Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the Road Traffic Bill 2006 and propose to highlight some of its key features. The Bill facilitates the introduction of mandatory roadside breath tests for drivers for alcohol in a targeted manner and provides for the introduction on a statutory basis of control of the use of mobile telephones and in-vehicle communication equipment by occupants of motor vehicles. It also establishes a framework for the engagement of private sector interests in the provision and operation of cameras and other technology for the detection of speeding offences. It provides for the adoption of a new fixed charge and disqualification for certain drink driving offences, an increase in periods of disqualifications relating to drink driving offences and other serious driving offences and the introduction of broader powers for the Garda to detain vehicles. While the legislation has several other features, I consider these its main provisions and all are justified, worthwhile and necessary.

The reason for this Bill, a further element in the suite of road traffic legislation passed in recent years, is the tragic number of deaths on the roads. Every person will have known someone who died in road traffic accident. There is not a town, village, street or townland in which a young person has not left for work in the morning or gone out in the evening never to return home because of a road traffic accident. This issue is, therefore, close to the hearts of many families. In this case, legislation passed in the House will have a significant impact on lives and will show that Members take seriously the tragic consequences of the large number of road traffic accidents on our roads.

I welcome the introduction of mandatory roadside breath tests which are long overdue. Although I have no legal expertise, I fail to understand the reason it has taken so long to address this issue. Why has the legal profession engaged in arguments about whether such tests should be allowed or are constitutional, how random should be defined and whether the number of tests should be carried out on the basis of the number of cars in a county or on every road in the country? I am tired of legal experts having debates which recall the question as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at a time when lives are being lost on our roads every day. I am also critical of the Judiciary which is more interested in entertaining these types of debates in courtrooms than convicting defendants when the substance of the case shows them to be guilty.

I welcome the provision on breath tests. I am pleased it was cleared by the Government's legal advisers and I look forward to its implementation. I particularly welcome the provision allowing persons found during a mandatory roadside breath test to be over the legal limit to voluntarily accept a fixed penalty, including disqualification from driving for a specified period. Those who avail of this option will be taken to court and, I hope, given short shrift from the judge and made to realise the consequences of their actions.

Issues of this nature should not be tested to an excessive degree in the courts. I hope people caught over the legal limit will accept the yellow or red cards the authorities promptly show them. While it is the right of individuals not to avail of the voluntary option and take their chances in court, I hope they will meet judges who are more interested in enforcing road traffic law than finding legal loopholes which would allow defendants to be acquitted.

I am concerned that this Bill and road traffic legislation in general does not deal with those driving while under the influence of drugs other than alcohol, including cannabis, hashish and ecstasy. This has created a legislative gap which allows many young people and others to smoke a joint or two at the weekend and drive without fear of prosecution. The House will have to surmount this problem in due course because the Bill does not provide for the introduction of a mechanism to address it. It must be given further thought and should be referred to an all-party committee for consideration. Every responsible Member will agree the issue must be tackled. I would be surprised if any Deputy opposed a proposal that would result in the prosecution of those who drive under the influence of hard drugs.

I expect one of the difficulties of any such proposal would arise in the area of drug testing. While I am aware that tests can identify the presence of some harder drugs in the blood, some of the drugs coming on the market are combinations of cannabis and other drugs. It is not, therefore, a matter of developing a simple blood test which would identify the quantity of a specific drug in the blood as it would be difficult to devise an overall test to identify all drugs. I would like those involved in the technical analysis of drug samples to assist an all-party committee in addressing this issue.

While I support the provision requiring a person who voluntarily accepts a fixed term disqualification to return his or her licence to the local authority, I am concerned about what will happen to such licences once they are submitted to the local authority. What mechanism will be used to ensure their return? The Bill makes no provision in this regard and I am certain insufficient resources will be available on the ground to implement this excellent idea.

Every time I raise the issue of road taxation, insurance or driving licences I am reminded of a case referred to me several years ago by a constituent whose insurance company cancelled a policy after several months. The reason given by the company was the failure of the policy holder to disclose all relevant information. The policy was cancelled, the balance returned and a document notifying the cancellation of the policy issued. I followed up the matter by tabling a parliamentary question asking how many insurance policies had been cancelled by insurance companies in the previous year in respect of vehicles which were still on the road. I was stunned to learn that between 10,000 and 12,000 policies had been cancelled. The practice was most common among the larger insurance companies. I would like to find out what is the current figure. A simple parliamentary question would extract this information.

There is a mechanism in law providing that an insurance company which cancels an insurance policy must notify the relevant Garda station to ensure local gardaí are aware of the cancellation as the former policyholder's car will continue to have an insurance disc displayed on the windscreen. In a number of cases, people have agreed to pay for insurance policies on a 12 month basis but, after making the first payment and receiving their insurance disk, their policies were cancelled because they stopped making payments. Insurance companies are using this legal provision as a means of debt collection, with the result that thousands of notices are being sent to Garda stations throughout the country about drivers with lapsed insurance. However, no mechanism is available on the ground for following up these notices. I am concerned that the provision to require people to surrender their driving licences to local authorities will fall into similar disrepute. I understand gardaí have other duties but this system is a shambles. When a company issues an insurance policy, the problems it faces in collecting debts should not impact on other road users in terms of cancelled policies. I would like that issue to be addressed in future road traffic legislation.

I welcome the Bill's provision to give the powers to the Minister to make regulations on mobile telephones and other communications equipment. That will allow the Minister to respond quickly rather than be forced to introduce primary legislation to respond to changes in technology. The ambulance service and gardaí are exempt from prosecution under this section but I would like to know whether private ambulances and Defence Forces and prison service vehicles are also exempted. Such vehicles may be covered by the Bill's provision for a defence of genuine emergency. I am happy that penalty points will apply in respect of using a mobile telephone while driving as soon as this Bill is enacted.

I welcome that the Bill deals with the role of the private sector in the operation of speed cameras because limited Garda resources should not be wasted on this area. It is not a security issue but a technical job which should be awarded to a company through competitive tender. However, certain issues will have to be addressed, such as whether private operators will have access to information on penalty points.

As Deputy Boyle noted, the Committee of Public Accounts investigated the speed cameras currently in operation and figures from the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated that nearly 50% of the photographs taken by speed cameras did not result in prosecution. Excuses given included bad weather, glare on cameras and heavy rain or snow. The remaining 50% of photographs taken include people who denied they were driving the car at the time, cars from other jurisdictions and faulty or unclear number plates.

I am concerned that the lack of quality control may continue into any new system. We should not try to reinvent the wheel but should learn from countries with similar climates. As I have learned from the Committee of Public Accounts, the public sector is not capable of introducing quality information technology systems. The Department of Transport and the Garda are not information technology experts and the lack of competence in the public service has meant projects are not properly specified from the outset. Rigorous assessment is needed before projects go to tender.

I am happy that fines are being increased in respect of expired licences. However, why cannot local authorities issue reminders to people when their licences are about to expire? It is easy to leave a ten year licence in the glove compartment and forget about it. Local authorities are well able to issue us with reminders to tax our cars and insurance companies remind us about our insurance policies. There is no reason, other than inertia, why reminder notices are not issued for driving licences. It is a lazy approach to merely increase fines without making provision for reminders.

It is welcome that gardaí are to be given greater powers to take uninsured vehicles off the road if they are not registered in this State. I would also like to see a provision whereby such cars can be put into private storage. I have visited several Garda stations in my constituency only to find their yards half-filled with abandoned vehicles because there is no provision in law to allow gardaí to store them anywhere else.

The Bill does not address the issue of insured drivers. I have open insurance, which allows me to drive any car, insured or otherwise. The Bill deals with uninsured vehicles but many drivers can be insured to drive any vehicle. I understand the intention behind this but the provisions have not been properly thought out.

In recent weeks, the Judiciary has caused the majority of the problems encountered by the Houses of the Oireachtas. One judge decided to let a person out of prison, only to have other judges reverse that decision. This inconsistency causes many problems. If a person is being tried for speeding or drink driving, that should be the substantial issue considered by the judge. However, most judges seem to be more interested in asking whether the garda properly identified himself or herself or gave the proper receipt to the defendant. All this must be considered. The Judiciary seems more interested in the minutiae of legal debate than the substance of the offence. It should use common sense in these cases. The substance of the offence should be examined in the correct proportion to technical issues.

See this speech in context