Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for facilitating the early hearing of Committee Stage of the Road Traffic Bill 2024. This Bill is an essential part of our response to the disturbing upward trend in road deaths and it is a Bill I would like to see passed as soon as possible. I know the committee is familiar with the situation on our roads. Up to today, there have been 36 deaths on Irish roads in 2024. In 2023, there were 188 deaths, a 21% increase on the figure for 2022. When we take a longer view, we can see that the problems we face have been there for some time.

Ireland first brought in a national road safety strategy in 1998. If we look at 1997, the last year before that strategy, there were 472 deaths on our roads at a time with a smaller population and less traffic. Over the years and successive road safety strategies, we got deaths down to an historic low of 134 in 2018. Since then, things have changed. The year 2019 and even 2020, the year of the first Covid lockdowns, both saw deaths increase. In 2021, we were once again back down to 134, but that was skewed by the long lockdown for Covid early in that year. Since 2022, however, there has been a clear upward trend in deaths. We saw 155 road deaths in 2022 and 188 in 2023. Overall, what this means is that after two decades of reductions down to 2018, the number of deaths stalled and then started going up. The rate of increase is not small. As I said, the increase in 2023 was 21% and it was 16% in 2022. Things are not only going the wrong way, they are going the wrong way quickly.

What can we do? We all know there are many factors involved in road safety. One of the reasons for the very large and welcome reduction in road deaths in the 20 years down to 2018 was that there were big ticket issues which could be dealt with, such as investment in improved road infrastructure, a much safer vehicle fleet thanks to the introduction of the NCT, and significant improvements in driver training. It was always going to get harder as we went on to reduce deaths further. However, that does not explain why things are going in the wrong direction. The main causes of deaths on our roads remain the all-too-familiar and stubborn factors of speeding, intoxicated driving, distracted driving and people not wearing seatbelts. All of these are aspects of driver behaviour. We need to get the message out repeatedly that these are dangerous behaviours and that people who engage in them put themselves, their passengers and other road users at risk.

Our response to the present trend is on a number of fronts. The current road safety strategy runs from 2021 to 2030. It is divided into three phases, with the first phase ending this year. Each phase has an action plan and this year my Department will be working with the Road Safety Authority on an action plan for phase 2, which runs for the following three years. In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with the actions of the first phase. We are, of course, not simply continuing to follow uncritically the phase 1 plan as devised a few years ago. We are learning and reprioritising as we go to respond as effectively as possible to the emerging trends and to reverse them.

This is the context for the Road Traffic Bill 2024, which we are discussing today. It is intended to be a short and focused Bill. It concentrates on three areas which have a clear impact on road safety and where we can make specific improvements in our laws. The first is the area of penalty points. Since we first introduced penalty points in 2002, they have shown their worth as an effective deterrent to risky driver behaviour. The penalty points system means people who persist in unsafe behaviours will accumulate points to a level where they will be disqualified. Ideally, what we want is for people who get points to be more careful in future. However, it is up to drivers whether they continue to take risks, earn more points and, in effect, disqualify themselves.

There is a legacy issue in the 2002 legislation which I believe undermines the deterrent value of the system and needs to be corrected. Back in 2002, when the system was new, it was agreed that a person who earned multiple sets of points for multiple offences on the same occasion would get only one set of points, which would be the highest concerned. Frankly, this is a problem. If a person commits four penalty point offences on separate occasions, they get all four sets of points. If they commit the same offences but all on one occasion, they get only one set of points. I expect that at the time, in 2002, there were people who felt it was unfair if people could end up with a disqualification coming from just one incident. However, what we are left with now is a system which positively rewards people for piling up the offences. It is true they have to pay all the fixed charges or, if they go to court and are convicted, they have to pay all the fines, but they do not feel the impact on their level of penalty points.

We have sought legal advice on this. There are complicated legal arguments as to why this or that option may or may not be viable, but following legal advice we propose the following. If a person pays fixed charges for two penalty point offences arising out of the same occasion, they will get both sets of points. If they pay fixed charges for more than two offences, they will still get just two sets of points, being the greater two. On the other hand, if they are convicted of multiple penalty point offences from the same incident, they will get all of the points. To give an example of how this will work, let us say a person gets six fixed charge notices for penalty point offences, all occurring on the same occasion. If they pay three fixed charges and go to court on the other three, they will get two sets of points out of the three for which they paid fixed charges. They will also get all of the points arising out of any court convictions. In this example, they could get five sets of points.

If anyone objects that this is unfair because people could be disqualified over a single incident, my answer is that this is about safety. They will not be disqualified if they obey the law and drive safely. Are we really going to say that it does not matter if people are committing lots of simultaneous road traffic offences? I hope we can agree this is a serious issue and is something that needs to be dealt with.

The second area dealt with by the Bill is speed limits. We promised to conduct a speed limits review, and this was done, with the review report being published last September. It contains a number of recommendations, some of which take time to implement. We propose to make some key changes to our speed limit law. Speed limit legislation, which is set out in the Road Traffic Act 2004, operates at two levels. The law sets default speed limits for different classes of road and allows local authorities with devolved authority to set different limits, which are called special speed limits, for particular roads in their areas. This gives a national standard as a baseline, with flexibility and autonomy for local authorities to make adjustments in light of the circumstances applying to individual roads.

The speed limit review recommends a number of changes to default speed limits and the Bill will make the necessary changes. These speed limit changes are a reduction from 50 km/h to 30 km/h in built up areas; a reduction from 80 km/h to 60 km/h for local rural roads; and a reduction from 100 km/h to 80 km/h for national secondary roads. All of these changes were carefully examined in the course of the speed limit review. They are realistic and they will make these roads safer. On Second Stage, a number of Deputies suggested that enforcement rather than speed limit changes would be the key to dealing with speeding. Actually, we need appropriate speed limits and effective enforcement. I do not see that arguments about enforcement are any reason not to apply safer and more appropriate speed limits, as we are doing in this Bill.

The third issue we are addressing in the Bill is intoxicant testing. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 provides for the Garda to conduct intoxicant testing in four scenarios. These are cases where, in the opinion of the Garda member, a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place: (a) has consumed an intoxicant; (b) is committing or has committed an offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2011; (c) is or has been, with the vehicle, involved in a collision; or (d) is or has been, with the vehicle, involved in an event in which death occurs or injury appears, or is claimed, to have been caused to a person of such nature as to require medical assistance for the person at the scene of the event or that the person be brought to a hospital for medical assistance.

In the case of alcohol testing, the Act says that the member of the Garda "shall" conduct a test in cases (a) and (d) while they "may" conduct a test in cases (b) and (c). In other words, the test is required in cases (a) and (d) and is optional in cases (b) and (c). Looking at what circumstances (b) and (c) are, it is easy to see that sometimes there might be no reason to conduct an intoxicant test. For example, in the case of a person who, in the opinion of the Garda, was involved in an offence under the Road Traffic Acts, there may be no reason to suspect intoxicant was a factor.

However, the law on testing for drugs is different. In all four sets of circumstances, it says that the Garda member "may" conduct a test for drugs. This is not reasonable, particularly as driving under the influence of drugs is becoming a growing problem. It has been flagged as a very serious issue by An Garda Síochána. I am, therefore, proposing that we make testing mandatory for drugs in circumstances (a) and (d), just as it is for alcohol. This will ensure we do not run the risk of failing to detect drug-driving in cases where we would be detecting drink-driving.

Apart from the three main areas addressed by the Bill, we are making a number of other small but necessary and, essentially, technical amendments. Section 13 will amend provisions of section 95 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended in 2023, so that consent by local authorities for TII to erect road signage, or consent by TII for the local authorities to do it, depending on which is necessary, will be consent in writing. Likewise, the rebuttable presumption in court cases over alleged unauthorised signage will be that the sign was provided "without consent in writing" rather than "without consent".

Section 14 makes a number of corrections to cross-references in the legislation. It also subdivides one of the few remaining uncommenced provisions relating to the Irish motor insurance database so that we can commence the collection of names and dates of birth of drivers separately from driver numbers.

In brief, other amendments that I am happy to discuss with the committee in detail later relate to a problem which has arisen in the courts over the use of ancillary disqualifications so that people do not get penalty points; a technical change in the definition of "powered personal transporters", which is necessary but will not change the definition as agreed last year by the Oireachtas; and a technical amendment so that lower powered electric bikes will not require a driving licence.

There is one other area where I intend to bring amendments but these could not be ready in time for Committee Stage so I will introduce them on Report Stage. This is with regard to a High Court decision last November which determined that the Garda has no power to hold someone at the scene of a roadside intoxicant test while they wait for a test result. I intend to propose to give the Garda the necessary power in this case.

Once again, I thank the committee for facilitating the hearing of the Bill and I look forward to our discussions today.