather there is a fear among engineers that if they report on this, they will be sued by people claiming it was the road's fault and not theirs and so on. However, we are trying to combat a major problem and we took a sample of the available information. The first low cost remedial measures programme was carried out in 1994-95 and the publication date was 2001. The second programme was carried out between 1996 and 1997 and the publication date was 2005 while programmes nine to 11, inclusive, were carried between 2004 and 2006 and they were published in August 2012. The programme of safety measures implemented between 2002 and 2005 was published in June 2010. I acknowledge measures were taken and the safety audit was completed at the end of 2013, as the annual report says, but we must bring this aspect of road safety up front in our discussion on how we address it.
We mentioned technology when discussing the previous amendment. Reporting on the condition of roads will become more important in the future and that was the purpose of that amendment.
If the first round of road safety inspections was completed by the end of 2013, it should be published by now; therefore, we will know where to put investment. It would also allow road users to contribute to rectify problems they have noticed. This is information well worth putting before the public so we can all take measures to deal with this category of 6% of accidents.
I second the amendment.
Again, this amendment was presented on Committee Stage. As I indicated then, the National Roads Authority already has a statutory duty to secure the provision of a safe, as well as an efficient, network of national roads.
Regulations introduced in 2011, following from the EU directive on road infrastructure safety management, have greatly strengthened the powers of the NRA in respect of road safety matters. These regulations allow the NRA to issue guidelines on road safety matters, and where necessary, to issue a binding direction to a road authority, namely the local authority. The 2011 regulations also deal with the carrying out of road safety impact assessments, road safety audits, road safety auditors, safety ranking of the road network, safety inspections and repairs and road works on the network. The NRA applies the high standards set out in the directive not just to the trans-European road network but also to all national roads.
In addition to this, the Department is developing a computerised online map of all roads. When it is fully up and running, we will be able to map all speed limits, as well as road works, maintenance and repairs. It will be an asset management system like one would see with a gas or energy network.
The road safety strategy, adopted by the Government last year, provides for a unit to be established in the Department to investigate significant road traffic collisions, similar to the air accident investigation unit and the Marine Casualty Investigation Board.
The amendment is not necessary, given that the matter raised is covered by the 2011 regulations.
I thank the Minister for referring to the air accident investigation unit. As far as Irish airlines are concerned, they are as safe as possible. The recent air accident in Cork was actually down to defects in the Spanish aviation regulatory authority. On the Order of Business recently, I called on the Minister to take this matter up with the Spanish authorities. If one is to have a free trade area in aviation, training standards should be comparable in all member states.
I will not press the amendment. However, is there a reporting mechanism for the road accident unit in the Department? Where does information it collects go? How will the public and the Oireachtas Members know where to get that information?
The proposed unit is in the Government’s strategy, but we have not yet set it up; therefore, we will not know how it will work. Given that the MCIB and the air accident investigation unit already operate in my Department, there is a fair amount of competence and skill in place as to how this unit might do its work. I envisage it would be a similar process to the MCIB and air accident investigations in that an investigation would be carried out, a report written up and interested parties such as families of people killed in a collision would see the report first. It would then go to the Minister who would publish it. It could take two or three years, but, unfortunately, that is the nature of this process.
As I told the Dáil before coming here today, the air accident investigation unit of my Department has made 11 recommendations to bodies, not just the Spanish authorities but also the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, the European Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA. There is a lot to be learned from the crash that occurred in Cork, given that there were a lot of unusual circumstances around it, particularly this whole concept of a virtual airline that does not actually exist in the way we understand an airline to exist but is a kind of ticket selling system with everything outsourced to somebody else. There are other issues, of course, in terms of training, pilot experience, flight time and so on; therefore, there is a lot to be learned from this investigation.
What is useful about it is that the law is behind us on this one in that it is required under the law that all of the agencies that have had recommendations made to them must respond within 90 days. Therefore, it is not that these things end up on a shelf. Eleven recommendations were made to four or five different bodies and they must, by law, respond within 90 days. The air accident investigation unit will monitor the progress of the implementation of those recommendations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 19, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“23. Section 10 of the Act of 2010 is amended by substituting for subsection (7)(a) the following:
(7) (a) The Minister for Justice and Law Reform may by an agreement in writing entered into with any person, upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement, which shall include a condition to the effect that the determination of the locations where equipment is to be operated shall be a function of a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Sergeant, provide for the authorisation of that or other persons for the purposes of subsection (2), and the performance by those authorised persons of any function, which shall be specified in the agreement, relating to the prima facie proof if a constituent of an offence including the provision, maintenance and operation of equipment and the development, production and viewing of records produced by that equipment and the production of measurements or other indications from which a constituent of an offence can be inferred.”.
This amendment has been resubmitted because we put down the wrong section, as the Minister pointed out to us on the last occasion. We had proposed to change section 87 whereas it should have been section 10.
We are trying to extend the power to have alcohol testing stations set up from a very small number of gardaí of the rank of inspector or above, which is about 2% of the Garda force, to include those of the rank of sergeant and above, which would be some 14% of the Garda force. The view given by the Minister on Committee Stage was: "Given the critical contribution that the evidence gathered at checkpoints would have in any consequent court hearings, it was considered the decision as to the location of checkpoints should be taken at a relatively senior level in the Garda". My worry is that even if the Minister accepts our amendment and that power is extended to sergeants, it is still only some 14% of the force. This leaves an awful lot of gardaí outside the management of checkpoints, which seems strange. Of course, with regard to evidence, it is the gardaí who run the checkpoints who have to give the evidence, whereas, as I understand it, the inspector simply signs a form.
I thank the Minister for correcting the number of the section on the last occasion. Given the purpose of this Garda force of 13,000, to add 1,900 sergeants to the under 500 people who have this power to mount checkpoints would achieve greater support within the Garda force to assist in what is a vital national task, namely, to clamp down on drink driving. Giving people more responsibility to participate in this is, in general, a good idea. I have to say I never regarded a sergeant as a minor member of the guards who should not be given this responsibility. In any case, that was the point we wanted to make. It is important that we involve all members of the highly esteemed police force as far as possible in assisting in setting up those alcohol testing points.
I second the amendment. It came as a surprise to a number of us that there was such a limited number who could participate in this manner and that it was limited to those above the rank of inspector.
Extending its application to sergeants makes good sense and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I appreciate that the amendment submitted today corrects the drafting errors contained in the amendment brought forward on Committee Stage. However, the reasons for my opposition to the proposal remain the same. The Garda has informed me that the current system is operating without difficulty. In fact, there is no evidence that the system is not working and there is no request from the Garda for change. If the Garda had requested an extension of these powers to other ranks of gardaí, I would be happy to implement it. However, in the absence of any problems with the existing arrangement and any request from the Garda for change, I see no reason to accept the amendment.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not propose to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Although I was unable to accept any amendments as the Bill progressed through the Seanad, I did make several commitments which I take the opportunity to reiterate. We agreed to make provision for a three year look-back only in regard to penalty points in the service level agreements with insurers and to ensure the latter inform motorists when their records have been accessed for insurance purposes. I also committed to put the research we did on the issue of allowing motorists to turn left on a red light in the Oireachtas Library in order that Members can examine it in their own time. We have also undertaken to have the Road Safety Authority conduct a cost-benefit analysis during 2014 of the introduction of alcolocks, for possible inclusion in future legislation. We also agreed that the next Bill will include the requirement that vehicles carry a breakdown pack, including a warning triangle, yellow vest and first aid kit. I agreed today to review the statistics which the RSA is required to collect and publish. Although I was not in a position to accept amendments, I am happy to honour these commitments.
I thank the RSA for its advice, the Garda for its guidance and the Office of the Attorney General for its assistance. I am grateful to my officials, Mr. Treacy, Ms Hayes and Mr. Timoney, for their work on this legislation in recent months. I thank Senators for their contribution to the debate, particularly those who engaged substantively with the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.