Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputy Johnny Brady.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. A total of 399 people died on our roads in 2005 while 185 have died so far this year, an increase of 5% on the same period last year. There has been a major outcry in the media and among the public about the behaviour of road users. The sad reality is that many of the victims did not behave badly on the road but they were caught up in tragic accidents caused by the negligence of other drivers. Every town and county has been affected by the carnage on our roads and something desperately needs to be done, particularly in regard to driver behaviour. While young drivers are often blamed, older drivers are worse offenders in a number of categories.

The Bill is a welcome development, although I am concerned about a number of sections, which I will address later. However, it is only part of the solution to the problem. Many other issues must be addressed such as road engineering and the quality of road surfaces. Repairs to roads should be carried out so that there is minimum danger to road users.

Section 4 provides for mandatory breath testing. I welcome the introduction of this provision. This system has been operated in Spain for several years and I met people who had been randomly breath tested there. When a person can be randomly breath tested at any time, it acts as a significant deterrent, even for those who might want to take a chance and have one or two drinks. Our attitude is that it is fine to drive if one has had two drinks but it is important that young people should be educated that they should not drink at all if they intend to drive. Ireland has a relaxed attitude to drink driving. I welcome the provision whereby the place where the random breath testing takes place and the date and the time is included in the written authorisation of a Garda inspector or someone of a higher rank. That is an important regulation. I am surprised the regulation on involving the private sector, for example, in speed detection does not seem to be quite as strict. Random breath testing will result in greater detection and, ultimately, in a change in behaviour. Many young people are conscious of the dangers of drink driving and they do not drink and drive while drivers aged 35 and over are more inclined to take a chance. Driver education is important and random breath testing is a welcome development.

Section 5 introduces a new system of fixed charges. Given that such breath testing may result in a significant increase in the number of people breathalysed who are marginally above the legal limit, the introduction of fixed charges is a good idea. Offenders can pay a €300 fine and be disqualified from driving for six months. That provision will address marginal cases and it will result in a change in attitude to drink driving. I also welcome the extension of the disqualification period for certain offences.

Section 3 provides for a ban on the use of hand held mobile telephones, a maximum fine of €2,000 and four penalty points. Provisional licences will be replaced by a learner permit. It is positive that people who seek a learner permit will be obliged to take a driving course. However, I refer to the regulations covering driving schools. How will learner drivers know who is accredited? How will they know where to go to take the course and how will they be confident the relevant standards are being met?

Under section 9, when a person passes the theory test to obtain a learner permit, he or she will not have to undertake another theory test when taking the driving test. That will free up driver testers. Applicants must correctly answer 35 out of 40 questions in the theory test, which is onerous and thorough. Many provisional licence holders probably have a greater knowledge of the Rules of the Road than many full licence holders, which is a positive development.

Under sections 12 and 19, gardaí can detain uninsured vehicles registered outside the State. Many foreigners who travel around the country speed on our roads. A highly publicised case reached the courts recently in the Minister of State's constituency. The driver was travelling at 200 mph and while he was prosecuted and fined, his licence could not be endorsed. Can anything be done to address this issue? Drivers from other jurisdictions have a relaxed attitude to the State's road traffic laws. Can significant deterrents other than fines be introduced in co-ordination with other states?

The privatisation of the enforcement equipment for speeding has attracted most comment. Like many drivers, I am critical of the way speed limits have been enforced in the past. I do not know how many times I have come across gardaí on the side of the road in a 30 km/h zone in both urban and rural areas. I regularly drive through a 30 km/h zone on a bad bend outside one rural town, which is immediately preceded by a 100 km/h zone. That is fine if one knows the road and is aware of the location of the sign but I do not know how many times I have passed a Garda car on the other side of the bend waiting to nab drivers as they reduce speed. Such detection is the cause of much cynicism among road users. We all want boy racers and others who speed outrageously on our roads prosecuted because it is unacceptable behaviour. Do 30 km/h zones carry so much danger? If all other speed limit zones were as well policed, it would be reasonable to focus on the 30 km/h zone. While if one is travelling at 35 km/h in such a zone, it is an offence and it should be stopped, resources should be deployed in areas where the greatest number of accidents and offences occur.

The Minister stated the central focus of the initiative is on saving lives rather than earning revenue. While I do not doubt him, when the private sector took over clamping operations in Dublin, it turned out to be a revenue generating exercise. The Minister further stated there will be no direct link between the fee paid to the private operator and the number of detections but when the legislation is passed, how will we know how this provision will be implemented? We will have to wait to judge whether the Minister's sentiment is reflected in practice.

I referred to the written authorisation for random breath testing. However, the location of speed cameras will reflect both the experience of speed-related collisions and the evidence of a history of speeding. The Minister stated this project will be under the control of the Garda both at the strategic and operational levels but the Bill does not provide that a written authorisation is required to carry out speed checks at various locations. Unfortunately, the same degree of strictness does not apply to this measure. Hence, one can only assume this will be much looser. Consequently, can Members be assured that the Minister's sentiments, as outlined in the Bill, will be carried out in four or five years' time?

The target of checking 11.1 million vehicles annually for speeding is ambitious and will make a significant change to matters. Although I am familiar with the Minister's point that the Garda cannot operate this system without the private sector, I wish to sound a note of caution regarding this measure. While, overall, I welcome the points made in this Bill, Members must wait and see whether it turns out to be a genuine success.

I agree with a point which has already been made, namely, that the enforcement of this Bill after its enactment will be critical. Most people would agree that, over the years, many measures have become law but have not been fully implemented. Such measures are not fully enforced on the roads. Had they been fully enforced, they might have made a significant impact in this regard. Hence, I commend this Bill to the House and hope it will be passed quickly. More importantly, I hope it will be enforced when it becomes law.

See this speech in context