Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

This is a major problem. Members, the Garda and the courts are working to 15 different Road Traffic Acts. It is a complex area at the best of times but it is almost impossible for an individual to refer to 15 Acts every time an issue arises. The Department and the Attorney General's office made a number of mistakes in the Act passed earlier this year by inserting inaccurate references. Recently, we had to pass amending legislation because of those errors. One of the errors referred to a provision contained in five different Acts. It is impossible to get a handle on road traffic legislation. Members find it difficult to plough through previous Acts to cross reference proposed legislation and one can only imagine how much more difficult it is for the Garda to implement the law and for legal eagles to exploit inconsistencies or inaccuracies in legislation. An industry has built up around the interpretation of legislation and second guessing of both the Garda and the courts.

The consolidation of the legislation must become a priority. I raised this with the Minister for Transport recently and he referred to the social welfare consolidation legislation introduced by the Department of Social and Family Affairs a number of years ago. A section was established to undertake the consolidation and investment in such a section in the Department of Transport would be more than repaid. This issue needs urgent attention but I will not hold my breath that the Minister will address it because he has not been inclined to bring urgency to this.

The Fine Gael legislation seeks to provide a mandatory minimum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving of a disqualification from driving for six months. The recent District Court case concerning two reckless individuals who drove at 190 km/h on the Mullingar bypass and escaped without a driving disqualification highlights how necessary is a mandatory penalty for dangerous driving. There is no point in us passing laws if their intended effect is ignored in the courts and that is what happening. Recent court statistics demonstrate that the Mullingar case is far from rare. One of the justifications given by the judge who dealt with the case for his failure to impose a disqualification was there was no point because, more than likely, an appeal to a higher court would succeed. He came in for a great deal of public criticism for his comments but he said he would carry out an investigation into what happens when disqualifications are appealed, the results of which will be interesting.

The recent Courts Service report highlighted that approximately 9% of people arrested for dangerous driving are disqualified. The judge's comment that it would be a waste of time to impose a disqualification is borne out by the report and this makes an ass of the law. A clear deterrent should be in place and people must realise that, at the end of the day, if they break driving laws, they will face a severe penalty. However, the message currently is if a person is before court on a dangerous driving charge, he or she should appeal the decision all the way through the courts system because he or she has a less than one in ten chance of being disqualified.

The figures in respect of drunken driving are even more alarming — they are scandalous. Despite the number of people arrested for drunken driving where there is obvious proof — we understand the hurdles gardaí must cross to establish that somebody is over the limit, including the various stages in the courts — at the end of the court process a mere 5% of drunken drivers are disqualified. This is an extraordinary indictment of the legislation, the Garda and the courts. Given those levels of enforcement, we are whistling in the wind with regard to trying to get across a message in respect of the utter recklessness and irresponsibility of drinking and driving.

This area needs urgent attention. We can have all the press statements and tough talking we like but if only 5% of drunken drivers are disqualified, a person would take the risk as it is a very good bet. It is clear many people continue to take that risk.

The statistics from the Courts Service highlight the need for the Minister to activate section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2006. He failed to do this when he commenced certain sections of the Act in July and, to my knowledge, he has not done so since. I draw attention to this because that section provides for the automatic disqualification of drink drivers who fail a roadside breath test and are within certain high limits. If we cannot trust the courts to apply the law as intended, we will have to hope that the fear factor and the sheer inconvenience of a court appearance act as an effective deterrent in such cases

Section 3 of the Bill provides for the mandatory breath testing of drivers who have been involved in a road traffic accident, rather than the current scenario where this option is left to the discretion of the garda on duty. I agree with the sentiment of this section but I question whether it does what it intends. Currently, if a driver has been involved in a collision, the garda may opt to test him for intoxicants. This system allows too much discretion to the garda, which the Bill rightly seeks to address. However, the Bill as it stands could mean that a seriously injured person who is unable to provide a breath test could face a €5,000 fine, six months imprisonment and disqualification from driving for two years if he or she fails to comply. We must remember that in many cases it is injured drivers who are the victims of road accidents.

The Bill seeks to do the right thing but a balance needs to be struck between increasing the testing for intoxicants of drivers involved in collisions and ensuring the law is workable, medical risks are not taken and emergency personnel are enabled to do their job. Perhaps an amendment adding this to the list of defences is in order and would assist in meeting the balance required.

The Bill seeks to allow the Minister to prescribe regulations for the testing of drivers for substances other than alcohol should a conclusive testing system become available in the future. I proposed this measure during the debate on the Road Traffic Act 2006. It is easy to suggest it would be premature to make this provision but, when we consider the kind of delays with regard to road safety and road traffic law, it is prudent to do it. A number of new systems are being tried out at present and while I accept no absolutely certain roadside drug test is available, a number are likely to be completed and validated in the near future. The sooner this happens, the better. The most recent road traffic Bill in the UK made provision in this area in the expectation that a robust test would become available in the near future, which was sensible.

The Bill seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act 2006, whereby a disqualified driver may apply to the courts to have his or her licence restored prior to the end of his or her period of disqualification, to ensure, first, that the driver may only be granted this in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances and, second, that the victim and-or the victim's family are notified. Notifying the family of a disqualification is a welcome proposal. It places an onus on the court to notify victims or families of victims when a convicted dangerous driver seeks to have his or her licence reinstated. It is proper that drivers convicted of dangerous driving should have regard to the impact on drivers when reapplying and that victims should be made aware of such applications. However, I seek clarification as to what victims can do with this information when the courts send it to them. If there was some possibility of acting on the notification, such as making a submission to the court on the application, it would make this even more meaningful. I do not see any provision for this in the Bill as it stands but it should be included.

The Bill provides for the indexation of fines, which is another common sense proposal. We had to wait until the Road Traffic Act 2006 before many of the existing fines were updated. One of the most annoying examples is the provision in section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 whereby convicted drink drivers can be compelled to pay a maximum of a mere €95.23 towards the cost of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety investigation of the case. That level of charge is completely out of line. The actual cost to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety now exceeds €300, yet we must wait for the primary legislation before the figure is updated. Accepting this Bill would ensure we are enabled to update the level of fines by regulation. This measure should be introduced as soon as possible.

Many other aspects of road safety need to be incorporated into a second road traffic Bill, some of which have been referred to in debates earlier this year and in recent years. I urge the Minister to take on board some of these points in the preparation of the promised Bill. Given that the Minister is unlikely to meet his promised deadline of the end of this year, let us hope the new Bill is introduced as early as possible in 2007.

I urge the Minister to seriously consider the area of alcohol ignition interlocks, which prevent a driver from starting the engine until he blows into a device and it registers a permitted concentration of blood alcohol. As with devices for roadside drug testing, these devices are not yet fully operational and validated but much progress has been made and they are close to being finalised. Sweden and Finland are seeking permission from the European Commission to introduce them to certain driver categories. It is fair to say that while they are still experimental, the idea is attractive and could provide creative and effective means of tackling the problem of persistent offenders.

A number of other issues arise. I hope the Minister will bear in mind earlier commitments in preparing the new legislation. I urge the Minister of State and his colleagues to support this Bill and to vote in favour of it tomorrow night.

See this speech in context