Dáil debates
Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Private Members' Business
Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006: Second Stage.
7:00 pm
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill will attempt to deal with some of the gaps left in recent road safety legislation. During the course of other legislation going through the House, we have tried to include some of the measures contained in this Bill by way of amendment but have failed. I hope will the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, will see the Bill in the same light and allow it to pass.
The recent legislative changes, such as the setting up of the Road Safety Authority and the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing, will bring real benefits in accident reduction. They will save lives and reduce the numbers of individuals and their families whose lives are destroyed by catastrophic, irreversible injury.
Legislation alone will not save lives. The major failure has been in the implementation, administration and delivery of the road safety measures for which we have legislated. There has been a failure to follow through on good intentions. Good intentions without good work do not bring results.
Pre-planning and attention to detail have been missing in the implementation of legislation. When a system as basic as a driver testing system cannot be organised, the message goes out, particularly to young people, that the whole process of learning to drive, sharing the road system with others, the need for mutual respect and preparing for, and taking seriously, the national driving test, is simply not worth their while. They see that official Ireland does not think it is worthwhile. If the State regarded it as important, 400,000 people would not be on provisional licences. Up to 130,000 people would not be waiting for a test, and significantly, we would not have a test that people are not expected to pass. That is a bizarre and irrational process that cannot be allowed to persist.
The penalty points system is the classic example of how legislation is emasculated by the failure to invest in the necessary administrative systems. Although it was announced with large PR and photo opportunity moments, little preparation went into its implementation. Despite what the Minister is told, there are still problems with the system with people slipping through loopholes.
The legislative framework for speed cameras was announced but, again, it was just hot air when it came to actual delivery. It was discovered there were just three fixed speed cameras, for the most part not working. The whole scheme became a national laughing stock. Again, the message to drivers was the State was not serious about safety on the roads and eliminating speeding.
Legislation to facilitate metrication of road signs was introduced. There was the extraordinary spectacle of the Government paying local authorities to install 100 km/h signs on every lane and byroad. It would be laughable if it were not so serious to see a situation where a driver comes off a main road, where the speed limit might be 50 km/h, on to a country lane where the speed might be 100 km/h. It is up to the Minister to ensure legislative intent is delivered on the ground.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A declaration of intent.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I gave the local authorities powers but they do not use them. The Deputy will have to make up his mind. Does he want me to go around the country putting up every sign?
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is wasting my time.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise to the Deputy but her colleague is being provocative.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Within weeks of passing the last road safety Bill, we were back correcting flaws and oversights. The Government has an obligation to ensure legislation is robust and that the agents of Government implementing its administration are equipped with the resources and means to do the job. This applies to the Garda, the Judiciary, the new Road Safety Authority and the local authorities.
Clear gaps in road safety law became apparent when two high profile cases of dangerous driving resulted in a conviction but no driving ban and no penalty points. The individuals concerned were able to drive home from the court having been convicted of driving at 195 km/h. If there is to be consistency of sentencing, at the very least minimum guidelines must be given to the Judiciary.
The judge in this case was criticised for his failure to impose a ban but he acted in the only way he could in accordance with precedent. There is no clearly delineated schedule of penalties for dangerous driving offences. If there is a hierarchy of driving offences — dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without due care and attention — then a commensurate hierarchy of penalties should be in place. It makes no sense that one could get precisely the same sentence for the least serious offence as for the most serious one. More importantly, it sends the wrong signal to offenders and does not act as a disincentive to re-offend in the way originally envisaged by the Legislature.
Charges of dangerous driving are rare enough. Many initially charged with it have the charge reduced to one of careless driving. A dangerous driving charge should be regarded as a serious offence. If the justice system is to have any purpose, the conviction must have serious consequences. It is entirely appropriate that the right to use the roads should be withdrawn, even if only for a short time of six months. This kind of penalty brings home the seriousness with which society treats the offence, in a way that a mere fine does not. For many a €1,000 fine is nothing more than an irritant, particularly if one owns a Lancia.
In the Mullingar dangerous driving case, it was assumed the minimum penalty points would be incurred. This was not the result because there was an assumption that a disqualification would be imposed. It is a gap in the law and we must provide direction and clarity for the Judiciary.
Section 3 provides for mandatory breath testing of drivers at serious road traffic accidents. I was stunned to discover the Garda has no figures for the number of traffic accidents where drink was implicated. The Minister's claims that it would not be fair if one driver was unconscious or feigned unconsciousness are nonsense. Breath testing is done in other jurisdictions. If one party feigns unconsciousness, it will be taken into account in any subsequent court case. Genuinely injured people can take the test at a later stage. The purpose of this measure is not to ensure people are convicted of dangerous driving or to assist insurance companies, but to collate and analyse the real causes of accidents.
We are simply guessing in this regard. That is evident in decisions to install a speed gun in locations where there are many accidents, on the assumption speed is to blame. However, speed is not to blame in College Green, for example, but rather the sheer volume of vehicles and perhaps even pedestrians. It may be the camber of the road or any number of other factors that is contributing to accidents in a particular location. These problems will not be solved simply by the installation of a speed camera.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We must be far more forensic in our analysis of what is going on so public policy can counter the difficulties that exist. We are regularly informed it is not only speed and alcohol that lead to accidents but also driver fatigue, driver distraction as a consequence of mobile telephone usage, poor road surfaces, inadequate public lighting and so on. The reality is we do not know enough about the factors that contribute to road accidents and we must do something about this. Firm information should inform public policy. Otherwise, we are just guessing or basing policy on anecdotal evidence and surmise.
Section 4 relates to drug testing, an issue that has been raised on several occasions. I accept the Minister's assertion that there is, as yet, no single reliable test. However, pilot schemes are ongoing in other countries and there are tests for individual drugs. This section provides that the Minister can, where appropriate and by means of regulations, introduce specific tests to test for particular drugs. The technology is changing rapidly and so are the drugs of choice. We heard yesterday that the latest popular drug is one that can be bought over the counter in health food shops and other locations.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is correct that the problem is prescription rather than illegal drugs.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept that is often the case.
Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government has no policy in that regard.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A recent survey by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety showed that 70% of drivers stopped by the Garda because of erratic driving had taken drugs, prescription drugs in many cases. A public awareness campaign in conjunction with the medical profession to inform people about the impact of such drugs on driving behaviour is essential.
Section 5 amends the provision which allows for an application for the lifting of a disqualification before a ban has expired. It is almost automatic that drivers on whom a two-year ban is imposed will have their licences returned after only 12 months. What is the point in imposing a two-year ban if it is not enforced? This undermines the judge who imposes that sentence. A sentencing policy whereby the sentences imposed are immediately halved almost automatically is ineffective. The Bill provides that it must be proven in court that there are genuine exceptional circumstances before this can happen.
I leave it to my colleagues to expand on the other aspects of the Bill.
Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, on its introduction. While I appreciate the introduction of penalty points initially resulted in a decrease in road fatalities, public awareness soon declined and we have reverted to our bad old ways. It is clear that speeding together with the use of alcohol and drugs are the main reasons for our continuing high levels of road accidents, especially in the early hours of the morning. We must provide the law and the manpower to minimise this so as to protect the lives of drivers and other road users.
Deputy Mitchell highlighted the recent case where a person caught driving a car at 200 km/h, although convicted of dangerous driving, was not subjected to disqualification or endorsement. This indicates either that the courts are not dealing with the issue as they should do or that they do not have the law on their side. Gardaí feel utterly helpless in such situations.
Imagine the anger a driver must feel on hearing of such cases when he or she, having crossed slightly over the white line at a stop sign at 3 a.m., with no cars other than a Garda car in the vicinity and having taken no alcohol or drugs, receives two penalty points and a fine. I realise gardaí have a job to do but it is vital that common sense plays some role in how the law is administered. There is some perception that it is more a case of collecting fines than saving lives.
As the representative of a largely rural constituency, I am conscious of the poor quality of roads many cars and lorries must negotiate. The driver of a truck that is 8 ft. 6 in. wide and 40 ft. long and travelling on a regional road that is itself only 15 ft. wide will do well to stop with the wheels exactly before the white line. The drivers of such vehicles must often stop when they encounter other drivers. Many of these drivers many be breaking road traffic laws. It is vital that laws are realistic and workable and that they are implemented.
I strongly agree with the indexation of fines. It is important that fines are updated and bear some relevance to the crime committed. It is equally important, however, that fines should be attached to earnings. The Fine Gael Bill that was brought before this House should be passed into legislation so that the massive amount of fines that have never been collected can be attached to either income or social welfare as a constant reminder to those concerned that they have broken the law and must pay accordingly. A young man from my area was fined some £1,700 and ended up in Mountjoy Prison. He was soon out the door and given £20 to get him back home and he was home before the gardaí. The attachment of fines to earnings is of great importance.
Deputy Mitchell raised the issue of speed limits. The journey from Slane to Drogheda involves one of the most winding roads imaginable, a national secondary road. One can negotiate the bends at no more than 60 km/h but at each of those bends there is a sign indicating the speed limit is 100 km/h. On other roads, one can drive at 80 km/h when the limit should be less than 40 km/h. This is lunacy.
The Minister gave the local authorities the task of setting speed limits but they have totally failed to honour their responsibilities in this regard. A ludicrous situation has arisen.
Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are regional roads capable of accommodating speeds of 100 km/h but on which the limit is 80 km/h. I am concerned by the introduction, from January next, of speed cameras operated by private contractors. The worry is that they may be installed on those types of roads purely for the purpose of collecting revenue. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure lives are saved. That is more important than collecting fines.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The income the contract companies derives will have no relation to the numbers of drivers caught speeding.
Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It will be difficult to get that message across. Although he is not directly in charge, the Minister should make sure local authorities do their work.
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation and I congratulate Deputy Olivia Mitchell on bringing it forward. As the Minister will appreciate from the debate thus far, this Bill is not an attempt to embarrass or prosecute the Government on its road safety record in the last ten years. There is an acceptance, both in Government and Opposition, that we could and should have done more in that time to prioritise road safety. The figures for the last three or four years speak for themselves, indicating an increase in the number of road deaths from 335 in 2003 to 396 last year.
It is important to acknowledge, however, that there seems to be a change in this upward trend, particularly in recent months. Despite a tragic first half to this year when, in several months, fatalities continued to increase on last year's figures, the last two months in particular have given some cause for optimism. However, this improvement does not prove anything other than encouraging us to do more. The point is that this Bill is a genuine effort to improve existing legislation and do what an Opposition should do, namely, engage in constructive criticism and try to fill gaps.
I wish to focus on two sections as my time is limited. The first is section 3, which attempts to provide for the mandatory breath testing of drivers involved in an accident. That should almost be obvious. We see too many court cases where people make educated guesses about whether those involved in an accident consumed alcohol. Victims' families have a right to know the science of what was done following an accident. Gardaí must make the call, striking the right balance between gathering scientific information on the role of alcohol and whether a person requires medical treatment. However, too often gardaí find themselves in the awkward position of having to judge there and then whether someone is drunk in the middle of the trauma of an accident.
If there were a mandatory obligation for a garda to administer a test, it would become part of procedure, and he or she would not have to make an emotional call if something were suspected, particularly after an accident, when everyone concerned, including the garda, is trying to put the pieces together. I know of many cases in which gardaí wished that they had insisted on a breath or blood test for alcohol but could not do so at the time because they felt it inappropriate. I ask the Minister to consider this section, which makes sense.
Section 4 has already been referred to along with section 3. It allows the Minister to make regulations for the testing of drivers for substances other than alcohol. Currently, one must acknowledge, there are no tried and tested mechanisms functioning as we would like. However, if we produce a test that works, it is important to build into the legislation the capacity to slot it in.
It is true that the area of prescription drugs is extremely difficult because there is such a wide range of these. Some 15% of the population suffer from depression, many of them on drugs that may cause drowsiness or other issues, and many other conditions require regular drug treatment. We must do something about the fact that so many accidents involve people on prescription drugs, and that must be recognised in legislation and awareness campaigns, which, if they exist, have not worked.
Another aspect to drugs is the illegal use of cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, solvents and heroin. The incidence of the use of most of these is increasing in Ireland, and the national drugs strategy, while doing something, is failing to reverse the tide of drug use in the capital or around the country. When one considers that almost 5% of men aged between 15 and 35 use cocaine, a dramatic increase over the last five years, one begins to realise the numbers involved. If one correlates the number of young men likely to be killed in fatal accidents with the likelihood of their using illegal drugs, one sees that there must be an obvious link between the two, and that must be recognised in legislation.
Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I join with previous speakers in complimenting Deputy Mitchell on introducing this proposal.
The last time that we spoke in Private Members' time, as far as I recall, was on her Bill on the use of mobile telephones in cars, and I am delighted that the Minister responded by introducing a similar measure. That has definitely saved lives, and with this proposal too she does road safety and traffic in this country a major service. Given that Deputy Mitchell's view on mobile telephones was acceptable to him, I appeal to the Minister to also accept this Bill in its current state. It is well drafted, and it is obvious that a great deal of thought went into it.
Perhaps the Minister has a view on this. As far as I am aware from solicitors, road traffic legislation in this country is rather complicated, being spread across approximately seven different Bills. The language in which most such legislation is written is archaic, dating back almost to the 19th century. There must be a consolidation Bill to unite all road traffic legislation, and its language must be simplified and updated. I understand that in several states in America experts are employed to rewrite legislation, simplifying it so that people can understand it and the language can stand up in court. Perhaps in replying the Minister might state whether he is considering such an Act, for which we have called. I am sure that he will respond.
Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree wholeheartedly with the mandatory penalty for dangerous driving contained in this legislation. It is extraordinary that no such penalty exists. I know that it might sound rather punitive, but it would certainly make people far more aware and careful. For example, last summer American friends of mine were driving through the midlands when someone on a tractor emerged from a gap. A serious accident almost occurred, and when asked why he had done it, the tractor driver responded by saying that he had been coming out of the gate in question for 30 years and that everyone knew he came out at 12 p.m. Careless driving manifests itself in different ways, and I certainly agree with this provision.
Deputy Mitchell pointed out the example of two men recently convicted of dangerous driving on the Mullingar bypass. They were doing speeds of over 200 km/h but received a fine of only €2,000 each. They were not disqualified, endorsed or punished with penalty points. In the hierarchy of driving offences, drink driving is the only one carrying automatic disqualification, despite the fact that so many deaths on the roads are caused every year by irresponsible and reckless driving. There is currently no difference in the penalty regime for dangerous driving, careless driving, and driving without due care and attention, although they constitute a sliding scale of road traffic offences. This Bill certainly provides measures to address this that are worthy of consideration.
The proposal to introduce mandatory breath testing for drivers involved in road traffic accidents is extremely practical. On one occasion I was very lucky. Someone very drunk drove into me when I was on my way home from Cork one evening. The person feigned a back injury and was taken away in the ambulance without being breathalysed. My wife and I were lucky to have survived, while the other driver went unpunished. That person should have been breathalysed. Had this provision been in place then, he would have been breathalysed and punished accordingly.
I agree with creating a provision along the same lines as breath testing to cover testing for drugs and other substances. It should be possible to test for cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. Many accidents caused by boy racers at night involve the use of drugs as much as drink, or a mixture of both. On account of breath testing, youngsters are afraid drink will be detected and they resort to drugs instead. We see people in night clubs across the country who have not been drinking but who are as high as kites because they are taking drugs. The Minister should take this into consideration.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on and support this Bill. It is timely to focus on issues that are brought to mind on a daily basis. Throughout the country serious accidents often take place that cause us to ask why they occurred.
Over recent years, I have asked repeatedly by means of parliamentary question for an explanation of the reason we do not have some correlation of reports from the Garda, hospitals, ambulance services, fire services and all the constituent bodies who make important reports as a result of accidents. Some years ago, a serious accident that occurred not far from the Minister's constituency came to my attention, but to date nobody knows what caused it. We will never know because there has been no correlation of the reports. This serious flaw in our system has existed for years.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell pointed out that until we know the cause of an accident, we will not be in a position to resolve the type of problems we are discussing. Accidents can be caused by road camber, road fault, car fault, driver fatigue, alcohol, drugs, etc. Will the Minister please ensure that correlation takes place in the future? If it is not done, we will continue to have accidents.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I cannot understand why we go from month to month and year to year——
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have already done it.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not done and if that is the Minister's attitude, he is seriously at risk——
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have appointed inspectors to do that. It is all being done.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Durkan should address his remarks through the Chair.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will do so. Unfortunately, the Minister is seriously out of sync with the situation. We have had the same situation for years. When will we have the correlated reports?
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The situation has already changed. It is no wonder Fine Gael is going backwards rather than forwards.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should listen instead of shooting his mouth off every five seconds.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister generates more hot air than anybody. He should have responsibility for energy in his Department as he generates enough hot air to keep the whole country going. The Minister should know that a series of reports——
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister's problem is that he knows every damn thing.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I never put myself in that position.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Over the past ten to 15 years, for nine of which the Minister and his party have been in Government, reports on the numerous accidents throughout the country have lain in county council offices and various other places. It would be simple to bring the reports together and produce the information so that we can learn what happened over the past ten years. That is what I want to know, not just to have the information in the future. If the Minister listened more carefully instead of shooting his mouth off, he would know that was what I was getting at.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's colleague did a good job, but Deputy Durkan should not be using the debate to play politics.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know what the Minister is playing at, but he should cease playing and do his job.
A peculiar system operates here with regard to penalty points. I know a number of constituents who travel through Newtownmountkennedy and some of them exceeded the speed limit there. It is a strange situation because the limit changes as one approaches and changes back again. On technical and legal advice a number of people went to court and had their penalties struck out, while a number of others, assuming the law applied universally, paid their fines. I put a question to the Minister in this regard last week but did not get a clear answer. Those who paid have handed over the money, whether right or wrong, but those who challenged the situation in court won.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I refuse to be drawn further.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has been drawn enough already. I have raised the matter of the numerous accident black spots around the country on many occasions. The Minister has said we will have cameras that will photograph the accidents. This is crazy. Why do we not have some proposals to improve the roads at these known accident black spots where accidents occur again and again? Why does he not examine the roads and do something about them?
There is a junction in my constituency where 19 people have died. Is the Minister implying that this is on account of bad driving on somebody's part?
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is because the Deputy's local authority is reducing the money that we spend on the roads. It is not doing its job.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will tell the Minister what happened. It is because in 1977 the Fianna Fáil Party abolished rates and motor tax which meant road maintenance disappeared from the agenda. That is what happened and it is time the Minister recognised that fact. The Minister does not listen. Instead of taking photographs of accidents, will he please do something about the condition of our roads and find out what causes the accidents?
Road signage is another issue. Drivers would need to have a navigator with them in their car. When they drive into a town they are faced with welcome signs in four languages, French, German, Irish and English. These are followed by signs announcing traffic calming, followed by signs across the road warning against progressing in that direction. These are followed by signs in various languages saying "Slow" and signs saying the town is twinned with Baader Meinhof or wherever. This is all very confusing. I know Baader Meinhof were a gang, as the Minister should know too.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the Deputy talking about?
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Baden-Baden is a place and some of our towns are twinned with it. The Minister should listen rather than sneer. This Minister has a problem, a lack of concentration. The number of conflicting road signs vying for our drivers' attention is significant and a serious distraction. These signs are a problem.
Ministers are not competent to comment on driving or road conditions because they do not drive. They come into the House and spout to us about how we should drive and what we should take into account, yet many of them have not driven a car during the past ten years. How dare they suggest they know more about driving than the rest of us?
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will draw a deep breath. I wish to share time with Deputies Martin Brady and Wilkinson.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Deputy Olivia Mitchell for introducing this Bill and affording the House a further opportunity to discuss road safety matters. I greatly appreciate the shared concern on all sides of the House on the level of road deaths and I am grateful to the Deputy for reflecting on road safety proposals and continuing to seek a way forward to further reduce road deaths and injuries. I note that many of the points made by the Deputy and her colleagues are not contained in the Bill. I will deal with the issues the Fine Gael Party has sought to bring forward positively. There appears to be some confusion between what is contained in the Act that was recently passed and what is being proposed in the Bill.
I must oppose the Bill on the basis that some of the proposals are already provided for in legislation, while others are either premature or inappropriate. Our focus over the coming months should remain on the increased enforcement efforts which we have witnessed and the development of a new road safety strategy for the period beyond 2006.
I will go into more detail on the specific proposals being debated, but first I wish to outline broadly the current road safety situation. Looking at data for the years since the introduction of the first road safety strategy in 1998, it is clear that there has been a measurable decrease in road deaths compared with the preceding years. However, having reached a 40-year low in the level of road deaths in 2003, we subsequently found ourselves, unfortunately, with an increasing number of deaths. We experienced 396 road deaths in 2005. The trend in 2006 indicated further increases in the level of road deaths until August this year when we experienced a sharp reduction in the number of road deaths.
Mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, checkpoints, as provided for in the Road Traffic Act 2006, came into operation at the end of July and have been working effectively since then. While it is important not to draw conclusions from short time periods, to date, the introduction of MAT checkpoints appears to have had a significant impact on the level of road deaths. The number of road deaths in August, at 17, was the lowest level for any single month since November 1999 and, as of 16 October 2006, the number of road deaths is 19 lower, at 291, than the same date last year. This represents a significant improvement on the situation earlier in the year when we were witnessing levels of road deaths which were between 18 and 21 higher than the same date in the previous year. The increased levels of enforcement are having a significant deterrent effect on those who would otherwise drink and drive.
This is the first Government to have a dedicated national road safety strategy. For the first time, road safety planning and initiatives have been placed within a distinct policy framework. That framework features a set of specific unified goals based on the delivery of progress across a range of areas. The adoption of this more strategic approach was pursued against the realisation that the persistent growth in vehicle numbers and negative trends in road casualties required a concerted and integrated response.
The primary target of the existing road safety strategy is to reduce road deaths to no more than 300 by the end of this year. It is now clear that achievement of this target is not possible, given that road deaths to date stand at 291. However, recent downward trends are encouraging and we are working towards maintaining this trend through the continued implementation of the key initiatives outlined in the strategy that are aimed at achieving reductions in deaths and injuries.
In April, the penalty points system was extended from five offences to a total of 35 offences. The focus of the extension was on offences relating to driver behaviour which is the greatest cause of road collisions. Since September of this year, penalty points and fixed charges apply to the offence of driving while holding a mobile phone. Furthermore, a dedicated traffic corps has been established by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and will comprise 1,200 traffic corps officers by 2008. This is over twice the number of gardaí involved in traffic duties prior to the establishment of the traffic corps, and will result in a significantly increased deterrent effect due to increased levels of enforcement. A revised speed limit structure expressed in metric values was introduced in January 2005. The changeover went very smoothly and represents a good example of both national and local authorities working together with a common aim.
I accept the point made by many speakers regarding the differentiation in speed limits. Local authorities have not been to the fore in making sure their by-laws are correct. This is a concern to me. I have encountered many examples of good roads with a low speed limit of 80 km/h and country lanes with speed limits of 100 km/h. It is for local authorities to deal with this issue, it is not a matter for central Government. It is quite clear that the powers——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister must make sure they do it.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree with the Deputy, but I cannot go around personally and sit at every council meeting. I have asked the councils to address the issue. It is reasonable to suggest to the two parties opposite which control most of the councils that they should talk to their colleagues about making sure this issue is put on the agenda of council meetings and to ensure that the matter is addressed. I am heartened by a number of local authorities that have recently contacted me to say they have got their act together and are dealing with this issue. I want every single local authority to take road safety as seriously as Members on all sides of the House are doing.
In terms of legislative proposals, I have enacted significant provisions in recent months and I have delivered on the key issues outstanding in the Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006, including the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing checkpoints, a ban on holding a mobile phone while driving, and the provision providing for the outsourcing of speed cameras. Furthermore, I introduced proposals within the past two weeks which have strengthened drink driving provisions and improved the enforcement of drink driving legislation generally. These relate to a proposal to take away the necessity in a Garda station for a garda to form an opinion that a person has consumed an intoxicant in advance of administering an evidential test and a proposal to provide that nurses can take blood or urine samples at a Garda station. A typographical error which unfortunately occurred in the Road Traffic Act 2006 has also been corrected.
A high level group on road safety with representatives from various Departments and agencies worked for some time to promote full co-operation on cross-cutting issues and an integrated approach in the development of the road safety strategy and the monitoring and implementation of that strategy. In a signal, however, that road safety is now at the top of the political agenda, the Government earlier this year replaced the officials' high level group with a ministerial committee on road safety under my chairmanship and including the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Finance, Health and Children, Education and Science and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Attorney General. This committee has met on a number of occasions to pursue an integrated approach on all cross-cutting issues.
A significant element in the advancement of the road safety agenda is the establishment of the Road Safety Authority. The authority was established on the 1 September 2006 and has taken responsibility for a wide range of functions which have a bearing on road safety. The authority is in a unique position to co-ordinate and advance the road safety agenda as it has responsibility for the testing of drivers and vehicles, oversight of the driver licensing system, driver education and the promotion of awareness of road safety in general. The authority has a significant advisory role to the Minister in the development of road safety policy. In particular, the Road Safety Authority is charged with preparing future road safety strategies for the Government's approval.
To facilitate the Road Safety Authority in carrying out its role, the functions that have transferred to the authority include the functions of the National Safety Council in regard to the promotion of education and awareness of road safety. The authority also has a general duty to "promote the development and improvement of driving standards". It is most appropriate that the educational brief of the NSC, together with its brief for the promotion of road safety, be assigned to the authority.
In the road haulage sector the RSA has responsibility for the functions formerly exercised by my Department in regard to drivers' hours and rest periods, including the tachograph, the working time directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector and the implementation of EU requirements in regard to bus and lorry driver vocational training. In addition, the authority will enforce the relevant regulations in these areas as well as the conditions applying to licensed road haulage operators. Responsibility for implementing new requirements under EU directives on professional driver training in this area has also been assigned to the new authority.
In addition to vehicle testing transferring to the authority, other functions relating to the standards that apply to vehicles sold or used in Ireland, as required by EU directives, and all related matters are now the responsibility of the authority. Work in this area includes EU vehicle type approval law, standards for in-service vehicles, commercial vehicle testing and oversight of the NCT.
All the activities of the authority have a bearing on road safety and the broad range of functions now assigned to the authority will enhance the effectiveness of the authority in contributing to an improvement in road safety. While the authority will have a significant input into road safety through driver training and testing and vehicle testing, it will also take responsibility for the road research element of the NRA, which researches road accidents etc.
The authority will also analyse the causes of road accidents, evaluate what action might be taken and make appropriate recommendations where necessary. This will result in the more integrated approach to road safety policy that we have all wanted, with one agency responsible for road safety research — I acknowledge this was not the case, but I am glad to have corrected the position — statistical data, advertising, education and recommendations regarding road safety policy. However, the investigation of individual collisions is a function that must remain with the Garda, given its role in instigating criminal proceedings against a person who it considers has committed an offence.
The Bill introduced by Deputy Olivia Mitchell contains a number of proposals. It seeks to create a mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving, provide for mandatory breath testing of drivers at the scene of road accidents, provide the Minister for Transport with the power to regulate for drug testing and index road traffic fines to inflation to replace the current system whereby fines can only be increased by new legislation. The Bill also proposes that injured parties or relatives are notified when a disqualified motorist seeks an early return of his or her licence. Due to the Road Traffic Act 2006, a motorist who has been disqualified from driving can apply to have his or her licence returned halfway through the penalty period, but this Bill would impose a number of restrictions on this mechanism.
I want to outline the existing provisions relating to dangerous driving before discussing Deputy Olivia Mitchell's proposals. A member of the Garda Síochána who suspects someone of dangerous driving can arrest that person without a warrant. A person convicted of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm can be liable for penal servitude of up to ten years or, at the discretion of the court, a fine of up to €15,000 or both. Where death or serious bodily harm occurs, the convicted person also faces mandatory disqualification for two years for a first offence and four years for a second or subsequent offence.
In any case of dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm does not occur, a fine of up €2,500 can be imposed or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for up to six months or both. A person convicted of a first offence of dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm did not occur shall face disqualification from driving for one year. For a second or subsequent offence, the period is two years.
However, in the case of a first offence of dangerous driving where death or serious injury did not occur and where the court is satisfied that a special reason has been proven by the convicted person, the court has the option to decline to make a consequential disqualification order or to specify a period of disqualification in the disqualification order of less than one year. While this fact passed the notice of some Members, the Deputy should know that this option will shortly no longer be available when a provision in the 2006 Act is commenced after consultation with the Courts Service.
Where a person has been convicted of dangerous driving, we have already provided that it will be mandatory for the court to impose disqualification of the person's licence. However, there are many categories of dangerous driving and I have serious concerns about removing from the courts any discretion in this regard. We are discussing the issue with the Courts Service, but it is only a matter of commencing the section. Someone's life, family or livelihood could be destroyed by a dangerous driving offence that did not involve drinking or killing or harming a person. Removing the discretion that allows courts to examine particular circumstances is a significant step.
While I do not want to discuss recent cases, I agree that the case in question took everyone by surprise. It was clear in the legislation that the intent of the Oireachtas was to disqualify the licence in that instance. Removing discretion in all circumstances would be a considerable matter, but the measure is provided for in the 2006 Act. That section in the Bill——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When will it be commenced?
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are in discussion with the Courts Service, which is normal in such matters. I am expressing to the House reservations made to me by Members on all sides and in the Upper House about taking the step of removing the discretion of the courts in all circumstances. One's livelihood and so on could be destroyed when the offence does not involve injuring, killing or drink driving, which incur mandatory disqualifications of driving licences.
The proposal contained in the Fine Gael Bill appears to introduce a mandatory prison sentence for dangerous driving offences.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept the Deputy's view, but it could be interpreted in that way according to our legal advice. If the introduction of mandatory prison sentences is intended, I should point out that the Road Traffic Acts do not provide for them in the case of any offence and moving to such a position would require careful consideration because it would represent a fundamental change in the application of the law. It would be premature to consider further adjustments to the legislation relating to this area until the provisions in the 2006 Act have been implemented fully and been in operation for some time to determine how the courts approach a number of these issues.
I want to deal with the matter of mandatory breath testing at the scene of road collisions because it is surprising that it arises here. The power to require a person to provide a breath sample where a collision has taken place exists in the Road Traffic Acts. Garda discretion in the use of preliminary roadside tests in such circumstances is necessary, having regard to possible injuries sustained. The proposal contained in the Fine Gael Bill acknowledges this point by the inclusion of a provision in section 3(6), which states that nothing in the section shall be used to delay the provision of medical assistance to a person injured in a road traffic collision.
The Bill's provision would result in a more confusing regime that would be more difficult to administer than the current provisions relating to breath testing at the scene of a road collision, which allow for Garda discretion. I appreciate that Deputies have been making inquiries into the position of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of breath testing at the scene of a collision. My officials have examined this issue and the legal position here is in line with the practice in both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, the taking of a breath sample at the scene of a collision is at the discretion of a police officer in all cases.
We have all seen accidents. How can someone put a garda in a position whereby he or she would need to move someone, force the person to sit up or whatever when there are no visible injuries——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That position is catered for in the legislation.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not. It is clear that lawyers will drive a coach and four through that provision in the courts. I am not knocking the intention, as I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve. Previously, I have stated how no jurisdiction has taken this matter beyond the police officer having discretion at that moment. That officer would be placed in the position of making a medical decision that he or she is not qualified to make.
To have any chance of sustaining this issue in the courts, discretion must be permitted. If not, the courts will be caught up with questions of what came first, why was the test not taken when it was mandatory, how could a garda have made a judgment concerning medical injuries, is the garda a qualified medical professional and why did the garda make a judgment about a person's medical injuries and force him or her to take a breath test in one case but not another. The matter would be open to all sorts of loopholes. I appreciate what the Deputy is trying to achieve, but it is impossible to give a garda or a police officer in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK this discretion at the scene of a crime.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Gardaí have discretion even when there is no injury.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Often, it is difficult to tell——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister could find any sort of excuse.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The idea may be fine in theory, but it is not fine practically. While someone on the roadside could tell a garda that he or she is injured, the garda may see no visible injury. Should we put the garda in the position of acting as a medical referee and tell a court——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is clear in the legislation that I am not asking for that.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy wants mandatory breath testing at the scene of an accident, but that would be impossible unless we were to place the Garda in a position in which it can never win in court. It should be noted that the Road Traffic Acts also place an obligation on a person to provide a blood or urine sample in a hospital. This is equally important and there is an absolute obligation on people to do this. This applies where an event occurs involving a vehicle which results in a person being injured or a person claiming or appearing to have been injured, where the person is admitted to or attends a hospital and a member of the Garda is of the opinion that at the time of the event the person had consumed an intoxicant. An intoxicant includes alcohol and drugs or any combination of alcohol and drugs.
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is that Garda opinion that should be taken out.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The medical people make that decision on whether a person is fit in the hospital.
The Bill proposes to introduce a scheme for the mandatory roadside testing of drivers for substances other than alcohol. The evidential testing in a Garda station for the presence of drugs is already provided for in the Road Traffic Acts. The reason that there is no legislative provision to allow for preliminary roadside testing for drugs is that there is no available method for the taking of such a test. Significant research on this issue has been and continues to be pursued, as Deputy Olivia Mitchell acknowledged, and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is involved in those endeavours. In the absence of methodology for the taking of preliminary test for drugs, it would be inappropriate to legislate for such tests. I understand Deputy Mitchell wants to give the Minister the power by regulation to do so. We can be certain that if we bring in this regime, it must be in done in primary legislation. There is no point in us guessing what might come until we put a scheme in place and it will unquestionably necessitate primary legislation to implement.
I have run over time. Does my entire script form part of the Official Report?
Cecilia KeaveneyMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will finish then. The financial penalties relating to road traffic offences are reviewed on a regular basis. All fines imposed by the courts were increased in the Road Traffic Act 2002, and the Road Traffic Act 2006 includes further significant increases in all fines, which will be commenced shortly. Indeed, the increases imposed are often in excess of the level of inflation to increase the deterrent effect. This is considered preferable to index-linking fines to inflation. Where fixed charge systems are provided under the Road Traffic Acts, the Minister for Transport has the power to revise charges by regulation.
The Road Traffic Act 2006 presents a significant amendment to the current structures through which a person who has been disqualified from driving may apply to have their licence restored. At present a person who has been disqualified can apply to have his or her licence restored having served only half of the period of the disqualification. The proposals contained in the 2006 Act, which will be commenced shortly on conclusion of the necessary consultation with the Courts Service, are based on the premise that the facility to apply for a reduction in the period should in future only be available to a person who has been the subject of a first disqualification. In addition, it limits the scope for an application to a person who has been the subject of a disqualification of more than two years. The Road Traffic Act 2006 also proposes that an application can only be made to the Circuit Court and that, at a minimum, the person must serve up to two thirds of the period of the original disqualification. We have moved away from the automatic half year. These provisions need to be put into effect and their impact assessed in due course in advanceof introducing any other changes to these measures.
The motivation on all sides of the House is to reduce road deaths and injuries, and I acknowledge that. In this context, a significant number of changes have been introduced in recent months to road traffic legislation and a number of further provisions contained in the Road Traffic Act 2006 will be commenced shortly. All these provisions should be allowed to become operational and their effectiveness assessed over a period of time in advance of introducing further changes.
I spoke earlier about the importance of adopting a strategic approach to road safety and it is in this context that we need to allow the new initiatives which have recently been introduced to take effect. We already see the effect of mandatory alcohol testing checkpoints and the deterrent effect that the enforcement of such checkpoints has generated. We need to concentrate on the roll-out of privatised speed cameras, the enforcement of the extended penalty point system, the improvements to the driver testing and licensing system and the roll-out of the remaining provisions in the Road Traffic Act 2006 before making further adjustments to road traffic law. Furthermore, the most appropriate way of developing new legislative proposals is in the context of the new road safety strategy. Clearly, that will require legislation in the new year.
The Road Safety Authority has been asked to develop a new road safety strategy for the period beyond 2006 and in this context the authority will be bringing forward a range of proposals for consideration, some of which no doubt will require new legislation. I am proposing that further consideration of new road traffic legislation should take place in the early months of next year as part of the process of adopting a new road safety strategy. This is the best way to continue the integrated, strategic approach to road safety, which we have adopted since 1998 and which has been further improved through the creation of one authority with responsibility for a range of road safety functions. I hope Deputy Olivia Mitchell will take on board the points I made.
Martin Brady (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I extend my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed on the roads in the past few years.
I thank the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Brennan, for the various initiatives they have introduced to curtail accidents and to improve road safety. The establishment of the traffic corps was announced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2004. A dedicated management structure is in place under an assistant commissioner. By the end of 2006, more than 800 officers will be serving in the traffic corps. The planned staffing threshold for the corps of 1,200 officers will be realised by the end of 2008.
Drug testing is an issue which arises at almost every meeting one attends outside of the House and I am glad to hear the Minister has included it in one of his proposals. There is evidence that there is a large number of drivers who are under the influence of drugs and as the law stands it is a difficult issue with which to deal.
A new Road Safety Authority was established on 1 September 2006 with responsibility for a wide range of functions that have a bearing on road safety, including driver licensing and testing, road safety advertising and education, road safety research and the regulation of driver instruction. The functions of the National Safety Council are now the responsibility of the new authority. The new authority will enable a more integrated approach to road safety. In this context, I pay tribute to the former chairman of the Road Safety Authority, Mr. Eddie Shaw. I might not have always agreed with his views but I always found him helpful. Since leaving the position, he remains helpful and attends many of our meetings and conferences. I wish the current chairman, Mr. Gay Byrne, who is a constituent of mine, well in his new position.
A problem highlighted recently, at the Joint Committee on Transport and during a presentation to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business by an insurance company, is that there are 100,000 uninsured drivers in the country. This is a serious matter. Some of these are foreigners who have come here with what is believed is invalid insurance cover for driving in this country. In other countries the car alone is insured and there are no third parties involved. That is a matter at which we must look closely to find means of eliminating this anomaly.
When it comes to driving offences, whether drink driving, driving without insurance or whatever, people have civic responsibilities. The Garda and the Government cannot do everything for them. We are not nurse maids and we cannot sit beside the wheel and mind them everywhere they go, and people would want to start realising that.
The deployment of gardaí should be managed more efficiently with the resources available. Checkpoints, including speed checkpoints, should be visible to deter people from driving under the influence of drink and from speeding. Checkpoints should not be deployed sneakily, for instance, at a corner hidden behind a bush, merely to accumulate captures by the hundred with which to return to the station and be congratulated. That is not a good idea because we could lose the support of the community. It is important we communicate to the motorist the way the Garda is managed. It is also important we communicate to the motorists that our purpose is to curtail road deaths, that we are not just out to catch ordinary decent people going down the road 11 km/h over the speed limit, as happens to many people. Checkpoints are set up on roads on which there never has been an accident. People who have driven for 40 years are being penalised for driving at a few kilometres per hour in excess of the speed limit. The traffic corps should be better managed. Visibility on main roads and secondary roads as opposed to outside licensed premises or behind bushes or on corners is required. That would be more effective and it would not turn the community against the Garda, which will never solve our problems.
Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is important to examine the context of the legislation. The number of deaths on the roads this year has reached 292, according to Garda figures. It is a sobering thought that by the end of this month or early next month, the reduction to 300 in road fatalities, which is the Government's target in its road safety strategy, will more than likely have been surpassed. The strategy has failed for one principal reason — complacency. Penalty points were introduced in October 2002 and had an immediate positive impact on road safety with road deaths declining significantly but, unfortunately, the number of deaths soon began to climb again.
A strategy was published in 2004 but we had to wait until this summer for the introduction of most of its key provisions. The most critical recommendation — the provision of additional speed cameras — has still not been implemented. These speed cameras are long overdue and the latest information is that it will be some time before the contract is even awarded for the designation and operation of the new cameras. This summer the long awaited introduction of random breath testing, similar to the introduction of penalty points, had an immediate positive impact on road fatalities but, rather than building on this, the Government yet again sat back. Reform of the driver licensing legislation, mooted for the autumn, has been postponed until the new year at the earliest, according to recent reports. A new road safety Bill, dealing with a long list of issues, which was promised for later this year, is off the agenda until at least early in the new year.
Many provisions of the Road Traffic Act 2006, which was rushed through the House, remain to be commenced by the Minister. True to form, Fianna Fáil never makes a critical decision until it absolutely must. That may be tolerable in other portfolios but not when it comes to the critical issue of road safety.
The Fine Gael Bill is welcome because it puts road safety back in the limelight and I hope the Minister accepts the need to do so. His approach earlier this year to deal with individual issues and get them out of the way does not serve the road safety agenda well because a constant focus on this agenda is required and he should strive to improve legislation in this area. When we debated the Road Traffic Act, the Minister accepted it contained many omissions and a number of road safety issues needed to be tackled in new legislation. He gave a commitment to introduce a new Bill but it will not be brought forward until next year at the earliest.
The Labour Party supports the Fine Gael Bill and we encourage all Members, if they are serious about tackling road safety, to support its speedy passage. The consolidation of road safety legislation is one of the most urgent issues facing us.
Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.