Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill represents the sixth major legislative initiative in as many years to underpin and promote road safety. That legislative progression has seen the introduction of penalty points, a new system for the independent licensing of taxis, hackneys and limousines, a new structure of speed limits based on metric values and, most recently, the establishment of the Road Safety Authority.

Deputies have expressed an interest in and concern about road safety issues generally and were particularly concerned about the high level of deaths and injuries on our roads. The Government shares this concern. Many of the issues raised by Deputies during debates and discussions in this House are now reflected in provisions promoted in the Bill.

The ongoing progression of road traffic legislation reflects both a response to the changing environment in which we use our roads and an increase in the number of vehicles using our roads. The scope and level of investment in the modernisation of our road network in the past ten years, allied to programmes for the improvement in the design, construction and performance of vehicles, has given rise to an ongoing need for an appropriate legislative response. However, the most significant driver of the process of legislative modernisation has been the need to augment and enhance existing road safety provisions.

The debate on road safety has become the centre of political, media and public attention and it is a central and immediate element of our national consciousness. There is understandable and significant disquiet over the number of deaths and injuries as a result of road collisions. A deeply moving and thought-provoking series of articles currently running in The Irish Times presents in graphic detail the grim reality of the human consequences of collisions.

The promotion of legislation to support road safety initiatives represents an important response by Government and the Oireachtas to the need for the ongoing advancement of improved safety performance. This, allied with consistent and effective enforcement of the traffic laws promulgated in such legislation, the promotion of road user education and awareness and programmes to promote the formation of drivers, provides the bedrock for the application of the measures that stem from legislative initiatives and ensures the effectiveness and relevance of such initiatives.

In Ireland, as in many other states, the force that binds the various road safety measures and programmes into a cohesive policy framework can be found in the road safety strategies. Adopted in the first instance eight years ago, the strategies have provided the basis for the development of a range of legislative and other responses promoted in the meantime. The current strategy forms the policy framework from which the major initiatives proposed in the Bill can be traced.

In adopting our road safety strategy we learned from the experience of states such as the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, which are the leading states in the European Union in terms of road safety performance. We have also adopted an approach that has seen the engagement of all the organisations that contribute to the various elements of road safety policy in the identification and pursuit of the policies through which the overall targets can be achieved. The collective goal of all of those involved in the promotion and delivery of road safety policies is to ensure the improvements achieved are sustained and built on.

The number of people being killed and injured on our roads is at an unacceptably high level. I will not hide my personal concern over the road death trends that have become established over the past two years. Three hundred and ninety-nine people lost their lives on Irish roads in 2005 and the upward trend continues with 185 dead up to 19 June this year. This represents an increase of 11 over the figure for this day last year. However, the House will recall the prediction made in the first road safety strategy that if the Government did not determine that a strategy to provide for the co-ordination of actions across a range of disciplines should be pursued, road deaths would amount to approximately 550 in 2002. A continuation of what was termed in that strategy a "business as usual" approach would at this stage have resulted in over 600 road deaths per annum. While we cannot be content with the current trends in road collisions, it must be recalled that our road safety record is now significantly more advanced than would have been the case if the Government had not adopted a strategic approach.

Through the adoption of road safety strategies we have seen the identification of a series of significant and, in many instances, linked measures that have to date and will continue in the future to advance the safety message for all road users. One of the great advantages of adopting strategies is that they place our plans in the public domain, thus allowing for informed debate that in turn provides a benchmark of public, media and political opinion for the delivery of the measures that have been identified.

That process of public and political scrutiny of the first road safety strategy gave rise to the identification of many of the policy options identified in the second strategy, which is now in its final year. There was a significant acknowledgement in that strategy that delivery on its extensive range of initiatives would take until the period to which it applies, that is, until the end of 2006. A planning horizon of just three years for a strategy is relatively short, particularly when compared to the EU road safety strategy, which is based on a ten-year timeframe. The current national strategy was envisaged as a mechanism through which very significant measures would be put into play.

The key determinant of road safety performance is the behaviour of road users. Positively influencing such behaviour is at the centre of our road safety programmes and forms the primary focus of our road safety strategies. Behaviour is influenced positively through initiatives across a number of areas. One of these is the promulgation and enforcement of laws that promote good road user behaviour. Such laws must also be underpinned and supported by the application of fines, prison sentences and driving disqualifications that collectively create an appropriate deterrent to those who endanger the lives of others by their failure to acknowledge and comply with the appropriate behavioural norms.

In the area of legislation, as promoted in the current strategy, we have already seen the implementation of the new system of speed limits based on metric values, the extensive roll-out of the penalty points system and the allied system of fixed charges, the administration of which is being outsourced so as to relieve the Garda of administrative functions. The establishment of both the national Garda traffic corps and the Road Safety Authority have become a reality and the contribution of both of those organisations will, I am sure, have a profoundly positive effect on road safety in future.

The immediate focus of the Bill is to support the introduction of legislation that will enable the delivery of the remaining outstanding legislative initiatives identified in the national road safety strategy.

In general terms, the Bill seeks to address the issue of the adoption of a system of mandatory roadside breath testing for drink driving, introduces an administrative alternative to a court hearing for certain drink driving offences, introduces a new legislative basis for a prohibition on the use of mobile phones, allows for the engagement of private sector interests in the provision and operation of safety equipment and promotes a range of initiatives relating to driver formation. All of those issues stem directly from commitments given in the road safety strategy. Experience in recent years indicates other legislative initiatives were needed to address, in particular, the need to further advance the range and effectiveness of deterrents against the commission of traffic offences. This is also addressed in the Bill.

I will refer in some detail to the main provisions proposed in the Bill. Driving under the influence of alcohol is recognised as one of the most serious contributory factors in road collisions. Evidence shows that drink driving is increasing in the younger age groups. There is widespread acceptance among responsible motorists and society as a whole that driving under the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous and unacceptable. Despite high-publicity, targeted campaigns, some drivers are not willing to change their behaviour. The level of deaths on our roads will not decrease unless strong legislative measures are adopted and enforced to bring about the necessary attitudinal change.

The primary target of the road safety strategy commits the Government to the introduction of a form of roadside breath testing which would address, in a positive way, the problem of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The first road safety strategy did not include a commitment to introduce random breath testing. However the high-level group on road safety, which was tasked with the preparation and delivery of both road safety strategies, presented the adoption of random breath testing as a recommendation in the second strategy. Section 4 of this Bill responds to the recommendation of the high-level group and promotes the concept of mandatory alcohol testing.

The concept of mandatory alcohol testing has been the subject of lengthy consideration and consultation, which included a very significant engagement by the Office of the Attorney General, supported by independent legal advice. The aim of that consideration was to see the introduction of a system through which motorists could be made subject to a requirement to submit to a preliminary breath test without there being any prior suspicion that alcohol had been consumed or that the behaviour of the motorist warranted that a test be administered. The determination of the legislative provisions necessary to support the proposed scheme has been an extensive process in order to strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the service of the common good by the adoption of a measure that will enhance road safety.

The section provides that the establishment of check points for mandatory alcohol tests can only be pursued on the specific written authorisation of an officer of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. That authorisation must be in writing and must clearly establish the place, date and times of day when the check point may be operated. It is envisaged that the Garda Commissioner will establish guidelines to assist and inform all members of the force in the carrying out of their roles in regard to the operation of mandatory alcohol tests. This initiative is an additional measure to the range of existing provisions that apply in respect of the operation of preliminary roadside breath testing for alcohol.

The advancement of mandatory roadside testing for alcohol will provide for the first time a means for the detection of drink driving offences that is based exclusively on the level of alcohol consumption as opposed to a motorist's behaviour. If motorists choose to continue to drink and drive, the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing will inevitably result in further increases in the levels of detection. In recognition of this, the Bill promotes an alternative option to a court hearing for those charged with the commission of certain drink driving offences.

Mandatory roadside testing in other countries, where it is not required to form an opinion as to whether alcohol has been consumed, has proved itself as an enforcement tool capable of changing attitudes towards drinking and driving. It aims to provide a clear and consistent message to drivers that drink driving is a dangerous and unacceptable activity.

The introduction of the new system combined with rigorous publicity and enforcement should result in the level of general deterrence needed to address drink driving in a robust way, bringing about the change in attitudes and behaviour that is necessary to reduce fatalities on our roads.

Section 5 provides for the introduction of a new system of fixed charges for certain drink driving offences, the payment of which will lead to the imposition of a fixed period of disqualification. The section provides that where a motorist has been detected with a level of not more than 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, or the equivalent levels in urine or breath, he or she will be offered the opportunity to pay a fixed charge of €300 and accept a driving disqualification of six months. Payment of the charge will be voluntary on behalf of the accused person. If the charge is not paid, however, court proceedings will be instigated. The consequences of a conviction in court will be significantly more onerous as a result of other initiatives being promoted in this Bill, which I will refer to later.

The offer of paying a fixed charge will only be available to those who have not been convicted of a drink driving offence in the previous five years and the offer will only be made once to any motorist in any period of five years.

The advent of the new system for administrative disqualification for certain drink driving offences places in the spotlight the range of mandatory disqualifications currently applied under the Road Traffic Acts. The immediate consequence of the decision to apply an administrative disqualification of six months to a specific group of drink driving offences means that the periods for minimum disqualifications that apply following convictions for drink driving offences generally required review. The result of that review is set out in section 6.

The process of that review established that there was a need to look critically at the overall range of minimum disqualifications that are currently applied in respect of the more serious offences created under the Road Traffic Acts. The disqualifications in question are known as consequential disqualifications as they are applied as a consequence of a conviction for an offence. The range of offences to which this system applies was last set out in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That Act, with an amendment promoted through the Road Traffic Act 1995 in respect of certain drink driving offences, also establishes the minimum periods for such disqualifications.

Given the much higher profile that applies to road safety now and accepting that there is a broad consensus for the need for more consistent deterrents that reflect the seriousness with which society views the more serious breaches of traffic law, it is timely that the system for consequential disqualifications should be reviewed at this stage. Section 6, therefore, provides that the minimum period of disqualification for the most serious offences, which include dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, and the most serious drink driving offences, will be increased from two years to four years in respect of a first offence and from four to six years for a second or subsequent offence.

The new offence of striking a railway or other bridge, which gives rise to death or serious injury, has been added to the list of the offences to which that range of minimum disqualification will apply. The minimum period of disqualification following a conviction for a drink driving offence will now be one year. That same period of disqualification will also be applied to the general range of offences that attract consequential disqualifications. The offence of driving when disqualified has been added to that group of offences and in a final change to this system, the offence of dangerous driving, where it is tried summarily, will also attract a disqualification of at least one year.

The review of the system of consequential disqualifications has also prompted an examination of the system whereby persons who have been disqualified from driving may apply to the courts to have their licences returned. The current provisions relating to such applications are cumbersome and lack clarity. In addition, while the principle that underpins this system has merit, its application to all disqualifications raises questions in respect of the degree to which the deterrent value of disqualifications is being compromised. With that in mind, section 7 promotes a new system through which applications may be made to the courts for the restoration of a licence. In particular, the facility will only be applied in respect of first time disqualifications of not less than two years. The determination of "first time" is applied in the context of a ten-year threshold from a previous disqualification. In future, the application for the restoration of a licence may only be made following the completion of half of the period of the disqualification and a successful application will only result in a reduction of one third in the overall period at the maximum. These new provisions will mean that where a person is disqualified for any period of not more than two years, the full period of disqualification will apply and where a person is the subject of repeat disqualifications, he or she will not be able to avail of the facility to apply for the restoration of the licence.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell's Bill to ban hand-held mobile phone use while driving provided the House with the opportunity recently to debate the issue of mobile phone and other communication equipment use while driving. It was clear from that debate that all sides in the House wish to see an immediate ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving and for it to be backed up with strong deterrent measures. In that debate many Members also referred to the increasing amount of information, communication and entertainment equipment which has become part and parcel of today's motor vehicle and pointed out the driver distraction risks associated with them when not used responsibly.

Section 3 provides specific responses to the principal concerns of the House both in regard to mobile phones and in-vehicle equipment. The section applies a specific ban on the holding of a mobile phone by a person while driving a motor vehicle. It also provides that the Minister may regulate for mobile phone use generally as well as in-vehicle technologies of an information, communication or entertainment nature for the purposes of preventing driver distraction arising from inappropriate use of such technologies by occupants of vehicles.

Given the pace and scale of innovation in these sectors, it is considered sensible and necessary to confer such enabling powers on the Minister to control inappropriate and irresponsible uses of these technologies. In addition to a maximum fine of €2,000, the commission of the offence of holding a mobile phone while driving will attract the endorsement of four penalty points on conviction. Following the completion of the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, I intend to make regulations that will apply a fixed charge in respect of this offence, on the payment of which two penalty points will be applied.

I will now turn to the driver licensing provisions of the Bill. Sections 8 to 13 relate to the driver licensing system. The main object of these provisions is the introduction of a learner permit to replace the provisional licence and enabling provisions that will enable me to require learner drivers to undergo a course of instruction. In addition, I will also be able to specify a period which must elapse before a person who obtains a learner permit will be allowed to apply for a driving test. The intention is to ensure that a person will have an opportunity to improve their driving skills before taking the test. I see this provision having a positive effect on the test pass-fail rate.

Section 8 provides that the Minister may by order recognise a driving licence issued by another country for the purpose of exchanging that licence for an Irish driving licence. Driving licence exchange arrangements operate in respect of licences issued by member states of the European Union and the EEA. These arrangements are based on provisions in the Road Traffic (Licensing of Drivers) Regulations 1999.

Licence exchange arrangements also operate in respect of licences issued by a limited number of states outside the EU under these regulations. However, we are advised that the power in the regulations to declare such countries as recognised states may be ultra vires and requires primary legislative provision, hence the provision in section 8.

Section 9 provides that where a person undergoing a driving test has already passed a theory test, the statutory requirement for driver testers to satisfy themselves that the person has a satisfactory knowledge of the Rules of the Road no longer applies. This should create additional time for testers to undergo the test and will enable further improvements to the delivery of the test without reducing the number of tests that can be delivered per day.

Section 10 re-enacts existing provisions in section 42 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act which provides for making regulations governing the driver licensing system. The revised section together with section 11 provides for the introduction of a learner permit to replace the provisional licence. In addition it provides that regulations may require learner drivers to undergo a course of instruction and regulate the content of such courses. This provision will facilitate the introduction of compulsory initial practical training of motorcyclists before they are allowed on the public road.

These provisions will facilitate the introduction of reforms to the licensing system to reduce long-term reliance on provisional licences as provided for in the Government's road safety strategy. These reforms are dependent on the current driver testing backlog being eliminated. In this context I appreciate that the driver testers have accepted the proposals to deal with the backlog which were put forward by Mr. Kieran Mulvey CEO of the Labour Relations Commission recently. We are now in the process of putting in place the contract to outsource a limited number of tests and I look forward to a significant reduction in the backlog by early next year.

The Bill also changes the penalties that apply for driving without a licence. The provision in section 12 is balanced in that it takes account of situations where a person may have simply failed to renew his or her licence on time. Where a person allows a driving licence to lapse for less than a period of 12 months, he or she will only be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,000 while if the licence has expired for a period of more than 12 months he or she will be liable to a more severe penalty of a fine not exceeding €2,000 and one penalty point on payment of a fixed charge or three penalty points on conviction. In addition a person who is caught driving while disqualified or who does not have a licence will be subject to a mandatory disqualification for a year, as provided for in section 6, and a fine of up to €5,000 or up to six months in prison, or both. I am sure Deputies will agree that these provisions will enable significant reforms to the driving licence regime to be introduced.

The Road Safety Strategy 2004-06 promoted the introduction of a legislative basis for a form of random roadside breath testing and for an offence relating to the use of mobile phones by drivers. In addition, the strategy recommended that private sector interests should be engaged in the provision and operation of equipment used for the detection of speeding offences.

Speeding continues to be a major contributory factor in causing death and injuries on our roads. The best way to ensure greater levels of compliance with speed limits is a wider deployment of cameras operated by the private sector. The purpose of deploying cameras is to encourage road users to drive within the speed limit, specifically at locations where there is a known speed-related danger of crashes. I assure the House that the central focus of this initiative is on saving lives not on earning revenue. There will be no direct link to the fee paid to the private operator and the number of detections.

It has been accepted that the Garda cannot operate a system of fixed and mobile cameras without a significant private sector engagement. Decisions on the locations where cameras will be provided will reflect both experience of speed related collisions and evidence of a history of speeding. A combination of fixed and mobile cameras will operate in target areas. A target of 11.1 million vehicles to be checked for speeding annually as outlined in the Road Safety Strategy cannot be achieved without privatisation.

Section 17 delivers on this commitment. The section addresses the specific parameters necessary to facilitate the engagement of a private sector operator. However, I remind the House that the Government is fully committed to the establishment of very strict criteria that will be applied in respect of the determination of the locations and operational parameters for the engagement of the private sector in this area and this project will be under the control of the Garda at both the strategic and operational levels.

The use of safety cameras is just one of a range of measures that have been implemented or are currently being implemented. Significant changes were introduced in 2004 with a review of speed limits leading to a lowering of speed limits on regional roads, the metrication of speed limits, better and more signage and a safety awareness campaign on speed limits to improve road safety.

There have been press reports within the past week as regards speeding cases being dismissed in Bray District Court over a query regarding the legality of the special speed limit of 60 kph that Wicklow County Council have applied on the N11 at Kilmacanogue, in lieu of the default speed limit of 100 kph. Wicklow County Council has indicated that it is satisfied that the special speed limit in question is validly applied. Press reports on this issue over the weekend erroneously linked the circumstances relating to the application of the special speed limit at Kilmacanogue with the changeover to metric speed limits in January 2005, stating that special speed limits across the country are in question on account of the fact that local councils did not pass resolutions to ratify special speed limits following the changeover to metric speed limits. This is inaccurate and I want to take the opportunity to put clarification of the matter on the public record.

The Road Traffic Act 2004 that was passed through the Houses here in late 2004 contained express transitional provisions in section 12 that provided for the automatic conversion of speed limits in existing special speed limit by-laws that were expressed in miles per hour values to read as specified metric values. This conversion through operation of the statute came into operation on 20 January 2005 on the commencement of section 12. No requirement arose therefore on local authorities to go through a ratification or any other process, as suggested in the media reports, in relation to the conversion of speed limit values that stood in special speed limit by-laws on 20 January 2006.

In view of the importance of road safety generally and the need to provide the maximum level of deterrent possible, it is appropriate to look again at the general level of financial penalties that may be applied to traffic offences. The level of maximum financial penalties was last reviewed through the Road Traffic Act 2002. However, significant increases in the levels of fines have since been, promulgated in other legislation. Section 18 sets out the result of that review, and provides in particular that the lowest level of maximum fine applicable to a road traffic offence will now be €1,000. This is an increase of 25% over the comparable level set in 2002.

In referring to the issue in Wicklow as regards confusion over the metric value, I should have stressed it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure all existing by-laws that stemmed from the conversion were properly ratified by them over the years, or whatever levels they have set in terms of introducing the special speed limit by-laws, to ensure this has been done correctly, in accordance with the by-laws. It was simply not correct to say that it was because of the changeover. We introduced legislation and automatic reflection on that stands. However, there is also an onus on local authorities to ensue that the original ratification of these by-laws was done correctly in the first place.

See this speech in context