Mr. Fintan Towey:

I am happy to respond. In respect of employer responsibility and testing drivers for intoxicants, as I have said, we want to introduce a provision that mirrors the provision that already applies under Part 9 of the Railway Safety Act to safety-critical workers on the railways, under which Irish Rail has introduced a system of random testing. Irish Rail reports that the system is very successful in creating the kind of culture that it wants to create with regard to safe driving. The essential element of the regime would be an obligation on employers to put in place random testing. A certain proportion of workers would be subjected to testing. It would not be a particularly significant testing obligation but the requirement would exist. There would also be an obligation on employees to provide the necessary specimens. The purpose of the provision would be to introduce preventative measures and to have a deterrent effect. It has worked successfully elsewhere. We understand from the State bus companies, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, that they feel that there would be positive benefits if it were introduced in their companies, but that they have said that a legislative underpinning is necessary in order to bring it forward.

Deputy Ellis mentioned the issue of drink and drugs in combination. That does happen and it is very evident from the specimen sampling which has been undertaken by the Medical Bureau for Road Safety. We are proposing, therefore, that the legislation provide for increased penalties when a person is driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. We envisage that the penalty would be increased by potentially 50% in those cases. That would establish a minimum penalty, with the possibility of a higher penalty being imposed at the discretion of the judge.

On the issue of written-off cars coming back on the roads, Deputy Ellis reflected the figure I used of 40% of vehicles finding their way back on to the roads. It may be important for me to clarify what I meant when I used the term "written off". I am talking about a situation in which the insurance company has made a decision that the cost of repair of the vehicle exceeds the insured value of the vehicle. In many cases - about 40% of cases - the vehicle is typically beyond repair. However, in 60% of cases, the vehicle is repairable but it is the view of the insurance company that it is better from its point of view to pay the insured value of the vehicle rather than the cost of repair. It is not necessarily the case that all of those vehicles that come back on the road are unsuitable to be driven, but there is a possibility that some of them may be unsuitable.

Deputy Ellis welcomed the speed limit issue and no particular question arose from it. As to the issues he raised concerning drugs and the 24-hour period, Professor Cusack might be best placed to expand on the matter. He may also wish to expand on another of the Deputy's questions, that being, saliva samples. The preliminary roadside testing for drugs will be based on saliva samples. Where such a test indicates the presence of drugs, the person will be taken to a Garda station where a blood sample will be taken. The blood sample will be the definitive sample for the purpose of any prosecution that might be taken.