Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

There is no doubt great progress has been made in recent years in terms of tackling road safety. This has been brought about with the assistance of three Government strategies. The current strategy is very much the blueprint for many of the changes and alterations being introduced in this Bill. When one considers the number of casualties and deaths on our roads in the 1970s, enormous progress has been made. As stated by other speakers, 1972 is the worst year on record for road fatalities, with approximately 640 deaths having occurred that year. This figure has decreased consistently, although not every year, to only 39 deaths having occurred on our roads last year. This is extraordinary particularly given the growth in the number of vehicles on our roads. There are currently four times as many vehicles on our roads than was the case in the 1970s.

There has been a huge cultural shift in regard to drink driving. Young people in particular have a totally different attitude to drink driving. While people now may have more money to drink than was the case some years ago, young people, although they may drink more, are far more responsible in terms of their drink-driving habits. We also have better roads and vehicles. There has been considerable investment in our roads in recent years. The figure for this year is more than €1 billion. Data released earlier this week indicated that €400 million has been provided for the maintenance of local roads. While there has been much investment in our roads, the public response, whether through encouragement or having been beaten into it, has been extraordinary. At the same time, however, one death is one too many. There is no doubt accidents cause severe anguish, pain and turmoil for families and communities. This is true not alone in respect of deaths but in respect of people who are injured. I recall attending a presentation in the Department at which I and people from a number of agencies contributed. Having listened to us concentrate on the number of deaths on our roads, a medical doctor stood up and spoke of the road accident casualties at the hospital at which he worked. He said there had been 25 casualties at his hospital that year which had gone on to the mortuary. He then went on to speak about his speciality of dealing with severely injured and brain damaged people, many of whom are returned to having a useful life with the help of the medical services. However, people who are badly injured often remain so, the pain and anguish of which can be as great or even greater than the pain and anguish caused when a person dies.

Our current strategy includes 126 actions, one of which is to reduce the blood alcohol level to 50 ml. While there has been upset among some political and other people because they may not have known this was about to happen, it may be a failing in the system here and a failure of politics that, even though we spend much time dealing with legislation, we do not often zone in on strategies. There may be a presentation at a committee or something but historically we have not been great at zoning in on strategies and what is coming down the line. Historically some people may have seen strategies as just a wish list that will never happen, but people should have realised that on road safety where we have had approximately six pieces of legislation in ten years, the Department does not just deal with wish lists. It is very much about real and frequent action to deal with issues as they arise.

I agree that the 50 ml level was contained in the strategy and that we are out of line with many of our EU partners. The UK as our nearest partner is one of the few along with Malta to still operate to the 80 ml level. On winding up perhaps the Minister might update us as to what is happening there. When I last heard the British were undergoing a consultation phase to reduce the limit to 50 ml or thereabouts. I am referring to England, Scotland and Wales as distinct from the North, where they might be clearer in their thinking as to what they want to do.

In many cases while the limit in those EU countries might be 50 ml, the penalty that applies is very different. In many cases the penalty is not the mandatory suspension that we would have. It is very much a case of having a maximum figure. Much of what I have read and heard would suggest that the maximum penalty is only occasionally applied and is not the norm. While we must do the right thing and move with the times, there is no point in moving too far ahead of the times. We need to be balanced and look at the big picture of the benefits of road safety. However, we do not want to go overboard. We want to be the country with the lowest number of casualties; we do not necessarily want to be the country with the most draconian legislation. Deeper examination of the countries with 50 ml limits needs to be carried out to get an analysis of not just the statutory penalties, but also what happens in reality.

While the strategy referred to the 50 ml limit, it did not indicate what the penalty should be and that is where the legislation comes in. That is a role for the Oireachtas at this stage. We need to concentrate on continuing to get across the message. We need to make people aware of the dangers and educate them. We then need to detect offenders and enforce the legislation. It is a carrot and stick affair. We need to bring people with us while at the same time encouraging and forcing them.

We need to remember that accidents are caused by many different factors, including the driver, the vehicle, the roads and the weather. Regarding the driver it is about having a person well trained and qualified to drive. I very much support these measures for lower limits for qualified drivers and for beginners. Several factors affect the driver's ability including, alcohol, drugs, speed, tiredness and stress. Stress at home and at work are very big factors that cannot be measured by simply blowing into a bag. Other people have spoken about speed which is an enormous factor. However, other factors like tiredness and stress are much harder to measure and as such we need to tackle what we see as the weakest link and what can be attacked. We need to continue to get across the message that alcohol is a very important factor. We need to do all in our power to discourage people from driving after drinking.

I commend all those involved in road safety measures in recent years because enormous progress has been made in the Department of Transport and before that in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I also commend the Department of Transport's various agencies, the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and the Road Safety Authority, and the Garda. Tremendous work has been done. Sometimes agencies that are established can be great particularly if they have only one job to do and off they go to do it with missionary zeal sometimes. Government is about trying to bring along everything and having a co-ordinated response with different policies and strategies interlinked. We need to ensure that everything is done together.

Approximately a month ago I attended a seminar about the problems, dangers and hazards alcohol can and does cause to families and communities, and the major health problems that people are creating for themselves and the misery they often cause. We were advised that the consumption of alcohol had increased greatly in recent years. Someone said the safest place for people to drink is in the pub, which might sound strange, because there is a level of supervision there. We can all talk about the person who got served at a bar and who should not have been served, but there is a level of supervision and one is in the company of friends and often social activities are going on. So it is probably the safest place to drink. The problem is trying to get people there and get them home safely.

As society is changing, fewer people are going to the pub and there is more drinking. I am not sure to what extent enforcement of road traffic legislation had reduced attendance in pubs. There is much silent drinking at home and many people are buying alcohol in off-licences or going up to the North and filling the boot of their car with it. Great damage is still being caused by alcohol to the health of people, which has a knock-on effect on the other people in their homes. I sometimes wonder whether all Departments signed up to the road strategy. When this legislation was circulated I hope it got to the relevant official in the Department of Health and Children dealing with the excesses of alcohol and was not just left to the Minister to pass comments at the Cabinet table. There are major problems with alcohol outside its road safety aspect.

The fundamental point of the legislation is to reduce the limit to 50 ml for the qualified driver and to 20 ml for the beginner. That has been done to emphasise the dangers of alcohol, to get the message through and to get people's co-operation to continue with the progress in promoting the culture with which we have had such success in recent years. The penalty of three penalty points and €200 fine is about right. However, I have a problem with the clause that states the penalty of three penalty points can be applied only for a first offence or once in five years. I disagree with that. That is not necessary and is somewhat harsh. It is not trying to bring people with us. We are, after all, bringing in a much lower blood-alcohol limit. People have been driving around for years at a level higher than that. It is difficult to get people to accept change. While it can be easier to get people to accept change in other respects, it is difficult to reduce a limit. Perhaps I should not mention the war. It is one thing to ask people to change their work practices, but it is another to tell them they are having a pay cut. This is the equivalent, somewhat, of people being asked to accept a much lower blood alcohol level while hitting them very hard if there is any breach in this regard. It is very important to continue to build the trust between the authorities and the drivers and to bring them along, rather than isolating them, so to speak, from the general direction in which we all want to go.

The words "first offence" should be discussed further and the Minister of State might consider tabling an amendment on Committee or Report Stage taking that out, because it is somewhat unnecessary and harsh. If people are caught a couple of times they will be put off the road in any event by having penalties. In trying to get people to live with a new limit, I would not like to be too hard on them initially. The other main point of the Bill is the administrative penalty charge, and I am a total believer that is the direction in which to go. There is absolutely no need for so many cases to be going to court. The courts system is something of a black hole for prosecutions. Garda figures on people over the limit are always impressive, but the figures from the courts for suspensions never seem to match up. I tabled a parliamentary question a couple of months ago to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Transport and whatever I was told was not that obvious to me. Perhaps when the Minister is State is winding up, or on Committee Stage, we shall see those figures in a clearer light. There is an enormous black hole, I believe, in the courts system.

We tried to implement the administrative penalty system before and there was a legal difficulty, but we should be embracing it in the legislation. The Bill seems to be somewhat half-hearted about the administrative penalty system. Are we afraid of taking too much business from the legal profession? If anyone is afraid of that, be assured the lawyers will not starve. The judges have not even paid the levy, never mind accepting pay cuts. We need not worry as regards their not having enough business, as they have plenty to do. Perhaps someone believes we have to pay homage to the legal profession, tip the cap so to speak and ensure its members have sufficient business. There is a black hole there, and we do not have to accept the notion that one can be fined or suspended and pay €1,000 or €5,000 for a smart barrister to get you off. I have heard of too many instances where people have got off because of a smart barrister, and I do not like that. That is why I am very much into the administrative penalty system. If there was a better incentives method, and not necessarily one confined to once every five years, we should be taking that route for speedy justice. People would take their medicine and get on with life instead of having to go through the courts system all the time and it becoming bogged down. I do not know where all the cases are. They go in, but they do not seem to come out. Are they just being deferred over and over again with people making money on them?

The Department officials are probably wondering what I am going on about. We are getting the administrative penalty, thank God, but we need not be shy about using it. I would like to see greater use of it. We have to make the system quicker and fairer. The incidence of people getting off on technical grounds should be reduced and the system should be allowed to make progress in this regard.

While everything is fine and logical and the Bill has been anticipated for some time, I would like changes in place to allow greater use of the administrative penalty. Also, I would like the words, "once only in five years" removed, with reference to blood alcohol levels of 50 mg. to 80 mg. While the legislation attempts to sort out a number of problems that have come to light, and this is very gratifying, the one in relation to impairment testing needs to be addressed. I know from my former dealings with the drug strategy, that while there is no equivalent to blowing into the bag as regards drugs, a problem exists when drivers may be under the influence of a mix of drugs, or a mix of drugs and alcohol - polydrug users. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety, with Professor Denis A. Cusack, is keeping abreast, as is the Department, of pilot schemes worldwide for introducing the equivalent of the breathalyser system. However, it will be some time before we have a system that will satisfy the legal system here.

It is good to see issues are being addressed including that one, blood tests at accidents, the driving licence issue and the mutual recognition of disqualifications. They are all valid, and certainly there was enormous lobbying by PARC and other groups as regards testing at accidents. I am sure they will be happy to see all those issues being provided for in legislation, although I was somewhat amused to read in the papers some weeks ago as regards penalty points, that convictions were not getting onto driving licences. I was somewhat suspicious about that appearing in the newspapers, and I wondered whether it had emanated from one of the Department's agencies. That might have something to do with the fact we are all sensing conspiracy theories here, left, right and centre. I am glad to see the issues are being dealt with and I compliment the Department. However, I would like one or two changes, but these can be discussed further on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context