Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, and his officials, Mr. Ray O'Leary, Mr. Declan Hayes and Ms Nicola Hayes. I thank all of them for giving of their time.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

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, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before we commence, I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 is to be amended such that all those detected drink driving above a certain limit will be subject to automatic disqualification from driving, while those detected driving with alcohol levels between 50 mg and 80 mg will be subject to disqualification from driving for three months instead of receiving three penalty points, which is the current position.

I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to engage in a pre-legislative discussion of the Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty – Drink Driving) Bill 2017. It is a short but important Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to explain what it is about and look forward to hearing the committee's views on it. It is also appreciated that it has taken it today as a matter of urgency.

The proposals I have included in the Bill have already generated a great deal of comment. Most members will be aware that they are supported by the Road Safety Authority, road traffic victims groups, the AA and the Garda. Every member will have received a letter from the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority in support of the measures included in the Bill. Unfortunately, certain vested interest groups, particularly the Vintners Federation of Ireland, have lobbied - often in a cynical manner - against it. I will refer briefly to some of the matters which been brought up in public debate about my proposals and, where appropriate, clear up some commonly held misunderstandings.

I am not proposing to lower the alcohol limits. The Bill is about ensuring proper consequences when people drive while above the existing limits. The current limits are not changing, about which there is a misconception. I have heard it quoted by some Deputies and have certainly heard it quoted on radio by some authoritative commentators that we are bringing down the limit; we are not.

Many have questioned whether the proposal will have a significant impact on road safety. I am not claiming that the Bill is the only answer to the problem of drink driving, but what it will do is strengthen the law and remove the dangerous impression that those who drive over the limit can be allowed to keep driving right away. To give an idea of the problem, between 2012 and 2016, 3,003 fixed penalty notices were issued to drink drivers in the 51 mg to 80 mg alcohol concentration bracket, with numbers increasing significantly during 2016. Before someone says, as I am sure someone will - some already have - that he or she has doubts about these figures because of the recent issues with figures deriving from An Garda Síochána, the figures I am quoting are based on specific notices issued to specific individuals detected and arrested for drink driving offences and follow a determination of the detected alcohol levels by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS. They are, therefore, absolutely reliable. I hope no Deputy will, whether deliberately or mistakenly, attempt to create confusion between badly needed legislation which could save lives on the roads and an issue which relates to how gardaí have reported on the numbers of roadside preliminary breath tests conducted. I want to be absolutely clear that the data and research supporting the Bill are in no way related to the current controversy in the Garda. In addition, the RSA's independent research shows that the incidence of drink driving among younger drivers is increasing. This is based on an RSA survey and depends on the numbers who admitted to drinking and driving. It is fair to suppose the numbers drinking and driving are likely to be higher than the numbers admitting to it. Similar results were found in a recent survey conducted by the AA.

The RSA has also found that drink is a factor in 38% of road deaths. Just to be clear, this is a figure from the RSA which depends on coroners' reports on road deaths.

The RSA has also established that at least 35 people died in collisions in the period from 2008 to 2012 which involved drivers being found responsible owing to alcohol levels between 21 mg and 80 mg. Of these, 16 were in the 50 mg to 80 mg range. Members will be aware that the RSA has recently written to them to ensure they are familiar with these facts and aware of misleading information. When people ask what good the Bill will do, that is their answer. If we could prevent 35 deaths in the next five years, would it not be worth it? If we could prevent people from getting the idea that driving over the limit was acceptable and prevent them from going on to drive at higher levels, would it not be worth it? I believe it would and suspect the families whose loved ones have been killed or severely injured in preventable traffic collisions would also agree. A culture change in the way we view drink driving is required. Having a law on the Statute Book which allows drink drivers to get away with penalty points rather than a disqualification says drink driving is not really serious in some instances. Is that a message we wish to send?

A number of commentators and some Deputies have expressed concern that the Bill will somehow damage life in rural Ireland. I encourage them to stop and think about it. By far the highest number of alcohol related road deaths, 81%, occur in rural Ireland. No part of the country would benefit more from the number of lives saved. I want to save lives in rural Ireland. The results of a national survey of my proposals which the RSA conducted in January this year are overwhelmingly clear in terms of the public’s view on this issue. The survey found that 91% supported automatic disqualification for all drivers caught driving over the limit, as I am proposing. Support for my proposal in rural areas, at 93%, was a little higher than in urban areas, 89%. The notion that this is an urban-rural issue is simply wrong. Some legislators and certain vested interest groups such as vintners appear to be very much out of step with public opinion where drink driving is concerned. In fact, the full findings of the RSA's survey show a public with little or no tolerance for drink driving in any circumstance. I urge all public representatives to read the findings of the survey on the RSA website.

We are all aware of the worrying increase in the number of road deaths last year. After 2015 which, at 162 road deaths, saw the joint lowest number on record, the number jumped to 188 in 2016. Over a wider number of years we can identify a distinct pattern. Starting from 2005 when there were 396 deaths, there was a decrease in every successive year until 2012 when 162 people were killed. The years since have seen worrying fluctuations, with 188 in 2013, 193 in 2014, 162 in 2015 and up again to 188 in 2016. The figures this year are not good. They have not improved and, sadly, are above the numbers for the equivalent period last year. Clearly, a long downward trend has been reversed. We must examine why this is the case and how to get matters back on track.

The starting point has to be the fact, as recognised by all those who deal with road safety issues nationally and internationally, that there is no single factor in road deaths and no single solution. As the factors affecting road safety are many, we must apply a range of solutions. The bigger and more obvious problems have been dealt with. Investment in infrastructure, particularly during the Celtic tiger economy years, has improved the quality of roads. The driver learning process has been enhanced through the introduction of graduated driver licensing measures. The introduction of mandatory alcohol testing checkpoints and the lowering of alcohol limits have contributed to the downward trend in the number of fatalities. The creation of the national car test, NCT, has improved the quality of vehicles. Measures in these areas, and others, were probably responsible for the long downward trend in the numbers of road deaths between 2005 and 2012. Further measures will be needed to restore the downward trend. The current road safety strategy which runs from 2013 to 2020 contains a wide range of such measures. Work is well advanced on a mid-term review of the strategy. It will enable us to identify the areas where we must push harder to resume the pressure to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths occurring on the roads. Where does this Bill fit in? As members know, it addresses the question of drink driving. Nobody will disagree that driving under the influence of alcohol is a major risk factor on the roads. For some years there was a belief we were witnessing a culture change and that it had become less socially acceptable to drink and drive. If that was ever true, it is not true anymore. Drinking and driving is a major problem again and we must address it.

To be clear, nobody is saying drink driving is the only problem in promoting road safety or that the Bill, alone, is the solution to it. However, it is a very important step forward in the campaign against drink driving and deserves to be considered and supported as such. To summarise, there are many factors in ensuring road safety and many aspects to drink driving. The Bill is not a solution to all of them and not meant to be. It is a measure we can and should introduce now to save lives, take dangerous drivers off the roads and send the message that drink driving is never acceptable. It is a good Bill which will have a positive impact. It deserves to be introduced and supported as a matter of urgency.

Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister brought foward this Bill nearly a month ago and I was probably the first politician who said it could be seen as anti-rural. I also said any measure that reduced the number of deaths on the roads was very welcome. I pointed out that in the Minister's constituency of Dublin South one could hail a taxi, take a bus or walk to the pub. In the town in which I live I cannot avail of public transport. I highlighted the fact that the legislation could be seen as anti-rural. Many people have a difficulty with it.

I was a member of the Vintners Federation of Ireland 20 years ago before I got involved in politics. I did not agree with many of its policies, but the federation represents a lobby group and is a vested interest. The Minister mentioned it twice. Sometimes people attack bankers and vintners, but it is unfair that the federation has been attacked twice. It is a lobby group and does its best to be proactive and measured in difficult circumstances. It is fully aware that drink driving is most unwelcome. The committee has had representatives of the RSA and many other groups and the Minister appear before it. The Vintners Federation of Ireland has asked to appear before it and I believe its representatives should be invited to the meeting next week to give their side of the story. Legislation is great, but legislation that is rushed or not seen to take account of all sides of an argument is bad. The federation appears to think some of the figures being bandied about are wrong. We should, therefore, give it the opportunity to correct the relevant figures. I do not know what the figures are, but it has an issue with the ones released by the Department.

In referring to what good the Bill would do the Minister asked if it would be worth it if we could prevent 35 deaths in the next five years. Yes, it absolutely would be worth it. I remind members that we introduced an air ambulance service in Roscommon and Athlone three or four years ago and it has saved 500 lives. However, it was not contentious. Anything that can be done to reduce the number of deaths on the roads is very welcome.

A total of 81% of alcohol-related road deaths occur in rural Ireland. Most people who drink and drive are driving in rural Ireland because they do not have public transport. I am certainly not condoning it but the figures are balanced in such a way that it is urban against rural. If I was coming from rural Ireland or was a politician from rural Ireland, I would ask myself what is going on. We are getting into the wrong situation regarding the figures.

I want to put on the record my belief that anything that can be done to reduce road deaths and deaths from drink-driving must be supported but we must ensure that all sides, regardless of whether we agree with them, are afforded the opportunity to put across their points of view. If we do not agree with them and they do not stack up, that is fine. I said it would be contentious. I believe the Minister is acting in good faith to try to reduce road deaths but we need to look at all sides and ask all sides for their views. The vintners are a vested interest group, as are the IFA, the IPU and many other groups, so we should not denigrate them and say "ah, well, why wouldn't they?". The vintners have the same thoughts and views as most politicians and people in the Department. They know that drink-driving is wrong and are doing as much as they can. Perhaps they could have done more over the years but an awful lot has changed in the past ten years. I will get no thanks for protecting the vintners but sometimes in politics, we need to look at both sides of the argument to ensure all sides are heard.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister like to respond to Senator Feighan's comments?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Feighan for what I believe is a very balanced approach to this Bill. I can see the argument about it being anti-rural and the majority of the opposition to it seems to be coming from rural areas. It is quite understandable. We all know the reasons for that. The pub is such an integral part of rural life and such a centre of the community, more so than in urban areas, and people feel that any anti-drink-driving legislation is an attack on that. First of all, that is not the purpose of this Bill - quite the opposite. Rural life and rural communities are priceless and we must do nothing that damages them. I mean that quite genuinely. I pointed out in my opening remarks, as did Senator Feighan, that this is not an urban-rural divide. The Behaviour and Attitudes polls from which I quoted show that over 90% of people in rural areas are behind this type of measure. In fact, the figure is slightly higher in rural areas. I do not know why but my guess is that this is because more people in rural Ireland are touched by deaths caused by drink-driving than in urban Ireland. I do not distinguish between any human life. The loss of one is utterly appalling and tragic but the fact is that statistically speaking, if and when this Bill is passed, it will benefit rural Ireland more than urban Ireland because more people are dying in rural Ireland than in urban Ireland as a result of drink-driving. That is the answer I have to give. I know that a lot of the opposition to this Bill, the extent of which I do not know, comes from rural areas but it is misplaced. According the scientific evidence we have, which is forensic surveys, people living in those areas are behind the legislation even if many of their representatives are not.

The vintners are a lobby group and I understand why they oppose it. They serve alcohol and that is why they oppose it. I would challenge them. They have a vested interest and do not make any bones about it. They are utterly wrong to oppose it. I wish the vintners would play a constructive role in the reduction of road deaths - not by opposing this but by organising publicans to arrange transport home for people who come to pubs, as many publicans do, and help to preserve the rural community in that way in order that people do get to the pubs and have a drink but also to make sure they go home and do not drive. I am not surprised by their intense lobbying but it is naked self-interest, which one can only expect from business groups. Although it is not up to me but to the committee to decide, the Senator's suggestion that they should come in here is a very good one. I think the vintners should be heard but they should not just be heard but challenged. This is what would be useful if it does not delay this Bill because it is urgent. More people are dying all the time and this Bill aims to prevent that. I think inviting them in is a very good idea because if they are challenging some of the figures I have laid before the committee, it is good because we can stand over every single one of them. They are not provided by any flawed sources. They are provided by reputable bodies like the RSA, the World Health Organization and the AA. If the vintners want to challenge them, they should be given that opportunity and I would welcome it. The committee should invite them in but I ask members to challenge them because one of the great myths about this Bill is that we are changing the levels. We are not changing them; the levels will remain the same. We are simply changing penalty points for disqualification. We are sending out a message is that if people drink and drive, they will be disqualified. I would have thought that the vintners would agree with that, which is why I am puzzled that they do not seem to agree with the principal point in this Bill. Was there anything else?

Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I grew up at a time when drink-driving was acceptable. It was not frowned upon. I used to always remark that people gave up drink-driving not because they could kill themselves or somebody else but because they would lose their licence or their insurance would go up. We need legislation to address it. The Minister said that drink-driving is a major problem again. Based on what I am seeing on the ground in Roscommon, Leitrim and Galway, I do not think it is. Perhaps the Minister has facts but it now is socially unacceptable for anybody to drink and drive. Perhaps I am wrong but I do not think I have been in a situation in the past two or three years where I have seen anybody drinking and driving. Most people up to the age of 35 or 40 and who do not drink-drive must be commended but it was a huge issue. I am surprised to hear those figures because I would have thought drink-driving was decreasing over the years.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just been handed some statistics, which seem to indicate that it is an increasing problem.

Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it drink-driving or drug-driving? I just want to tease out the figures. Drug-driving is another ingredient that was not there 20 years ago.

Is there another ingredient other than alcohol that we may be mixing up? I would have thought, and most of my contemporaries would have thought, that drink-driving was absolutely on the decrease and thankfully so.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is not another figure. We have not included the figures for drugs, although there was a Bill introduced at the end of last year, as the Senator knows, which means that we will find another ingredient. However, we have not got the figures for those and they are not included in this at all. The only figures we have show a marked increase, particularly in 2016. Between 2012 and 2016, 3,003 fixed penalty notices issued to drink drivers in the 51-80 mg per 100 ml alcohol concentration bracket, with numbers increasing significantly during 2016. Those figures are tested by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, which is not any flawed body. We have got an increase-----

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the benefit of the committee, could the Minister clarify what the figure is for 2016 fixed penalty notices in terms of the 51-80 mg bracket? I have seen two figures. One was 758 and the other was 617. The sum of 617 was quoted as being from An Garda Síochána and 758 was in the regulatory impact assessment. There is-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am open to correction, but from memory I think 758 was a mistake or a misprint. It should have been 578. It was then adjusted to 617 because the numbers are adjusted all the time. The figure is 617.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the figure as of 27 February. Is that correct?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be about average. There was 3,003 over a five-year period, so around 600 per annum would be the average for each of the five years.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Approximately. I think that is probably right.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore that figure is roughly in line with the average for that five-year period.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is now 15 minutes for the Fianna Fáil grouping. Do Deputies McConalogue and O'Keeffe wish to share? Deputy O'Keeffe will go first.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister gave half as much time to resolving the bus strike, I would be happier again. I know about the severity of the issue at stake here. I appreciate the figures the Minister has put before us today. I can assure him that he is playing a game of David versus Goliath with his role as Minister and his access to the media. Within a few days of the last committee meeting in February, he accused us of trying to turn the roads into the Wild West. I have not changed my view. I still have further questions for the Minister.

In light of the recent revelation with regard to figures being bandied about on statistics of breathalysers and crime figures, I feel that the Minister should hold back on this until all the issues around the statistics provided by the Garda are fully correlated and corrected. I have one question for the Minister about the recent survey by Behaviour & Attitudes he mentioned, which I think was conducted on behalf of the Road Safety Authority, RSA. The Minister gave the answers, but what were the questions? The answers showed that people are against drink-driving, but what were the limits given? What were the questions like and what limits were they using with regard to asking people their attitude towards drink-driving? Was it just a broad question? Everybody is against drink-driving.

I ask that the legislation not be amended. I have been through this before. First, there is the case of the person who has a good night the night before. He goes home early, getting a taxi home. He gets up the following morning and is heading to work of the assumption that he is in good order. He hits a checkpoint and lo and behold he slightly tampers the breathalyser bottle. He comes under the 51-80 mg measurement bracket. The Minister stated in his previous letter to us in February that people are not recognising that penalty as being a stick to stop a person from doing the same thing again. However, I cannot get any proper figures off the Minister or the Minister for Justice and Equality on this.

The Chairman has always said that different figures have been bandied around. I asked other questions of the Minister for Justice and Equality. She told me that the Garda was in a position to put those figures together. Despite this, we have seen in the past two weeks that figures are wrong in other areas of road traffic. There is inconsistency in the figures being bandied about. I am of the belief, as the Garda Commissioner herself said last year to the Committee on Justice and Equality, that having a Garda presence is as much a deterrent as having gardaí go out, harass people and catch them. There is something to be learnt from that. It is about enforcing the law by presence as opposed to catching people. It is often seen as a deterrent. I ask the Minister to enforce the existing legislation. There was more legislation before the Dáil before Christmas regarding drug-driving and other issues of people driving with no insurance and people who are off the road. We need to enforce the existing legislation. The Minister can then come back to us and tell us that the whole system is not working.

The issue of rural Ireland is very important here. It is at a standstill again at the moment because of the bus strike. There was a survey done in County Clare a number of years ago on people's interpretations of the drink-driving laws. The Minister will have more people inside mental institutions if he enforces this law. We are losing post offices and we are losing the small shops in the villages. The pub is the final meeting place left in many villages. I ask the Minister to reconsider this proposal and act on the existing legislation. I will not say any more because, no matter what I say, the Minister is going to drive on. I feel I am in the position of David versus Goliath. The Minister has pen to paper at his will every weekend.

I wish to make a comment. When the Minister came before us in February, I had no lobby from the Vintners Federation of Ireland. I responded that day from my own thoughts and thinking on the damage that the Minister will do to rural Ireland if he brings in this measure.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Deputy is questioning some of the research findings that we have. Behaviour & Attitudes is a highly reputable body that does surveys regularly. If the Deputy has not got the questions, I can read them all out to him or I can give them to him. I think it would probably be better if I give them to him. The questions are reasonably obvious.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the questions specify drink-driving with a limit of 80 mg per 100 ml or what do they specify? What are the questions exactly?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will read them all to the Deputy. There are not that many. The first question asked of the respondents was to what extent they support or object to any driver caught over the drink-driving limit being automatically disqualified from driving. It was a very simple question. A total of 79% of people said that they supported it strongly, 12% said that they supported it somewhat and 4% said they would neither support it nor object to it. Between 1% and 2% said they would object strongly. The next question asked was to what extent they support or object to any driver caught over the drink-driving limit being automatically disqualified from driving. It was supported strongly by 79%-----

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a point of order.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy want to hear the rest?

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, this is the point I am making. What was the drink-driving limit being used in these questions? Was it 80 mg or 50 mg?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whatever the legal one is.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legal limit is 50 mg, so people are happy enough when it comes to law.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But we are not changing the 50 mg limit.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is changing it. He is putting people off the road for three months.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not changing the 50 mg limit. We are keeping the level at 50 mg.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is keeping the level at 50 mg, but those below 80 mg will now go off the road also.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but we are not changing the level. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. All we are doing is swapping three penalty points for three months' suspension.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Three months off the road.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not changing the level at all.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a big difference. The Minister knows that. He is making a big change in people's livelihoods-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not changing the level.

Deputy O'Keeffe talks about the following morning. People are still impaired the following morning. Of alcohol-related fatal crashes, 14% happen between 6 a.m. and 12 noon. People may not feel they are impaired and may be in a somewhat different mental condition but they are still impaired. One cannot say it is all right to drive the following morning when one's blood alcohol content is still over the limit. One cannot do that. That would be like saying that people who drink during the day should get off at night. It just does not wash.

I did not get Deputy O'Keeffe's point about tourists.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think I mentioned tourists.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. The Deputy was talking about the Garda presence. He is right about enforcement. It is really important. If the law is not enforced or seen to be enforced, people will take risks with drinking and driving. That is part of the equation and must be addressed. The Deputy is probably aware that after testing carried out by the Garda over the Christmas period showed the level of drink-driving was up 35% during that period, the Garda pledged that enforcement would go up, which it has. The Garda has committed to increasing enforcement by at least 10% this year. It is being addressed. It is not my job to interfere with what the Garda does but we have a meeting with the Garda every couple of months and we ask questions on what is being done about enforcement. The enforcement rates are increasing. It is not part of this particular Bill but I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that it is part of the road safety puzzle. I will reiterate what the Deputy says in that regard at every single meeting I attend with the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, and with an assistant commissioner of the Garda. It is very important. These things have to move in tandem. We are only a small part of that jigsaw but we are an important one.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Troy cannot be here today and sends his apologies. Fianna Fáil take road safety very seriously. We have taken many steps through policy and legislation to try to address and change behaviour over the years. That is evident from the establishment of the Road Safety Authority, the campaigns that were put in place in that regard and the halving of annual road deaths between 2005 and 2015. In the past two or three years, there has been some regression in terms of the progress being made. However, much of that comes down to the fact that it is important to take road safety seriously, to approach it on an evidential basis in terms of the rationale for measures and to ensure there is enforcement of the laws that are in place. In 2010, Fianna Fáil brought forward legislation to reduce the alcohol limit and put in place the current structure of a gradated penalty regime ranging from fixed penalty notices to various levels of disqualification depending on the testing being carried out and the results of that testing.

I seek further information on the basis for and approach to bringing this proposal. The Minister indicated that 3,000 fixed penalty notices were issued between 2012 and 2016. The Minister said there has been a change in attitudes in recent years and that people have become more flaithúíl in their approach to drink-driving. If that is the case, it must be tackled. Could the Minister give us the basis for saying that people are becoming more tolerant of drink-driving? Could he give us details of the fixed penalty notices over the past four or five years which indicate that? Can he comment on how he can make that assumption without comparing it with enforcement levels? Has he looked at that? I know there is the issue of reports but how can the Minister be clear in respect of that evidence given? It is key that one looks at the enforcement level versus the convictions, as well as penalty point issuances. Can the Minister deal with that and flesh it out?

That is the key point. It is important to look at the evidence. There is no doubt that enforcement is key in ensuring members of the public comply with the laws that are in place. The Minister has indicated there were 3,000 fixed penalty notices. As for testing positive for higher levels of alcohol, can he indicate how many people were in different categories in this regard and were prosecuted and brought to court? The Minister indicated that because penalty points do not involve a mandatory disqualification, people are taking the risk of incurring them. Can the Minister flesh out why that is the case? Experience indicates that the public are very much aware of the dangers of drink-driving, that attitudes have been changing and regardless of whether it is a fixed penalty point or the potential of being put off the road, these are real deterrents in the eyes of the public.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the figures are pretty clear. I can give Deputy McConalogue some tables to support them. The figure of 3,003 fixed penalty notices is based on drivers who have been tested by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, so that figure is incontestable. In terms of drivers who have taken three penalty points plus the €200 fine, the figures show there were 531, 563, 501 and 613 such drivers in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. There is a gradual trend toward that figure being far too high. Non-specified drivers are a different category. They are learner drivers and people who drive professionally. In that category, the figures for such drivers were 356, 339, 315 and 350 in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. The total number of drivers arrested on suspicion of intoxicated driving was 7,962, 7,697, 7,419 and 8,063 in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively.

According to the other evidence, when An Garda Síochána stepped up enforcement during the Christmas period, I think the number of arrests for drink-driving increased by 35%.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to comment on the point I made. He makes the case that the fact the punishment for drink-driving is three penalty points rather than disqualification for a period of at least three months is leading to more people falling into this category and, as I think he said in his opening remarks, abusing that provision. Given the figures, how does he back up his case that this is a factor? If one considers the number of fixed penalty notices issued, which is less than 10% of the total number of people arrested in those years, there seems to be a correlation regarding increases and decreases year by year in that more fixed penalty notices are issued in years in which more people are arrested. Therefore, it seems to correspond to enforcement. Will the Minister flesh out how he deduces that the fact the punishment is a fixed number of penalty points as opposed to a disqualification of at least three months is an issue and that the measure he proposes would address it?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that the figures I have given the Deputy, certainly in 2016, have risen in every case. The key figure is the number in this category who have died, which from memory is 35 over four years. It averages about seven per annum in this category. We believe closing this loophole will reduce the number of deaths.

I wish to make another key point. The figures and the deaths are bad enough, but the message delivered, including through the 2010 Bill introduced by Fianna Fáil, which was a good Bill in many respects, was that some people do not get disqualified because offences in the 50-80 mg bracket are somehow lesser offences. However, we know from these figures, including the figure of 35 deaths, that fatalities are occurring in this bracket. Therefore, by making the penalty stricter, we have an extraordinarily good chance of saving lives, and that is the key figure and the key message. One can adjust the statistics year by year but one must send out a message that drink-driving is not acceptable and that there is no middle way whereby it is okay to drive under the influence if one is in the 50-80 mg bracket and it is one's first offence. It is not okay, and such people must be taken off the road. Realistically, one is impaired at that level. My instinct would be to bring the limit to zero. I would prefer to do so. One is impaired if one takes a very small amount of alcohol. That is the reality. To send out the message that offences in the 50-80 mg range are somehow lesser offences will encourage people to drink and drive and will not be a disincentive to them going on the road after drinking.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every measure that can help address the culture and reduce road deaths is welcome and must be considered. The Minister's key point is that the 50-80 mg range is being abused in some way. There were 613 fixed penalty notices issued last year. Meanwhile, more than 8,000 people were actually arrested for drink-driving. This equates to 12 or 13 times more people who were way over the limit and who were in the fixed penalty points system. I am just seeking to understand why the Minister believes the 50-80 mg range is being exploited, is not a deterrent and is not decreasing that number. Regarding the figure of 35 road deaths under the 80 mg limit, is it correct that 16 had a blood-alcohol content of between 50 mg and 80 mg and 19 were beneath the bracket and outside of the current penalty regime altogether?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Deputy's question?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there were 35 road deaths between 2008 and 2012 in the 21-80 mg range, how many of them were under the 50 mg level under the fixed penalty points system?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were 19 in the 21-50 mg range and 16 in the 51-80 mg range. The message we are trying to send out is that everybody detected will be disqualified. I am not making a distinction. The whole point is to make no distinction. There is a distinction in quality and degree, but I am trying to abolish the distinction to make it acceptable. I am trying to tell people they should not do it and that if they do, they will be put off the road. That is the whole point I am trying to make to the Deputy. I am not saying there is a degree to this. Those who drink and are over the limit while driving will be disqualified. I do not want any other message to go out. That is it - full stop. I do not want to play around with figures in any way. I do not want people to think they can drive after having a pint or two pints. I do not want anyone to be able to say it will be fine, he or she will take three penalty points and €200 and then be back on the road. That is a totally unsuitable sentence for such behaviour when one's driving is impaired. That is the point we are trying to make. It is quite simple. That distinction should be abolished. I know the reasons it was introduced in 2010, I think they were wrong and I think there was political pressure. We are seeking to remove this kind of leniency for people which exists for no good reason.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be generally supportive of the legislation when it comes before the House. Perhaps it will be subject to a number of amendments, should they be required. Having said that, I have some concerns and queries. First, does the €200 fine still apply in conjunction with the three-month ban?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The appeals process is detailed under option 2. If found guilty in court while appealing the original finding, the person would face a six-month ban. That does not seem right. Is this option there to deter people from appealing or is it there for the benefit of the courts? What is the rationale behind it?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The person has an option. He or she can either take the fixed three months or go to court.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said this would require legislation. Is he saying that is the option he is offering? I thought these were options he was considering-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The person will have an option to go to court or take the automatic penalty of three months.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but if he or she chose to appeal and if were found guilty-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once they have gone to court?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume he or she can appeal in the normal way.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but if he or she is found guilty on appeal, the ban is extended to six months. The charge remains the same. It seems as if the person is penalised for appealing.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a person takes the fixed penalty notice, that person gets a lesser charge. Is that not right? In that case, the person gets the six months. If it goes to court, the person gets six months. Does that answer Deputy Munster's question?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not particularly. For example, let us suppose a person was given a three-month ban and decided to appeal it on the belief that there were grounds for appeal.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that on the basis that the person has accepted the three-month ban?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but the person would have chosen to appeal it. Following appeal, the person would have been considered guilty but the ban would have been extended to six months.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us suppose a person goes to court and gets six months. Otherwise, the person takes three months. A person is not going to appeal a charge that has already been accepted.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking about the six-month ban in the context of appealing. Does that represent a deterrent to stop people appealing?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy asking whether it would stop a person from going to court rather than appealing?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am referring to a person going to court.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A person is not appealing anything if he or she is going to court.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that provision in place to stop or deter a person from going to court?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is simply in place as an option. It is quite simple.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it there for the benefit of the courts? The Minister made reference in his speech to clogging up the courts and the numbers. Is that why the provision is in place?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is a side benefit really. The purpose behind it is not to do with clogging up the courts. However, that is a benefit of it.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister referred to it earlier.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, absolutely. It is a peripheral benefit.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would lead one to think that was the rationale behind the measure.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the case at all. The rationale behind the whole thing is to get people disqualified.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another issue relates to the Roas Safety Authority, RSA, survey in January. The Minister referred to it in his proposal. Can the committee members have a copy of that document? How many people were surveyed?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot remember offhand how many people were surveyed. I could probably find out for the committee within minutes. Certainly committee members can have a copy of it.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A total of 1,000 drivers and non-drivers, motorists and non-motorists, were included.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was the Behaviour & Attitudes survey. The figure was 1,000. It was a big sample anyway.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made my next point several times at committee meetings. It relates to the lack of resources. We were discussing the figures earlier. Does the Minister believe that because of the lack of resources, the consequential implementation of any legislation suffers? Does the Minister believe the figures could be higher were it not for the lack of resources? I realise the Minister referred to a 10% increase in the Garda traffic corps this year. However, that has not been delivered as of yet. When will we get it up to the levels required?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The lack of resources must be a factor. The pledge relating to 10% was to do it by the end of the year. The idea was to increase it by 10% by the end of this year. It evident, I suspect, from the fact that when the Garda steps up the campaign, it gets more convictions and arrests. The more resources that are applied, the more people are convicted. The Garda needs more and we would get more convictions as a result of that. It would consequently benefit the level of road deaths by taking people off the road. There is a need for more patrols and checkpoints. No one is contesting that point.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is bringing in this legislation in an attempt to tackle it. At the same time, he does not have the resources to implement it. Is the Minister at loggerheads with the Minister for Justice and Equality on this matter? I put this point to the Minister before. He can bring in all the legislation in the world, but it does not matter unless the relevant bodies have the appropriate resources. Is the Minister satisfied that the Minster for Justice and Equality has addressed the issue with the same concern and vigour as him? The suggestion was made that the Garda traffic corps may have an extra 10% by the end of the year. That is a big "may". The chances are that the force will not get that. Is the Minister for Justice and Equality taking it as seriously as the Minster for Transport, Tourism and Sport?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am totally satisfied that the Minister for Justice and Equality is taking it as seriously as I am.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The increase may be 10%. Is that correct?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 10% figure is as a result of a joint attack on road deaths. That is why the change is coming in.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect to the Minister, it is more or less crumbs from the table.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not crumbs from the table.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not. We aim to get higher than that as well, and I think we probably will. It is not simply a matter of resources. If we had more resources, for example, checkpoints on every road every night, it would help a great deal. Is that not right? If a driver thought that the moment he walked out of the pub a checkpoint would be in place, it would make a difference. Obviously, we cannot do that. There is a limit to the amount of resources available. However, it is about creating the environment whereby people accept that there is a very good chance of being stopped and tested. This is accompanied by the fact we are introducing legislation that will mean they are put off the road as well as other factors. It is a question of the combination. If Deputy Munster is asking me whether the commitment is in place and whether it is genuine and total, then the answer is "yes". The Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda have given us that commitment. I absolutely and totally accept that the 10% figure will be reached this year.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister accepts the fact that for this legislation to be as effective as we want it to be, we need an increase. Does the Minister also accept that the perception exists among people that there is little or no chance of bumping into a Garda checkpoint? We can see this in the way the figures have started to creep up again. Many of these people take the risk of drink-driving. They know there is little or no chance of checkpoints. That is what I mean.

Bringing in legislation is one thing. However, it is deemed ineffective or does not go anywhere near reaching its target if the Garda does not have the manpower on the ground. That is common knowledge. To refuse to admit as much is foolish. It is common knowledge that people now know that there is little or no chance of bumping into a checkpoint on the road.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with Deputy Munster. I have personal experience of it. I have been breathalysed several times. I have been breathalysed since I became Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. I know a large number of others have been breathalysed too. Personal experience does not indicate to me that Deputy Munster's assertion holds.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister probably did not get the same treatment as other Deputies.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did. I got the normal treatment, but I was clear.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have to talk about normal treatment.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with Deputy Munster. I think there is a growing perception that there is a danger. However, there certainly was a belief among people that there was a lesser chance. That is part of the equation. This is certainly an area where we have to do a certain amount of work to create that atmosphere. That is what we are at. I accept what Deputy Munster is saying. That was the case for some time. That is one of the reasons people are taking chances. We have to increase the number of checkpoints and we are doing it.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I realise the Minster has said that the figures he has do not relate to people from the RSA survey who have admitted to drinking and driving. These are people who were tested for drink-driving. Does the Minister accept that the perception exists, given the serious anomalies? I realise the Minister's figures are not based on that, or so he says. Given the serious anomalies in Garda breath-testing, we have to ask questions about the data. We are bringing in legalisation when, clearly, as it stands, the data supplied by An Garda Síochána are not reliable. Indeed, they are clearly false in many instances.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about a different context.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I realise what the Minister is saying. At the same time, that is still a factor. That thought lingers in the minds of people. Can we trust the data we are given anymore? Has the Minister spoken to the Minister for Justice and Equality about it? How is this going to be resolved?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand fully what Deputy Munster is saying. I understand the doubts that Deputy Munster and others have about figures coming from the Garda. However, the figures in question are not coming from the Garda. What Deputy Munster is saying is, without dispute, right about people having concerns about any figures that come from the Garda at the moment.

There is public unrest about it but what we are doing is based on coroners' figures, the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, figures and Road Safety Authority figures and not on any of the Garda figures, which are obviously flawed. They are impeccable, as far as we know. There is no question mark over these sources and to question, say, the coroners' figures would probably be without any justification.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not doing that. Did the Minister have a discussion with the Minister for Justice and Equality on the recent scandal-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have had several discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality on all these matters.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did she give the Minister any indication of how it will be resolved or when it will be resolved?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a completely different issue, as the Deputy knows. It is a bigger issue than this particular Bill.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get a copy of the survey that was carried out.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, certainly. That is not a problem, and for anybody else who wants it.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all need to take an evidence-based approach to this issue. I want to address a number of issues. A huge number of people want to be compliant but very often what they do not want is to be caught. A question commonly raised is about people who are caught the morning after who believe they are compliant but who may be taking medication or even used mouthwash. Zero may be the Minister's inclination but even mouthwash contains a degree of alcohol. The way we calculate blood-alcohol levels is important and I believe a piece of work needs to be done in terms of other substances that would have an influence on that.

I was interested to read the statistics in the draft general scheme on driver fatalities between 2008 and 2012 which show that in terms of a blood-alcohol level of between 21 mg and 50 mg, 19 people were killed and six seriously injured. That is 6.6%. However, the figures for the higher blood-alcohol level of between 51 mg and 80 mg show that the numbers actually reduce. I am not saying that the more drunk people get the more capable they are but that 21 mg to 50 mg figure is niggling me.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figure is down to 16, yes.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may be that there were other circumstances associated with some of those fatalities and serious injuries. If we are looking at evidence, we should be sure about that evidence. I know that when a fatality occurs, the Garda comes to the scene and a very detailed analysis is done. Gardaí will do co-ordinates to be sure of the exact location, whether it is daylight, if the road is wet, if a motorcyclist is involved and whether the person was wearing a helmet. All of that information is recorded in a systematic way and inputted into the Road Safety Authority statistics.

Looking at alcohol levels on their own, I have a slight concern about that statistic. If we looked at the statistic for a different number of years, it may show a different figure. It is a small enough sample. However, I would like an explanation on that and whether there is the potential for other statistics in that regard. For example, in some categories, and they tend to be professional drivers, people with a blood-alcohol level of 20 mg are being put off the road. The professional driver is far more likely to come up against road checks and be breathalysed because they travel on the road more often. I am questioning that.

Obviously, there needs to be a targeted approach. I was interested to see the statistics on page 30 of the Road Safety Authority's document on motorcyclists. More motorcyclist collisions occurred between 5 p.m and 6 p.m. on a Sunday than at any other time of the day. The targeted approach to apprehending people in terms of road checks must be stressed. How evenly spread are the checkpoint locations over the weekend and during the week? It is all very well having a law but if the law is not enforced or it is enforced in a haphazard way, it will not achieve the intention. People are concerned about being caught going to work in the morning if they have had a drink the night before. They may want to be compliant, and they hope and believe they are compliant, but they could be caught with very low levels of alcohol in their blood and be put off the road. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that. There is a belief that those people were not the original intended target. Are there other reasons for impairment, given the statistics? That is the reason I ask that question.

I spoke to a number of gardaí and former gardaí over the past while about a range of issues, not necessarily about those before this committee. Gardaí in rural areas will tell one about the close relationship they have with the community and part of the reason there may be a flaw in the statistics in that they do not want to upset that relationship with the community. When the work is done on the 1 million tests that did not happen, we will know whether there is a geographic pattern to that but there is no point in having the law if it is not enforced. That will bring it into disrepute.

On another issue, there was a case reported in my local paper recently involving somebody who tested positive for a fairly high blood-alcohol level. The case was thrown out of court because the machine in the Garda station was not calibrated within a defined period. That type of thing drives people nuts because while there is acceptance, and the Minister referred to the level of acceptance regarding the survey that has been done, if a case is brought to court as a result of gardaí doing their work in apprehending the person but the case is thrown out a result of inadequate training or calibration of a machine, that is a problem. I would like the Minister to take a note of that because some sort of regime must be put in place to make sure that does not happen again.

The statistic I referred to is on page 29. A total of 9% of collisions occurred between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., indicating the presence of alcohol the morning after socialising. It may be the case that people take medications at a particular time of the day, and if alcohol is one of the ingredients in the medication, they should not be driving. That may account for something other than the statistic given in this document. That is why there should be some rigour with regard to the kind of circumstances, other than people out socialising, that are likely to account for some of that.

Are any other statistics collected from people when they are breathalysed regarding what medications they might be on? It could be a factor. The data we have to work with must be robust. While I would not question the toxicology tests that the coroner carries out, there are other statistics that merit some consideration.

I know that the doubling of the numbers reported in terms of breathalysing is a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality. We are frequently told that crime rates are falling. If the number of negative tests is inflated, the crime statistics will be skewed and may actually be wrong. The crime statistics upon which we rely are then all open to question. It is not just that a million tests are registered as having been carried out; the problem is that this skews the results as well.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for her questions. Although a lot of them are really more appropriate for the Department of Justice and Equality, I will certainly take them on board. We will consider them when we are drafting the legislation. We are not using the statistics to which she is referring for this particular Bill, which is very short. If the Deputy can point out any place where the matter could be relevant for this Bill I would be happy to consider it. I think it is not. While the points the Deputy is making are appropriate and right, I do not think they are relevant to this Bill. We are not depending on those Garda statistics but on others from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, the Road Safety Authority, RSA and coroners' reports. I do not think they are being challenged by anybody at all.

The issue of driving on the morning after was raised by Deputy O'Keeffe. I acknowledge it is a constant cause of difficulty and people feel it is an injustice but nonetheless, they are still impaired. People who are arrested the morning after and found to be above the limit are committing an offence specifically because they are still impaired. Just because they have had a short night's sleep does not mean they are not impaired. I understand 14% of alcohol-related fatal crashes are reported between 6 a.m. and 12 noon. There is plenty of evidence that those people should be picked up, even though they may feel they are in a different condition themselves. The alcohol is still in their blood.

I do not know anything about mouthwashes. I suspect it is not enough to get someone over any limit.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I was making was about a level of zero.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that is probably right. The Deputy cited figures based on a group of 35 people, of whom 19 were in the 21 to 50 mg bracket and 16 were in the 51 to 80 mg bracket. I find that interesting. I am not sure what to read into it. If it tells me anything, it is that anyone over 21 mg is impaired. A statement from the World Health Organization, WHO, which is another authority which I respect - it is not from the Garda - notes the risk of impairment starts at very low levels of alcohol consumption and rises exponentially with alcohol intake. This is what is so worrying and makes me think the levels should be brought down. We are not bringing them down in this Bill. Drivers with a blood alcohol content, BAC of between 20 and 50 mg, which is where the 19 people come, have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash. This risk increases to at least six times greater with a BAC between 50 and 80 mg and rises exponentially.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read all that and I do not dispute it. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am asking what are the components of that particular table. Is it only alcohol or were other things tested for? According to those statistics, it seems that driving is more risky with lower BAC levels than it is with higher levels . That is jumping out at me. Are there other circumstances to consider? If we are going to be evidence-based on this, can we at least have some understanding of why that is the case?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously some medicines combined with alcohol can also increase impairment. We know that. The new roadside drugs tests are to be commenced very shortly as well.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that if there are other circumstances, we are not comparing like with like.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I get the Deputy's point, that is not an argument against reducing rates. Of course there are other elements in there. We are not pretending that there are not other elements which contribute to impairment. That does not mean we should not introduce this legislation. It is not an argument against this legislation at all.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Sullivan and Deputy Fitzpatrick have not yet contributed.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support my colleagues and defer to Deputy Danny Healy-Rae.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and wish to put on record my support for the Bill. There should be zero tolerance of drinking and driving. I cannot understand how anyone can support the idea that it is okay to drive while having drink, no matter how little drink was taken. It is about time we realised that it is simply not acceptable to take control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. If we save even one life as a result of this legislation we will have done a good job. To me it is black and white. If, God forbid, a person is involved in a fatal car accident and that person has alcohol taken, he or she should accept the punishment. I fully support the Minister.

Can the Minister give the committee a timeline for the introduction of this legislation?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As soon as possible. It is coming here because it is a matter of urgency. I think the committee wants another week to consider it, perhaps to meet the vintners and a couple of others, is that right?

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would like to try to get as many people to contribute as possible before moving forward with it.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Provided the committee can get that through, next week maybe, I will bring it to the Dáil and I am promised a very early slot. I would be amazed if it is not through the Dáil by the end of May or June, certainly by the summer recess.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no call for that, Chairman. The Minister is pre-empting an outcome.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry?

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is pre-empting an outcome.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is giving a response.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was asked for a timeframe. I am not presuming anything but am giving what I would hope to see is the timetable. It is a matter of urgency because lives are at stake.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair answer.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members of the public have asked me to ask the Minister for a timeframe. In fairness the Minister has given me a good enough answer and I am happy with it.

In the wake of what happened last week with the Garda, I would like to know whether the breathalyser that is being used in Ireland is used in any other country. I do not want someone to come along and claim that the breathalyser was faulty or wrong.

Is the breathalyser used in any other European country? Is there a failure rate with the breathalyser? When I was in Dundalk last Tuesday evening, I arrived at a checkpoint and the traffic was stopped on both sides of the road. Believe it or not, it was the first time I had seen somebody blow into a breathalyser. I have never had to do it. My question is valid, so people will not be given the excuse of saying that they had not been drinking and that the breathalyser was wrong.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The breathalyser test that takes place on the roadside is only a preliminary test. Yes, the breathalyser is used in other countries.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a failure rate? When a person blows into the breathalyser, what happens if it shows that the alcohol level is too high?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know the technique or the measures they take from that. I will have to find that out for the Deputy. It is only a measure and it is not used in evidence.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an indication and when it reaches a certain level, the person is taken back to the Garda station-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and a doctor is called. Is a urine sample or blood sample taken at that point?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The breathalyser is calibrated by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and it just reads "pass" or "fail". It is just an indication. If a person fails a breathalyser test, he or she goes to the Garda station and a decision is taken on what happens next. It is not evidence.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the Minister's correspondence, he intends to introduce another road traffic Bill regarding the provision of a database of disqualified drivers. Can he give us a timeline for that?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the "name and shame" Bill. We aim to have it by the end of the year.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister wondered why the number of fatalities increased last year. The massive increase in the volume of traffic on our roads has certainly contributed to that. The longer distances people now have to drive to work also contributes to it. Our roads are not adequate for the volume of traffic or the size of vehicle using them at present. Bridges in many parts of the country were built over 200 years ago. They are not fit for today's traffic and certainly contribute to accidents occurring. There is also a problem with bends and junctions. At one bend in Glenflesk, there have been five fatalities. The camber of the road is wrong but nothing has been done about it even though many members of Kerry County Council highlighted the fact at meetings. There are also the junctions around Killarney. I am simply giving the Minister the examples I am aware of that have caused, and are still causing, accidents and fatalities. Bends and junctions must be addressed.

If the Minister wishes to reduce the number of fatalities on the roads, he and his Department will be very busy because there is much work to be done. If he has everything so right that he can say that a fellow who has had two or three glasses of beer or Guinness is the cause of all the fatalities and trouble on the roads, then I must tell him that there are many other things to be considered. Indeed, somebody told me the other day, and it is a fact, that because of the height requirement for the car's headlamps when they are tested for the NCT many of us drive most of the time with dipped lights. That means one can see no more than 30 m ahead because they are too low. That is the result of us complying with the laws that apply for the NCT.

People are frustrated when trying to overtake. One cannot overtake on a road, day or night, because of the amount of traffic both ahead and oncoming. If one is in a large vehicle, there is nowhere on the side of the road to pull in and allow traffic pass. It has been decided by the NRA in recent times that the roads can only be a certain width. We are trying to widen them. When a stretch of road was being redone recently, the NRA would not let us widen it any further. As a result, there was no place for a slow moving vehicle to move in and allow the traffic to flow. These matters must be considered.

I do not rely on the figures the Minister has given us today for a number of reasons. I would like to see how they are compiled. The Minister said that 35 people were killed between 2008 and 2012 because of individuals who were in the 50 mg to 80 mg bracket. We need to know whether there was some poor unfortunate person who drank four or five pints and, when walking home, fell in front of a car for some reason or was lying on the road when the car came along. Perhaps the driver of the car drank a pint or one and a half pints. He would have been blamed for that fatality. Many pedestrians have been killed over the years. That is because our roads are not adequate for pedestrians in the first instance. We are not allowed to cut the bushes so pedestrians are walking practically half way out on the road because the briars and bushes are sticking out. Some other do-gooders will not let us cut the bushes other than during a couple of months of the year, and they are not even being cut then. The Minister must consider that.

Then there is the case where a fellow is driving home on his own side of the road after drinking a pint or two or three glasses. He is on his own side of the road when a lunatic driving at 100 mph on the other side of the road crashes into him, resulting in a fatality. It is the fellow who drank the pint or the half pint who is blamed and it is deemed to be an alcohol-related accident. There is also the case of the fellow who is travelling home after having one pint and he hits black ice. When the story is told, again, it is and alcohol-related incident. I want to know the make-up of the Minister's figures. He should go back and check them. I do not believe that it is a person who drinks one pint or a pint and a glass or three glasses. In rural Ireland, that has been the only option for the past number of years. The only outlet an old man, a single man or a single lady had in the country was to go to the pub and have the three glasses. I assure the Minister that they drove home carefully and that they have not been the cause of the accidents he mentions. I have a good grasp of what happens in my neck of the woods and I travel a fair amount of ground. I know that nobody caused a fatality after drinking three glasses of Guinness.

If the Minister does this to the people in rural Ireland, he will isolate them further. They are isolated enough already. Many of them would not know that their neighbour down the road was dead were it not for the death notices on the Kerry radio station every morning at 8 a.m. That is how isolated they are at present. They have no other outlet.

It is a very serious matter for someone in rural Ireland to lose his or her licence. Such people do not take their licence lightly and they have been obeying the law. The people who take three glasses have not caused the 35 accidents as the Minister states and in the way it is presented to us. I believe it has been happening in different ways. We know what happened because we are on the ground. It was the black ice and the fellow with the one pint, or it was where the pedestrian was maybe after having a few drinks or something else happened to him, he fell out on the road and he was before the driver who came along and who was driving after having a pint and a half pint. The Minister should address those issues and check those figures because I firmly believe, and I am very serious about it, that the person with three glasses or a glass of wine has not been causing the fatalities.

If the Minister wants to do something about the fatalities, there is a lot of work to be done. There is savage speeding on the roads and the roads are not adequate. There are bends and cambers on roads and many other things to be addressed. The Minister would be very busy but should start and do everything in the proper order. If he does those things he will see he is reducing the number of accidents and fatalities because that has not been done. The Road Safety Authority, RSA, and the National Roads Authority, NRA, have not been listening to us. If the Minister wants to do good work in his term as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, he should address these issues because the issue in front of us is totally unnecessary at this time.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, do you wish to respond?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, certainly. Much of what Deputy Healy-Rae says is right of course. I agree. There is speeding on the roads; he is right. There are holes and dangerous black spots; he is right but there is also alcohol on the roads. Alcohol is dangerous. It impairs. That is not an opinion. That is a scientifically proven fact. I accept what he says about speed, about there being dangers on our roads, about mobile telephones and all those other things but there is alcohol too. Deputy Healy-Rae's blind spot is he does not accept that alcohol of any sort impairs driving. That is a fact. Were he to recognise that, we would be a long way nearer a solution to the problem. This is not an attack on rural Ireland.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an attempt to save lives in rural Ireland. The Deputy cannot contest scientific facts: 80% of the fatalities referred to occur in rural Ireland, including in his own county. Let us recognise that alcohol is damaging and an impairment to driving. That is the first step he must take to recognise this problem. He must also recognise that a very small amount of alcohol is an impairment to driving. It does have inconveniences. It is an obstacle to other activities. I accept that but it saves lives. This measure will save lives in rural Ireland principally. That should be recognised. If there are any difficulties for the fabric of rural Ireland, which the Deputy represents so successfully here, let us look at measures to remedy them. Let us look at measures which help people get to the pubs and home in different ways but not to drive there if they are going to drink excessively. Nobody is disputing that a tiny amount of alcohol impairs driving. I would like to see a compromise whereby the Deputy says he accepts that and measures will be taken by the community or others to see that people still get to their pubs, their communities and their social life and get home safely. These things are not irreconcilable.

The idea that I could give them a blanket three points, which is the same as they would get for driving over a white line in the middle of the road, when their driving is impaired is totally unacceptable to me. I do not wish to change rural life in Ireland in any way by doing this but I do want to see that the Deputy's constituents, as well as constituents from Donegal to Kerry to west Cork and elsewhere, are protected from people who are driving under the influence. That is what I want to do. I want to send a message to them, quite straight, that if they do this they will be disqualified for a minimum of three months. That is all because that is what applies to everybody else and I do not think the Deputy is fighting against that.

Let me deal with some of the other issues which arose. Most of them were to do with the-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figures.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the figures.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For those 35 fatalities, how sure is the Minister that the reason for the accident was the pint or the pint and a half and that it was not some pedestrian who fell out on the road in front of the car and was lying in the road on the other side of the bend when the car came around? How sure is the Minister that it was not the black ice that caught the fellow only after drinking one pint and caused him to hit a bridge or a wall? How sure is the Minister that this is not one of the 35? How sure is he that it was not the case that a fellow going home, driving on his own side of the road was not hit by some mad driver doing 100 mph or 120 mph who crossed the road to his side? How sure is he that some of what I am talking about is not included in those figures? Perhaps most of them are.

That is what I want to check because while every member of the committee and the Chairman are entitled to their own opinions, I am saying loud and clear, I will say it everywhere and I have said it before, two glasses or three glasses of Guinness will not cause anyone to have a fatality. If we are going to go down that road, the next thing we will be saying is that the cough bottle or medicines for the flu will be the cause of the accidents as well. The Minister needs to get real about it and check out those figures because I know that what I am talking about is the truth. I would not make such a case about it except that I know that no accident or fatality was caused by someone having two or three glasses of beer or Guinness. I ask the Minister to check those figures because I do not think he has done that. If he had, we would not be here at all today.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is made. The Minister can continue.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are based on Medical Bureau of Road Safety figures, RSA figures – I hate repeating myself - and World Health Organization figures. They are based on absolutely impeccable organisations of that sort, which are producing these figures. It is absolutely incontrovertible - I am repeating myself – that alcohol impairs people. In the 38% figure which I have given - and the Deputy is quite right, some pedestrians are included - 9% are pedestrians and 29% are drivers. The proof is there. The question is whether people in that particular bracket or degree of impairment should or should not be disqualified. That is all.

John O'Mahony (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the earlier part of the meeting. I will not go over a lot of questions that have probably been covered already. I can see value in certain things that Deputy Healy-Rae is saying but if there is evidence - I know he was disputing the evidence and asking whether it was the ice as against the pint of Guinness - and if it is totally evidence-based, it is very difficult to argue that something should not be done. If this is brought in, there should be some type of sunset clause or in other words that people could come back in two years and state whether there have been improvements in that area. If not, we must do everything to avoid more rural isolation. If, however, one extra life is saved I will hold my hands up and say I have to agree with it. We do not need to do it just for the sake of it because as the Minister has said, there are many different dynamics in the road safety issue and the fatalities on the road.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is evidence-based. I have given a large number of figures here. We can consider reviewing its effect at some stage. That is certainly an interesting idea.

One can never tell exactly what the impact of this measure would be because the issue is multifaceted. Many people have said enforcement and other areas are equally important in reducing the number of road deaths. A review of this could certainly be considered. The evidence is compelling, namely, that alcohol of any sort, of any degree, or of any amount impairs driving and is damaging to the driver. At its basic level, this measure will reduce an anomaly. This is just recognising a fact in the 50 mg to 80 mg range area. That is all it is doing. It is not doing any more than that.

John O'Mahony (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is seen as a solution. We have to identify the right problem to bring down the death rate on our roads. The Minister is saying his proposal is one of the issues that would bring it down. Those of us who live in rural Ireland may dispute that, but only time will tell.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his engagement with us. The committee has been working in recent months on formulating a raft of proposals that will help address road safety in the country. It is encouraging to see a Minister being so proactive and enthusiastic about this measure. The committee's job is to ensure that what we are doing as an Oireachtas is evidence based and will be effective. That is the basis for my questions. We have the 2008 to 2012 statistics, as compiled by the Road Safety Authority, RSA, in reference to alcohol-related accidents, although they may not be the best ones to mention given that there was a change in the law in the final two years and ten months of that reference period from the end of October 2010 to the end of 2012. With respect to the fatalities caused by 16 drivers who were found to have a blood alcohol reading in the 51 mg to 80 mg range, which averages three out of the 215 per annum over that five year period, how many of them were specified drivers in terms of the 20 mg maximum limit for the final two years and ten months of that reference period? Does the Minister have that information?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have it but I can get it for the Chairman.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have looked for it but I cannot find it.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not in the information I have.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is relevant to this discussion. It is important because we need to recognise that there was a change in the law just after the midpoint of that reference period. Therefore, the new law may have applied to some of those 16 drivers who had a blood alcohol reading in the 51 mg to 80 mg range. Therefore, the current proposed change would not have applied to them in that they would have been in a lower cohort.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we get that information. The Minister might forward it to us as soon as possible as it would help to inform our discussions.

The second question I want to ask the Minister is in regard to 2016 where there were 8,063 arrests for suspected drink driving. The regulatory impact analysis on this proposed change was based on the figure of 758 fixed penalty notices. Can the Minister confirm that figure is now 617?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it may be 613. It is either 613 or 617.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point had been made that there was a 50% increase in the number of fixed penalty notices in 2016 in respect of the 51 mg to 80 mg category but that is not the case.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to my calculations, in a total of 3,003 fixed penalty notices over five years, the average figure is lower than the 650 fixed penalty notices issued in 2012 which, coincidentally, was the safest year on our roads and where we also had the highest number of drink driving arrests. Using the number of arrests and the number of fixed penalty notices decisions made by motorists is not the best basis for the argument. The year 2015, like 2012, was equally the safest year on our roads since records began, accepting that every life lost is one too many. A total of 501 fixed penalty notices were issued in 2015, which is quite a contrast to 2012, when we had the same fatality figures but a lower rate of arrests. That illustrates the point I am making. Basing the requirement for this change in legislation on an increase in the number of fixed penalty notices may not be sound given that we had far safer years on roads with much higher numbers of fixed penalty notices.

Moving on to my third question, of the fixed penalty notices issued to drivers found to be in the 50 mg to 80 mg range, how many of those were detected a second time after a three year period?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know. We do not have those figures.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For drivers who are caught in the 50 mg to 80 mg range bracket, is being caught a deterrent to reoffending? It would interesting to get those figures. It would help inform the debate on this topic. It would be helpful if we could get a breakdown of the subsequent readings. Did they subsequently become specified drivers? Were they found to be in the 20 mg to 50 mg, 50 mg to 80 mg, 80 mg to 100 mg or 100 mg plus ranges? It would important to get that breakdown of the readings.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If those figures are available, we will get them for the Chairman.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I imagine they should be. Those figures would be useful to gauge the effectiveness or otherwise of the fixed penalty notice change in the law since October 2010 in terms of drivers reoffending.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure those figures are available but if they are, we will get them for the Chairman.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On 8 February this year, the Minister made the comment: "I am concerned that in certain cases where people have breached the alcohol limit while driving, the awarding of three penalty sends out the message that it is not a serious offence." In other words, he was saying that people do not take any notice of the three penalty points, that they are not a deterrent. The Chairman asked the Minister if there have been repeat offenders, and the Minister for Justice and Equality has said that she cannot answer that question. The Minister is throwing facts, figures and statistics at us and making wild statements, but he cannot back them up.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, that is not the case.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is. The Chairman asked the Minister a question, which I have also asked the Minister for Justice and Equality, about whether there have been repeat offenders in the 50 mg to 80 mg range bracket.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said drivers are not acknowledging the awarding of the penalty points as a deterrent to being caught in the future. I asked him if there have been repeat offenders and he cannot answer that question.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not have those figures specifically.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has made that blatant statement and he is making a joke of it.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is quite obviously meant to be a deterrent if a driver is moving from the awarding of penalty points to disqualification.

Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course, it is a deterrent.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I might continue, it would be very helpful if the Minister could search for those figures and provide them.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be important to have those figures.

The 20 mg level was introduced for specified drivers, namely, learner, novice and professional drivers. The Minister made the point that the number of young drivers being detected for drink driving is rising, but a higher proportion of young drivers are learner and novice drivers and many male drivers, for example, tradesman, would be professional drivers, who would fit into the 17 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 44 age categories. Those figures make up a disproportionately large number of the drink driving cases that are coming before the courts or being detected. Does the Minister believe that the lower blood alcohol level requirement is having an impact and resulting in a different proportion in terms of the overall number of drink drivers, as it is a far lower limit?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may well have. A 20 mg level is the international best practice level. It is recognised as being the norm, so changing that level would be a fairly radical measure.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking that. I wonder could it be an explanation for the change in the demographic proportions in terms of the breakdown of drink drivers.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is possible.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given that we have seen an increase in young drivers drink driving, we have also seen a decrease in their limit, and also for predominantly males, for example, in the trades. We have also seen a higher level in terms of males. It is something that needs to be factored into the discussion.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is possible. On the other hand, young people represent a high level of those who are involved in fatalities. That would counter that.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that throughout this discussion over the last number of months the Minister has been talking about trying to harmonise the law on penalties here. I am conscious also that we have staggered levels as well. We have the 20 mg level and the 50 mg level. Is that the Department's next move? Is having a universal 20 mg level as distinct from having a stepped approach something the Minister has discussed with the Department?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister discussed that with officials in the Departments?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not at any length. We certainly have not had a discussion on that. It may have come up in conversation but it certainly is not a prospect that we have suggested or considered as some sort of live possibility.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question with reference to the regulatory impact analysis, Appendix 1, page 9. If the Minister will look there at the fourth table, I seek clarification on something here. What percentage of drivers currently are detected in the 80 mg to 100 mg bracket for normal drivers. I use the word "normal", but it is "Non-specified". It is also referred to as "normal" here as well in the phraseology. Am I correct to say that for specified drivers, the payment rate for fixed penalty notices is 69%? The Minister may have to go through that table.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is reference to specified driver numbers - 876, 604 - at 69%. Correct.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. On the next one here, I have a question. It says, "Non-specified drivers (50 mg to 100 mg)". Is there an anomaly there? Should that be 80 mg?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That should be 80 mg, yes. I am sorry.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the 2012 to 2015 period, is that correct?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That should be 80 mg, yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is 80 mg. That is a high rate of 82% of drivers who resort to the fixed penalty notice.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be "(50 mg to 80 mg)" there.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should read "(50 mg to 80 mg)".

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I was studying this and I was a bit confused-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, the Chairman is quite right.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because it then says, "(80 mg to 100 mg)", "1380", "75%".

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the top level, specified drivers, 69%, and therefore, the remaining drivers decide to go to court.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the bottom one, at 75%, "Non-specified drivers (80 mg to 100 mg)", the other 25% decide to go to court.

It is interesting that the middle table, the 50 mg to 80 mg where we have the highest rate, only 18% decide to go to court. This is what we are proposing to change now. That is the only one where there is not an automatic disqualification.

The question I want to get to is this. If we look, on the overleaf on Appendix 2, in terms of impacts, at the options, under item 3, there is no reference to impacts of an increase in court appearance, but looking at where one has automatic disqualification as distinct from the penalty points and fine issue, one has far lower payment rates. Would one anticipate that there would be higher numbers of court cases as a result of the change in law?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure. The Chairman is saying that only 18% go to court in the middle rank and he would anticipate more would go to court.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I looked at the various punishments related to this. There is the three-months automatic disqualification but in that same category, the minimum court punishment is six months. I wonder will more drivers chance going to court because it is either three months off the road or six months off the road. If one is off the road, one is off the road. It is something that should be factored in as an impact and it is not in the regulatory impact analysis. It should be in there.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is an interesting point.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think there will be more court cases.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. I am not sure whether that is the case but it is certainly a possibility. I cannot anticipate what they would do, which decision they would make.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would imagine the reason the Minister has the highest rate of payment with the penalty points and fine option and the lowest rate with the option with the higher off-the-road period is not a coincidence. It is something that needs to be factored in by both the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. If one has 20% more court cases in the year, even based on the current figures, that is an extra 150 court cases. That is extra Garda Traffic Corps time in the courts and longer periods for waiting for disqualification. I am merely asking could one be into diminishing returns in certain areas here as a result of the change.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know. I accept the point the Chairman is making that one may get more drivers going to court as a result of this. It would not change my mind about the legislation but it would certainly increase the workload a little bit.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious the Minister was adamant that the punishment for drivers in the 50 mg to 80 mg category needs to increase but I wonder was there any consideration given in the regulatory impact analysis to increasing the penalty points. It is three penalty points at present. Would the Minister consider increasing it to something like six points or eight points and, therefore, trying to reduce the court issue? Is that something that was considered at all?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The absolute principle behind this is that disqualification will be for everybody, if one is drink driving. There is no question of considering increasing the penalty points here. That will not happen.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everything would come under consideration but it is certainly not something which we, in our present frame of mind, would countenance.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The basis for this is the Minister wants to disqualify drivers who kill people on the roads.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speeding is a massive killer on the roads-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----yet the number of disqualifications for speeders is so much lower than the number of disqualifications proportionately for drivers who are drink driving. Has the Department, for example, considered an automatic disqualification if someone is driving 20 km/h or 30 km/h over the limit anywhere? Would that not be more effective? Considering the statistics - looking at the three fatalities per annum, while they are three too many - the Minister would save a lot more lives by incorporating something like that into the Bill as distinct from focusing on a narrow cohort of motorists.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Chairman is advocating that more drivers should be put off the road for speeding or automatic disqualification for speeding, that is an interesting suggestion. That is a radical suggestion. What the Chairman is saying will not change one's mind about alcohol but maybe he would like to put the case for shaking them up.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to thrash out here how one arrives at what is the priority and what has the greatest impact in as short a period of time as possible. I am merely saying that, looking at the analysis - I do not want in any way to sound crass or to deviate from the point that every life lost is one too many - I am not entirely convinced that the Minister's most effective measure is to target the 51 mg to 80 mg bracket with a change in the ramification. In as short a piece of legislation, the Minister could have a far greater impact on driver behaviour and on the resultant figures. I do not think that has being considered. I have not seen it in a regulatory impact analysis. I have not seen that looked at at all.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not really targeting the 51 mg to 80 mg bracket. We are trying to remove an anomaly, which should not have been there in the first place and which we undoubtedly think will save lives. If the Chairman thinks that more drivers should be disqualified for other offences, certainly that could be considered as well if it would save lives.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When one speaks to people in terms of overall fatalities, speed is the ultimate killer here.

We do not seem to be tackling that with a similar zero-tolerance approach, even though it is a bigger killer. That is the point I am making. I am not condoning one over the other or saying one is less important in terms of the lives lost, I am just asking if the Minister's approach should not be to look at the biggest killer on our roads and tackle that? That does not seem to have been examined.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a perfectly fair suggestion that speed should be addressed as well. We can look at that for the next road safety Bill. At the moment, because the figures on alcohol have reached such critical levels and it is a reversal of a trend, we are addressing it in this very simple, quick Bill. We will certainly have a look at speed too.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is basing his reasoning for prioritising this on there having been a reversal of a trend. There has not been a reversal, it is a deviation. As the Minister knows well, I showed how the figures for 2012 - when we had the safest year on the roads - were actually far higher in the number of fixed penalty notices served on those in the 51 to 80 years cohort than they were last year. These things deviate. The Minister sees them as a priority but looking at the facts overall there could be a far greater impact from looking at other areas than pursuing this. It is something that has been overlooked.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we have agreed that it is a multifaceted approach. There are so many factors involved in road deaths and many of them are being addressed. Speed is one such factor. I am perfectly happy to look at the possibility of disqualifying people for speeding as well, particularly if the committee and the Chairman would like to have that examined. If it saves lives, let us look at it.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that it merits a regulatory impact analysis to the same extent that the measure at hand has had. The benefits would be far greater in light of the fact that the fatalities relating to speeding offences are far higher in the context of those readings.

The Minister referred to the Behaviour & Attitudes survey. Does he have the figure for those answering "don't know" or undecided and could he give us a breakdown of the figures when they are included and excluded?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will ask the Road Safety Authority for them.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, we want the specific phraseology of how the questions were posed. It is important that we would have the figures for those answering "don't know".

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figures answering "don't know" are very small in these; we do include them. We are talking about something of the order of 2%.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have a breakdown for the rural versus urban and the motorists versus non-motorists.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a breakdown by gender, age, class, region, area - every breakdown anyone could possibly want.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a breakdown in respect of motorists and non-motorists?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The regulatory impact analysis, RIA, indicates that there will be no impact on those who are socially excluded, vulnerable groups, economic markets or rural communities. However, those consulted were Department of Justice and Equality, An Garda Síochána, the RSA and the high-level road safety group. I am curious how that assertion can be made in the RIA without consultation with the other groups to which I refer. It is stated that there will be no impact but what if the Minister is trying to bring the public with him and get public support for this, if there is no consultation with the people who would be affected by what is proposed, is it not incorrect to say that there would be no impact. At best, the assertion in the RIA appears to be inaccurate.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in fairly constant communication with the RSA and the Garda and all those groups in respect of these issues. The consultation was carried out with all key stakeholders. There was consultation with the Department of Justice, the Road Safety Authority, the Garda Síochána and it was raised at the high level group. All those people have been consulted.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have acknowledged that. What I am saying is that there was no impact assessment in respect of rural dwellers, with people involved in the tourism industry, or, for example, vulnerable or older people. That has not been done and yet there is a statement in the analysis that there will be no impact on them. How can the Department say that there will be no impact without consulting with those people.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been to all the groups I mentioned. They are key stakeholders to whom we would normally talk.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the ones I mentioned?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a limit to how many groups one can talk to.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know but then would it be better for the Department to refrain from saying there will be no impact on those people if they have not been consulted?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It went to Cabinet as well. It will come to this committee. The consultation process is pretty wide. We have representatives of rural communities here who put their points of view, we have had Deputies examine it and at this stage it has not yet made it to the Dáil. There has not yet been a final draft. I think consultation has been wide. If the Chairman thinks that there have been people who have genuinely been left out, he might let us know.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to provide those figures for post-October 2010 fatalities. The breakdown of the 16 fatalities.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they are available, we will do that.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not go over previous question as I am sure the Minister and his officials, who I served with and know well, will be pleased to hear.

To begin light-heartedly, the Minister once told me, during some banter in the Dáil, that I would never be elected in Dublin 4 and that he would never be elected in Tipperary. In the context of this legislation, the latter is certainly true. The Minister keeps saying that the legislation is to address an anomaly. Can we have the evidence for that? Does this legislation originate from the Minister or is it something that has been in the Department of Transport, Tourism for some time? I cannot remember it when I was in the Department.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The anomaly is contained in the 2010 legislation.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who decided that it is an anomaly? Was it the Minister or the Department? Has it historically been described as an anomaly.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if it has been historically described as an anomaly.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not being pedantic. What I am trying to get at here is that I do not believe that the thing which the Minister describes as an anomaly is an anomaly at all, and nor do most people. Is there evidence within the Department, through correspondence from officials - prior to the Minister announcing this - which says that it has to be addressed as an anomaly. I served as a Minister in this Department and I never heard of it.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This arose in discussions with my officials. It was probably an initiative of my own.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. The Minister is entitled to that. I just wanted to know.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is probably how it is.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is basically the Minister's decision and it is his view that there is an anomaly.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody said to me that this anomaly relating to the 2010 legislation ought to be dealt with.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, it originated with the Minister.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This was something that came from myself having seen the figures.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I thank the Minister for his honesty. It will save me from putting in a request for all correspondence regarding where it was stated that this is an anomaly. It does not exist, obviously, and it is an anomaly because the Minister decided that he needed to deal with it. That is his prerogative but it is an anomaly because he decided it to be so. That clarifies matters.

The Minister is correct that there are lobby groups and vested interests. When it comes to issues such as this, I listen to them but they do not formulate my decision for me. There are two items of legislation before the Oireachtas which relate to the Vintners Federation, which is the biggest vested interest in this interest. I support its opposition to one matter and vehemently disagree with its opposition to the other. I have informed the federation directly as to how I feel about both. I believe this is madness. It is something that is without any justification. I agree with the Chairman that it is not the number one priority.

If I were dealing with road safety issues, the number one priority would be getting into the detail and intricacy of some of the stupidity on the roads, including speeding and using mobile phones. An issue that drives me mad is the use of hard shoulders, which actually causes a number of accidents and fatalities, particularly when not on motorways.

The Minister is obviously quite passionate about this Bill. I attended a public meeting about it. Deputy Jackie Cahill expressed the view that Fianna Fáil would be opposing it. I expressed the same view for Labour. Virtually all the Independents there expressed the same view, and we have a number of them in Tipperary as the Minister knows. Therefore the likelihood of this legislation ever seeing the light of day is probably very slim.

I do not mind the fact that this is such a passionate issue for the Minister. Fair play to him if that is what he believes, but can he see himself continuing in Government if this Bill is defeated?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I see is that this Bill will be put to the Dáil and the Dáil will decide.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the Minister is happy to continue if it is defeated?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not contemplate a situation-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be defeated. There is no doubt about that.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----where a Government defeat of a piece of legislation, or indeed a motion, in any way means that a Minister should feel threatened.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just putting it to the Dáil.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, so even though it-----

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I finish?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to ask that there should be a free vote in the Dáil on this issue. It would be a very fair thing if all parties and groups had a free vote. If the Dáil decides otherwise I will of course accept that, but I am going to-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even though it is something that the Minister has stuck his head on the block in relation to? To be fair, I admire people sticking their heads on the block on an issue.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not put my head on the block at all. I am putting a piece of legislation, in which I passionately believe, before the Dáil.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which will be defeated.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is up to the Dáil to decide.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions and will then conclude. I have two different areas that I want to ask about. How is the Minister's relationship with the Road Safety Authority? How is the Minister's relationship with the Chair of the Road Safety Authority? How often have they met?

The board of the Road Safety Authority is completely depleted. I believe that the RSA board is not meeting its function as regards the expertise it requires to function. I also believe that the RSA board believes that. Given the Minister's views on boards - which I disagree with, but leaving that aside - does he not think that an exception should be made to his personal rules in one Department as regards ensuring that this board has adequate people on it with expertise on a range of issues, including engineering, road safety and how messaging is communicated? Does the Minister not believe that the board needs to be ramped up to meet its actual requirements?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I answer that Chairman?

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Road Safety Authority and I are working together extremely effectively on this Bill. The authority has been very supportive of the Bill. Members of the committee will have received a letter from them supporting this Bill and the measures therein. It is evidence-based. The chief executive of the Road Safety Authority supports this Bill and has written to the committee. The chairman of the RSA, to whom the Deputy referred, is also totally supportive of this Bill. We are working in exactly the same direction on the Bill, so there is no conflict there at all.

Although we have not had any real clash about it, I think we probably have a difference of opinion about how the board should be constituted.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister and the chair?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think myself and probably the rest of the board would certainly. I think the chair has a different view, and that is a common view among a lot of semi-State bodies. My view is that boards should probably be smaller than they are, including the Road Safety Authority. I also think that boards should be selected in a very different way to how they have been in the past. I am of the view that they should also include people who are users. In this particular case I would very much like to see people on the board who have expertise in road safety because of what they have experienced themselves. We will be looking for people like that. That will be a novelty but I do not think it is necessarily an agenda which many State boards share. However, I am determined that that should be done and that they will be selected in a way which reduces my own input to an absolute minimum. I do not want to be accused or to in any way appoint people with whom I have common interests or who are friends or acquaintances. I want them to be appointed on merit and that will apply to the Road Safety Authority as much as to any other State agency or State body.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given where we are on this piece of legislation - and I understand and respect where the RSA stands on it - does the chair of the RSA believe that she has adequate expertise on the board for it to do its job?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The RSA is looking for several more people on the board.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not quite sure why, to be honest. I do not know whether it is necessary because a lot of these State bodies have people on their staff who have a great deal of expertise. The RSA has done some fantastic work as a result of having that expertise on its staff. A lot of State bodies, however, want to have very large boards when it is not necessary.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the Road Safety Authority we are talking about.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is right. That is one as well, when it is not necessary to have-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have six members.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have six members at the moment.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I have gone through them. There are glaring gaps.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are going to have more members shortly. They are going through the pass process to have more members and they will have a board, not necessarily of 12 or 13, but a board which will be bigger than what they have at the moment.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will that address the expertise that is required to ensure that we are getting the best policy and implementation of road safety in this country? Will they meet the full spectrum of expertise required, as communicated to the Minister by the chairperson?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not necessarily.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So they will not have the expertise.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What we will do is meet the expertise which we think is necessary. We will also appoint people who have other expertise. One of the problems, particularly in the area of road safety, is that they do not have enough people who have actually suffered. What I would very much like to do is to appoint-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no issue with that.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I finish? I would like to appoint people who have experience and who have campaigned and crusaded for road safety. If they have had a personal experience in that way, that makes them an even strong advocate for road safety, and a strong person on the board.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should conclude.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I have no issue with that. I would actually agree with the Minister about putting some people like that on the board. The fact is, however, that the Minister is in dereliction of his duty by not having appropriate people with expertise on the board of the RSA to implement this policy and other policies. I am saying that directly to him as a serious concern. I know it to be a serious concern of the board and the chairperson themselves. I am asking the Minister, aside from politics, to please look at this differently. He should get adequate engineering, safety and other experts onto this board, whoever they are - it is not an issue for me and nor is the process by which he does it.

I understand the Minister's thinking and I agree within him about people who have experienced trauma due to issues on our roads. However, the board itself cannot give best policy and direction to this country given the way it is currently constituted. That is an undeniable fact.

I have one brief question. Obviously if this law were to come in, which it will not, it does give us a chance to be privy to this sort of thinking. I would hope that the Minister will examine the issue of rural transport both within the capital and budgetary planning processes.

I wish to mark two things on the Minister's radar. One is to look at the process of funding rural transport across the country, given where Bus Éireann is. We do not know what will happen in the future and I will not even go down that road with the Minister, he will be glad to hear.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, go ahead.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rural transport schemes are brilliant.

I know them quite well and was Minister with responsibility for them when I was in that Department. The rural transport network has a huge future in delivering services in rural Ireland and needs to be expanded but it needs to be done in a way that is mapped out with all the services like Expressway and rail services so that there is interconnectivity. I ask the Minister to look at that. There is another thing the Minister should look at that may lead certain pressure groups to view him in a more favourable light. During the time-----

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of the Bill.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is because it is related to rural Ireland. A rural hackney scheme was in existence during that time. This is basically a second type of licence in terms of ensuring there were rural hackneys in areas with no taxis. We are talking about fairly remote areas. Unfortunately, due to administrative issues, it never fully got off the ground. I urge the Minister to look at how that could be enhanced.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfectly reasonable. I do not know anything about it but I am perfectly happy to look at it or ask my officials to look at it.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The key issue was that the take-up was very low. There seemed to be a lot of red tape and stumbling blocks associated with it. In the context of this Bill, the committee identified previously that there are very many places around the country that do not have somebody to drive people to or from places. It is certainly worth consideration.

To conclude, I thank the Minister and his officials for their time here. I appreciate that it was a very long meeting and their time is very much appreciated. As the Minister is aware, a number of interest groups appeared before us prior to the heads of the Bill coming before us but the content of the Bill has been well flagged. The committee decided to invite all those groups in for further observations based on what is now known. In the interests of balance, the groups that have not been before us to date and that would have an interest in the Bill will come before us in the future as well. At that point, we would hope to conclude the pre-legislative process.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the committee be able to do that next week?

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking at doing it next week. For example, the vintners will, hopefully, appear before us next week while rural dwellers associations might appear before us as well.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am keen to get the Bill into the Dáil as-----

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members appreciate that so we are trying to facilitate it but at the same time, we are trying to be as balanced as possible in the interests of having complete pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Chairman give me a timetable for when the committee will be finished?

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope we would see a lot of progress by May.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking for a slot in the first week.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have next week's sitting but the committee will not sit for two weeks after that. The next meeting after that is after the May bank holiday.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So we could hope that I could get it into the Dáil during the second week of May if the committee has finished it?

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hopefully, but if there are other groups that we feel have a role to play in this, the committee would have to decide whether that is important or something it would like to pursue. Again, members appreciate that the Minister is anxious to move this forward. We are also anxious to conclude the process as soon as possible.