Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

On the last day we discussed how the Minister proposed dealing with the legislation. As we know the Bill was published in 2001. Last year when we eventually got around to taking Committee Stage, we had the most inept handling of legislation I have ever witnessed. After Deputy Naughten and I, along with others, had put considerable time into the Committee Stage discussion, one morning the Minister's predecessor arrived with a new Part 9 and Part 10 which we had never seen before. In spite of our best efforts to block it, he pressed ahead. It then took the intervention of David Begg at the most senior level in Government to stop it, which is how the legislation was stalled for the past year. It is important to remind ourselves about the mishandling of that matter by the previous Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, which led to the delay of a minimum of 12 months and was no way to do business. I recognise that discussions have taken place in the interim.

It is important to remember there is no history of intoxicant use or abuse within the railways. In none of the accidents was the cause found to be related to intoxicants of any kind. We must recognise that and give due credit to those working on our railways through the years who have maintained a high work standard. From the way the former Minister, Deputy Brennan, spoke on the matter, one would imagine it was a huge problem, but there is no intoxicant history there with regard to accidents. We should thank people for their commitment in that regard.

Many of the concerns we had when this Bill was sprung on us last year by the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, arose because it contained no clear definitions. It was very loose in terms of who would have access to the samples that could be taken and in terms of the definitions. I welcome the fact that this has been tightened up to some extent, and that those areas which have not been tightened are subject to discussions on protocols, code of conduct and so on.

It is difficult for anyone to object to the notion of public transport workers being subject to random testing because, clearly, a major safety issue is involved. However, it is a little rich to hear the Minister talk today of other countries where there is random breath testing among many different groups of transport workers. The Minister and his predecessor have consistently opposed any attempt or calls to introduce random breath testing for road users. Notwithstanding what he said about Connex, no other group of workers in the transport area is subject to random testing.

Any night of the week, one can see very busy car parks at any pub. People are in the pubs for lengthy periods of time and it is quite clear to all of us that considerable numbers of people are driving cars after imbibing intoxicants. There seems to be no political will to tackle the issue. We see road carnage on a regular basis, very often as a result of drink driving.

Some months ago the Minister had an opportunity to redress this by means of the Road Traffic Bill, when I proposed an amendment to provide for the introduction of random breath testing for drivers. He voted against it. On a number of occasions he has said he has faced difficulties, is awaiting legal advice and is getting various messages from the Attorney General, yet nothing has been produced.

The Minister's predecessor promised that random testing was on the way. It was part of the road safety strategy and is a clear target in the current road safety strategy for introduction by 2006. The Government spokesperson, Deputy Power, appeared on television last week, however, and clearly knew nothing about the matter nor had any plans to do anything about it. Similarly the Tánaiste, when asked about the matter during the Order of Business last week, knew nothing about it.

It is unfair to target one particular group of workers. If random testing is to be introduced, it should be introduced across the board. The Minister frequently notes constitutional and other legal problems with regard to introducing random testing for drivers yet he has no difficulty in introducing it for railway workers. Every excuse in the book is produced to explain why the Minister has not introduced random testing on the roads. Let us apply the testing evenly to all, across the board.

I hope the Minister will indicate his intentions. It is one thing to set down targets in a safety strategy but quite another to do something about them and ensure that the area is given priority, So far, there is no indication from the Department that the Minister is personally taking up the issue or making any attempt to champion it. Given his responsibility for road safety, this is an area where priority should be given. I welcome the Minister's view and ask him to make a clear statement as to his intentions, and the timescale involved.

There are serious issues involved in Part 10 of the Bill with regard to criminalising what we would call carelessness. I have some concerns about definitions. The section has certainly been improved in so far as the offences apply to everyone working in a railway undertaking whereas previously, management was not deemed to have any role or responsibility in the area. However, I am concerned about the definition of carelessness. The penalties are very severe and I wonder if we are clear on whether there is potential for management, perhaps, or someone who has it in for a particular worker or group of workers to scapegoat someone on the basis of something as simple as failure to tie one's shoe-lace adequately. Could that be deemed to be carelessness, and thus liable to be a criminal offence? There is some danger that people could be singled out, perhaps people who for one reason or another were not popular with management because of activities in which they were involved. Under the proposals before us it would be easy enough to frame someone. I would like to know what safeguards the Minister will put in place to ensure this does not happen.

See this speech in context