Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

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.