Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I understand the study conducted by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, on which the Bill relies, is 16 years old. Without doubt, the most prevalent drugs are cannabis and the others outlined in the Bill, but the types of substance people are now taking have evolved significantly over time. The use of psychoactive drugs has become much more prevalent. Unfortunately, Ireland has the highest rate of psychoactive drug use, at 9%. Why are these drugs not included in the list of proscribed substances?

The Bill ignores the misuse of legally prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, there are many people misusing such drugs. The absence of a provision in this regard in the Bill is a weakness. Sedatives used for the treatment of anxiety disorder and insomnia have, unfortunately, become increasingly common as recreational drugs. Recent statistics show that bensedines were the main problem drug of 547 people who sought treatment for substance abuse in 2012.

While I do not doubt the bona fidesof the Minister or the Department, if the report on which they based their findings and recommendations on the list of drugs is 16 years old, it is out of date and archaic. It needs to be revisited in the light of how drug use has evolved.

Part 3 of the Bill refers to the creation of the new special speed limit of 20 km/h. This will mean that in the future local authorities will have the option of lowering speed limits in built-up areas from the default speed limit of 50 km/h. In this regard, we should acknowledge the work carried out by Roseann Brennan who tragically lost her six-year-old son Jake a number of metres from her home. While the creation of the new speed limit will give local authorities the option of lowering speed limits, it is important that a direction be issued to the local authorities. Westmeath County Council is in the process of reviewing speed limits, but all local authorities should commence a review of speed limits, particularly in built-up areas, now that they have the power to reduce them to 20 km/h in certain areas.

The agreement on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between this state and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is long overdue and very welcome. I heard the Minister state his wish was that not only would there be an arrangement between Ireland and the United Kingdom but also an arrangement covering a much wider area. We have a very multicultural society which includes people who have moved here from Poland, Lithuania and other European countries. Some are driving in Ireland using their own country's driving licence. Many of them do not pay any attention to speed cameras or penalties for motoring offences because their licence does not attract penalty points. The Minister has told the House that he is prevented from addressing this issue under some EU regulation or because of the lack of progress by the Commission. We should seek its advancement. In 2015 one in seven motorists issued with a penalty points notice in the Republic claimed to hold an out-of-State driving licence. They were not exclusively from the United Kingdom; rather, they were from a wide range of states. This issue must be explored in greater detail. We will have to take the word of the Minister that his stance is based on the advice of the Attorney General, but I certainly ask him to revisit the legislation to ensure he can include what I propose.

It is welcome that the Minister said he would introduce an amendment to address the practice associated with end-of-life vehicles. Some moments ago my colleague and I were speaking about the potential for our party to introduce an amendment to deal this issue. It is incredible to believe a car that has been crashed and written off from an insurance perspective can - lo and behold - be driven around a couple of months later. Such a car cannot be fit for purpose. It is welcome that the Minister is to introduce an amendment in this regard.

Let me refer to a significant weakness in the legislation. The Minister has said there was cross-party support for the legislation during the pre-scrutiny stage. However, there were specific provisions included in the legislation to introduce new penalties for drivers who allowed themselves to be distracted by text messaging, the use of Twitter and Facebook and in scrolling down. While driving, one often sees people entering a destination in the Google Maps app to determine a route. While we must all take responsibility for our own actions and while I would have been guilty of the offence in the past, we must determine how we can bring forward an amendment to ensure there will be consequences for those caught engaging in the practice to which I refer. My understanding is the existing penalty points legislation governing having a mobile phone in one's hand does not cover circumstances where the phone is in a cradle by the gearstick or a device beside the steering wheel. Therefore, there are ways around the legislation. People may have the phone on their lap, googling or otherwise. This is certainly an area in which we will be bringing forward an amendment and I hope the Minister will consider it favourably.

Driver error is the main contributor to accidents, accounting for at least 80% of fatal collisions in recent years. The use of mobile phones, including texting, is possibly the main cause of driver error. We need to consider how we can bring forward an amendment that will support the introduction of penalty points in this regard.

Penalty points were introduced to ensure greater road safety and save lives. They were never meant to be introduced as a revenue generating exercise. I worry and fear greatly that they are being used for this purpose in certain instances. I worry that they are not being imposed for offences committed at black spots or in areas prone to accidents. I worry that easy pickings and low-hanging fruit are targeted and that it is a matter of shooting fish in a barrel in order that additional revenue may be generated.

That is something that needs to be examined. When private vans were introduced to carry out speed checks their listings were meant to be freely available and they were also meant to be highly visible. The vans were about reducing speed and saving lives, but more recently they have not been highly visible or easily recognised as speed vans. That is something we need to consider.

Before my colleagues make their contributions, I propose that we consider a tiered system for penalty points. In the current system, somebody who may be 3 km or 4 km over a speed limit tends to receive the same number of penalty points as someone driving 50 km, 20 km, 25 km or 30 km over a speed limit. I would be happy to work with the Minister's officials in his Department to see whether we could introduce a tiered system, whereby somebody who is only marginally over a speed limit, such as those driving in a 60 km, 70 km or 80 km zone at 84 km/h and trying his or her best to obey the speed limits receives the same penalty as somebody who is driving at 110 km/h. I do not think that is fair. We are talking about fairness and increasing road safety. I look forward to working with the Minister as the Bill passes the various Stages in the House.

See this speech in context