Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 19 are related and will be discussed together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it appropriate at this point to question the decision on the grouping of amendments?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the Deputy's query?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 22 have been grouped for no logical reason. They address separate issues. May we have an opportunity to consider each one individually?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bills Office suggests that those amendments are related and that they be discussed together. If the House wishes to discuss them separately that can be arranged.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like if that could be done because they deal with separate issues.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We can decide on that when we come to them.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On another matter, there is a typographical error on page 24, line 58 of the Bill where the word "to" appears unnecessarily. I would be obliged if, in accordance with Standing Order 136, the Ceann Comhairle would direct the Clerk of the Dáil to make the following verbal change to the Bill: in page 24 the word "to" should be removed from the beginning of the last line. This is a typographical error in the Bill.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister repeat that reference?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On page 24, line 58, the word "to" appears unnecessarily at the beginning of the last line.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no line 58.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The typographical error appears on line 56 of the Bill as amended in the Seanad. Currently the text reads: "where a person is removed from office under to this subsection" and it is proposed that the word "to" be deleted so that it will read "where a person is removed from office under this subsection". Is that agreed? Agreed.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

""Act of 1994" means the Road Traffic Act 1994;".

This is a technical amendment associated with amendment No. 5 which refers to the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing at the scene of an accident. Amendment No. 19 refers to the introduction of mandatory drug testing at the scene of an accident. The Minister may not be aware that I have tried and failed on previous occasions to have these amendments incorporated into Roads Bills. It is essential to have this kind of testing, particularly the mandatory alcohol testing, at the scene of an accident.

The aim is not to punish somebody or apportion blame but to gather information about the causes, circumstances and context of road traffic accidents. I am constantly appalled at the lack of information about accidents. Information that is gathered is not collated or accessible. Gardaí gather information at accident scenes but file it away so no lessons are learnt from it. For example, even where the driver of a car is killed we do not know if he or she was a learner or held a provisional licence. It is not possible to find out how many accidents involve people driving on provisional licences. It is ludicrous not to have real information about the causes of accidents.

That information is fundamental to forming a road safety strategy and to shaping policy. Without it we make policy in a vacuum, basing it on anecdotal evidence or opinion which is not good enough. Speed, drink, drugs, use of mobile phones, driver fatigue, signing and lining on roads, road surfaces and design, vehicle failure and even the weather are blamed for accidents but without the information we do not know the actual causes. Policy must be based on hard information in order to be effective.The Minister, on a previous occasion, refused to accept the amendment on the basis that it would be unfair and, indeed, impossible to obtain a blood test from somebody who was unconscious at the scene of an accident. That would be ludicrous but it is not what I am requesting and subsection (6) specifically states such a test should not interfere with any medical attention required. In other countries, where they have such legislation, when a person is hospitalised and a blood test is taken in the normal way that person is also subjected to an alcohol test. At the moment it is not even done as part of a post mortem when people are killed so we are operating in a vacuum.

Amendment No. 19 asks the Minister to introduce automatic roadside drug testing. There is anecdotal evidence that driving and drug taking is widespread but the Minister refused previously to accept these amendments because he felt no adequate, comprehensive roadside test was available. That is true because no procedure can test for all drugs. Nevertheless, that has not stopped other countries from testing for the principal recreational drugs. Nobody is suggesting we test for prescribed drugs because the vast majority of the population would be taking some form of prescribed drug.

I have tried to make this amendment as flexible as possible to give the Minister flexibility as to when he introduces it and to enable him to determine which drugs to test for. Society's drug of choice changes over time so I have tried to make it as flexible as possible and I ask the Minister to show the same flexibility in responding.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reference to the Road Traffic Act 1994 is set out in full in section 12 of the Bill. The expression "the Act of 1994" is not used. Section 12 provides that the section be cited together with the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006 as the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2007. Section 12 is drafted as a stand-alone section to be cited with the Road Traffic Acts. It is not necessary and I do not propose to insert an abbreviation of "Act of 1994", as proposed by the Deputy, in section 1 of the Bill.

On amendment No. 5, the Road Traffic Acts provide that a member of the Garda Síochána may require a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle to provide a preliminary breath specimen where the vehicle is involved in a road collision. Garda discretion relating to the use of the preliminary roadside test in such circumstances is necessary, having regard, as the Deputy outlined, to possible injury. I do not propose to alter that provision. Given that the power to require a person to provide a breath sample where a collision has taken place already exists and given the need to maintain Garda discretion in the matter I will ask Deputy Mitchell to withdraw that amendment.

I remind Deputies that the Road Traffic Acts also place an obligation on a person to provide a blood or urine sample in a hospital. That 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 Síochána 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.

Amendment No. 19 proposes the Minister introduce mandatory testing for an intoxicant. In light of the Deputy's previous proposal relating to mandatory alcohol testing at accident sites, I presume the point of this amendment is to try to introduce a system for preliminary testing for substances such as drugs. The reason there is currently no legislative provision that would allow for preliminary testing for drugs is that no standard approved roadside test is available for drugs. There is, however, much research on the subject and research continues to be undertaken. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is involved in, and keeps abreast of, that research and any developments in the area.

Should a garda form an opinion that drugs have been consumed, he or she can use the provisions of section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 to require a person to accompany him or her to the Garda station for the purposes of carrying out a blood or urine test. As I stated previously, a member of the Garda Síochána can request a roadside breath sample to indicate the presence of alcohol from any driver involved in a collision. My difficulty with this proposal is that the detection of a driver under the influence of a drug must, until a robust method of preliminary testing for the presence of a drug is found, continue to be based on the determination of a garda, made on the basis of the incapacity of the driver to control the vehicle.

The Road Traffic Acts already place an obligation on a person to provide a blood or urine sample in hospital. As previously mentioned, it applies where an event occurs involving a vehicle which results in a person being injured, or claiming or appearing to have been injured, where the person is admitted to or attends a hospital and a member of the Garda Síochána is of the opinion that at the time of the event the person had consumed an intoxicant. Until such time as roadside testing methods are available the introduction of mandatory testing for substances other than alcohol is not feasible. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whatever about the introduction of drug testing the Minister's excuse for not having alcohol testing is rather weak. He says that, in order to compel a blood test, a garda must be of the opinion that, at the time of an accident, a person had consumed alcohol but, in reality, a garda may not be at the scene at the appropriate time. A garda may, for whatever reason, decide not to test for alcohol, and there is anecdotal evidence that that happens. We overcame the difficulty of gardaí forming an opinion in respect of road blocks and mandatory alcohol testing is now widespread in the country when there is no suspicion whatsoever attached to drivers. In such cases any innocent person driving home tonight can be stopped for no reason whatsoever and required to undergo an alcohol test. Now the Minister says there could be a major traffic accident but there would be no requirement, without a garda forming an opinion that a person has taken drink, for such a test. Surely, whatever standing the argument may have had prior to the overcoming of the legal difficulties with regard to the introduction of mandatory alcohol testing at a roadside block, it has no validity whatsoever now and it is ludicrous that we should take blood samples when there is no suspicion but cannot do so when there is suspicion in the wake of a traffic accident. I ask the Minister to reconsider that amendment at least.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I strongly agree with the points made on this issue. Shortly before the general election the Taoiseach gave an undertaking to a group in Donegal which had campaigned for mandatory breath testing in the event of an accident. The then Minister for Transport had said shortly before that he had no intention of introducing it so we need to know where the Government stands on the matter.

The comparison has been made with what happens in the UK. Have the Minister or his officials examined the situation there? Why can we not introduce a similar system here?

I generally accept what the Minister says on mandatory roadside alcohol testing and we have spent long enough discussing it. Provision was made in legislation to carry out a breath test on a person whose vehicle was in any way faulty, even if it only had a minor defect such as a rear light that did not work. If something like that can provide the basis on which a person can be breath tested, surely the involvement in an accident, no matter how minor or no matter what the initial view on who is responsible, can provide the basis on which a garda can breath test a driver.

This is more a matter of political will. The Taoiseach has given his undertaking that the political will is there, but does the Minister share that view? Will he take this issue seriously? We know from the statistics on deaths and serious injuries on the roads, that the message still has not got across to people about drinking and driving. This is another way to send a clear message to people. If they are involved in any kind of tip on the road, they should be subjected to breath testing. It would act as a very good deterrent, but sometimes it might not occur to a garda to test if the accident occurred in the middle of the day. It is intolerable and there should be a clear line that where a person is involved in an accident, he or she should be subjected to a mandatory breath test. I do not see the difficulty in introducing it and if the Minister was serious about tackling this, he would accept the amendment.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know if I can add much to what I have already said on this. The position is as I outlined it. I will not do anything. I believe the Road Traffic Acts are the most litigated set of laws in the country. The best advice I have is to follow the route I am taking. A garda can now carry out a random breath test at the scene of an accident if he feels it is necessary.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister sure about that? I do not think a garda can do so.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There may be times when more urgent things need to be done, such as saving someone's life. Nobody in this House would be forgiven for passing a law that stated a garda had to start taking——

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should not be so disingenuous. Let us have a serious debate.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us have a serious debate. A mandatory test means that the garda must do it, no matter what the circumstances. Let us call a spade a spade.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The test does not have to take place on the side of the road. It can be taken in a hospital.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is provided for in the Bill.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but it is not mandatory.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is provided for in the legislation.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is optional.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have dealt with the amendments in detail. I am three or four weeks in the job. I will be looking at road safety Bills for the future and I will be mindful of the advice I receive. The best advice I have received at the moment is that this is as far as we can go.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2 and 25 are related and may be taken together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 13, after "Transport" to insert "and the Marine".

These are just technical amendments to update the reference.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the intent of the Deputy to try to reflect the fact that the functions and name of the Department of Transport are to change. However, the alterations to the name of the Department and to the title of the Minister, as well as the associated transfer of departmental administration and ministerial functions, have yet to be formally made. It will take place as soon as is practicable, by way of a ministerial order which will be laid before the House. Once that is done, the intent behind the Deputy's amendment will be met. These amendments are currently not required because the changes have not yet taken place. The Bill will hopefully be passed through the House before the changes are made.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister not responsible for the marine section at the moment?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am responsible for the same marine functions as my predecessor.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What are they?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The ports.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are related and may be taken together.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2.—The Minister shall be politically accountable to Dáil Éireann for the activities and actions of—

(a) the National Roads Authority,

(b) the Road Safety Authority, and

(c) the proposed Dublin Transport Authority.

I spoke on Second Stage about the need for the Minister to be accountable to the Dáil, but it seems that the Minister for Transport has divested himself of virtually every possible power and responsibility, and is accountable to the Dáil for absolutely nothing. Only a fraction of parliamentary questions are being answered now when compared with ten years ago. Most questions are disallowed on the basis that the Minister somehow is not responsible. It seems that nobody is responsible. I have great respect for the work of NRA and for the Road Safety Authority, but ultimately the Minister must be responsible. There must be transparency.

The Ombudsman raised this issue recently. Approximately 400 single function bodies have been set up and are doing work that was previously the responsibility of Ministers. They are now completely outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny and even of the Ombudsman in many cases. The public interest is not being protected and the work of the Ombudsman would be greatly reduced if proper scrutiny occurred in this House. Questions should be answered in here about the activities of these agencies. It is simply bad for democracy that Ministers divest themselves of responsibility.

During the debate on the Bill to establish the Road Safety Authority, a specific request was made to the Minister via an amendment and he absolutely guaranteed that he would answer questions in this House on all matters related to that authority. However, he has not answered a single question between then and his recent departure from the job.

I ask the Minister to look at this amendment. It is extremely important to our democracy that this House has some relevance. Government announcements are made every day outside the House and are not subject to scrutiny. Bills are guillotined and we get a few hours' notice on important international agreements. The House is becoming less and less relevant and I feel it incumbent on me to highlight that fact at every opportunity.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My amendment is similar to that of Deputy Mitchell. It proposes that the Minister remain accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas, rather than hide behind various bodies and evade questions. Time and again questions about such bodies which are asked of the Minister are ruled out of order. The Minister is allowed to hide behind the words "I have no official responsibility". I do not want to drag out the debate on amendment No. 6 because it is self-explanatory. I hope the Minister will take my proposal on board.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a hardy annual which Deputies on the other side of the House have raised on many occasions. I raised it when I was on the other side of the House. It is amazing the way things change when one switches around in here. There is some confusion about the terms "accountability" and "responsibility". Members sometimes complain about not having certain powers — they claim they are not allowed to ask questions, for example. However, they often fail to use the mechanisms which are available to them such as the Oireachtas committee system which can be used to make people answerable and accountable. Ministers can be questioned at Question Time in this Chamber. I do not doubt that many questions are ruled out of order, however. The Minister might be asked about rudimentary operational matters such as a pothole in some part of the country that needs to be filled. Questions of that nature should be asked of the bodies with responsibility for operational matters. I am not being political when I say Deputies on all sides of the House do not exercise some of their powers as much as they should. The establishment of the committee system which I advocated when I was a Whip ten or 12 years ago was intended to give additional powers to Members of the Oireachtas.

Ministers are accountable. Deputies on all sides need to bear in mind that while I am accountable to the House, I am not operationally responsible for the minutiae of what an agency does. I am politically accountable for the activities of the National Roads Authority and the Road Safety Authority. Like my predecessor, I regularly come to the Chamber to answer questions which are in order. I can answer questions about policy matters relating to the various bodies and any other matters for which I have a particular statutory responsibility. I am responsible and accountable to the House in my role as the appointing authority for the boards of these bodies and also for their general performance. Under the public service modernisation programme which predates the current Government, the practice has been to try to clarify the roles, responsibilities and accountability of Ministers, civil servants and public agencies. The Public Service Management Act 1997 sets out a clear distinction between their respective roles. The current practice which is common has been in place for a long time.

The amendments represent an attempt to turn back the clock in a manner that would affect bodies such as the National Roads Authority and the Road Safety Authority which did not have the scope to take independent technical and professional decisions when they were part of certain Departments within the Civil Service. The Deputies' assessment of this matter is wrong. Ministers are accountable to the House. The bodies which have been established to implement policy are responsible for doing just that. If Members have a difficulty with the manner in which those bodies are implementing policy, they can raise it with me. If they want to query technical aspects of how the bodies are doing their jobs, they should directly mention those issues when representatives of the bodies are present at Oireachtas committee meetings.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a little insulting of the Minister to suggest Deputies are solely concerned with "rudimentary operational matters". I have certainly never asked a Minister to fill a pothole. Basic information on important matters is not available to Members because we are told that they come within the remit of the various bodies. The flow of information has stopped completely. This aspect of the matter is separate from the issue of accountability. The Minister knows as well as I do that there can be a fine line between policy issues and operational matters. Ministers refuse to answer questions when it suits them to do so. Information is being withheld from the House. It is nonsense to suggest the Oireachtas committee system is being misused, or that its value is not being maximised. The Minister knows as well as I do that committees set out in advance their agendas for the term or year. If a matter arises and information from one of these bodies is urgently needed, it can take three, four or five months for a slot in the committee timetable to become available. Problems of that nature can develop when we try to access basic information. An important point is being made in my amendment and the similar amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Ferris. I ask the Minister to change the way the previous Minister for Transport operated in order that basic information can be made available to the House. As the freedom of information provisions do not apply in many instances, this Parliament is becoming irrelevant. Our democracy was damaged by the manner in which the previous Minister operated. I ask the Minister not to behave in a similar manner. I ask him to accept amendment No. 3.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I strongly support Deputy Mitchell's amendment. This long-running issue has been raised with many Ministers in the last couple of Dáileanna. I remind the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, that he will not always be sitting on the Government side. When he is on this side of the House again at some point in the future, he will realise how difficult it is to operate under the new arrangement which makes the work of Opposition Members — I refer to spokespersons, in particular — difficult. The principle of democratic accountability seems to have been thrown out the window by the Government. As the Ombudsman pointed out recently, more and more agencies of one kind or another have been established in recent years. Responsibility for the delivery of services has been offloaded onto these bodies which could be called quangos. When legislation is introduced to establish such bodies and Members on this side of the House try to ensure some level of accountability is provided for, such proposals are rejected by the Minister of the day.

It is nonsensical and insulting to suggest other mechanisms are available to Deputies who want to hold the various bodies to account. In theory, an important organisation like the National Roads Authority is accountable to an Oireachtas committee and its officials can be asked to attend a meeting of the committee to account for what it is doing. In practice, as the Minister knows, many of the people in question are requested to attend a meeting once every six months, at most. Most agencies do not send representatives to Oireachtas committees once a year. There is no way in which Opposition Members can on an ongoing basis establish the accountability required.

This is not just a question of accountability; it is also a question of information, which is more important in some ways. If Deputies on this side of the House do not have access to information on public services, it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to do our parliamentary work properly. When I was doing some work recently on waiting lists for driving tests, I assumed that it was a matter for the Minister of the day to tackle the issue. The Minister should be accountable in that respect. Almost a year ago the then Minister, Deputy Cullen, announced an initiative that was aimed at reducing waiting lists. Members on this side of the House have no way of knowing whether that initiative was successful. Do we have a right to access that information? How can we get it? When responsibility for this matter lay squarely with the relevant Minister, he or she used to give us information on waiting lists on a quarterly basis. When I tried to get such information approximately six months ago, the then Minister told me it was no longer his responsibility but a matter for the Road Safety Authority. I wrote to the RSA and it took a number of months to get that information. That is not acceptable. We cannot do our job properly unless the Minister is prepared to accept that responsibility. If he will not answer questions he must ensure there is a system in place whereby each of those State agencies give timely responses to Members of the Dáil if they request information. That is the very least the Minister should do. I ask him to put in place a system with all the agencies that come under his responsibility to ensure they respond. In umpteen cases I have tried to contact a senior person in one of those agencies but the people concerned do not even return telephone calls. We cannot do our business like that.

If we were not getting an adequate response from a Department or the Minister in the past there was always the option of putting down a parliamentary question and we were guaranteed that information within three days, but that is no longer the case. I do not know if the Minister realises that the situation is so bad. He has been on the opposite side of the House for so long I do not believe he realises the difficulties faced by people on this side. We must go through a long rigmarole of writing to the chief executive of the agency involved and we might or might not get a reply. I have resorted to putting in a freedom of information request — I will not name the agency — because I could not get basic information that previously I would have been able to get by way of parliamentary question.

I ask the Minister to take this issue on board because there is such a proliferation of agencies under the remit of the Department of Transport and the Marine it makes it extremely difficult to get information. I noted what the Tánaiste and Members on this side of the House said earlier on the Order of Business, namely, that this issue must be taken up by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, but I ask that the Minister at least put in place a system whereby we can follow good practice and ensure we have reasonably easy access to basic information to which we should be entitled.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following from that and to try to address the points made by previous speakers, particularly in regard to road safety, I have had a preliminary look at a new strategy which is about to be announced, but there are many issues not addressed in the strategy. The Minister might consider the process adopted in the North because it would save many Deputies, the Minister, the National Roads Authority and the Road Safety Authority a great deal of time. In Northern Ireland a committee on roads was set up, dealing in particular with road safety. It was made up of one or two members from every party. It was a privilege to be in Stormont that day to see members of Sinn Féin, the Unionist parties and the equivalent of the Road Safety Authority on that committee. It meets every month or six weeks, but we have nothing like that here.

We supported the last Government in almost everything it did regarding road safety but an issue arose three weeks ago that the previous Minister refused to recognise, namely, that the quality of our roads and road markings are responsible for road deaths. The previous Minister failed to acknowledge that, but three weeks ago the Garda Síochána officially announced that road conditions are a factor in road deaths. The European Union has declared that 30% of all road deaths in Ireland are due to bad road conditions. Only 3% of our roads are audited every year by the NRA which means that 97% are not audited. We should take our heads out of the sand and repair the roads with the money we have available, although I do not know what is left now in terms of yesterday's figures.

Driving through rural Ireland is a disaster. County councils have not repaired the stop signs at crossroads. I travelled from my parish in Castletown in Meath to County Louth and I could go freely through every crossroad because the stop signs were either knocked down or twisted the wrong way. County councils have not been made responsible to ensure the grass and ditches are cut coming towards stop signs. What happened last week will continue. There is not enough about those issues in the new roads strategy and we would like to have an input into it.

There should be designated areas where young people can be taught how to drive a car. We should not give them a licence and allow them drive on the road without being taught how to drive. The Road Safety Authority is providing such centres because under European Union law lorries must have off-course training centres. Areas will be introduced which bike users can use but there is nowhere young people of 17 or 18 can go to learn how to drive. Having toured the length of the country last year, I am aware that 17 and 18 year olds in our schools want these centres. In the Minister's area, in Oldcastle, there is a centre that is three quarters built and all that is needed is the go-ahead. It is a place where people leaving school can be taught under supervision how to drive a car properly. If we do not do that, road deaths such as that which happened last week will continue.

I am out and about at weekends at football matches and so on and it is obvious that our roads are a complete mess. Regarding signposts, I am getting on in years and I need my glasses to read them, but they are so small one cannot read them. The authorities in Northern Ireland, like ourselves, want to reduce the number of road deaths. The Minister might consider, without major cost, bringing together agencies such as the Road Safety Authority, the NRA and one or two people from each group to deal with this issue. It was a privilege to be in Stormont on the day in question to see people sitting down together and going through the various issues. They have stolen the limelight on us in some respects, although they know they have much to learn from us. The Minister might consider getting everyone's thoughts on the issue because what is contained in the new road safety strategy is not enough. We will continue to see carnage on our roads. There could have been many deaths in the accident last week involving our soldiers.

Road conditions are unacceptable and I was angry with the previous Minister for failing to acknowledge that. I am delighted the Garda Síochána clearly stated two weeks ago that the condition of our roads is responsible for deaths. I was listening to the debate in my office and I heard a speaker say there is no mechanism for drug testing, but that is wrong.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should stick to this issue.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will but I want to make that point. There is a mechanism in place for drug testing. Irish culture has changed completely. Drug abuse is rampant, but not among 18 and 19 year olds. It takes six or seven days for drugs to get out of the system. I do not wish to speak out of turn but it is crucial that an all-party group is set up by the Minister. It would save time for many people, including the Minister whom I have no doubt will do a good job. Road deaths is a major issue and they will continue to occur until we recognise the real problem.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to speak on the amendment about the Minister and the National Roads Authority having responsibility to the House. I wish the Minister well on his appointment — I mean that sincerely. This morning on the Order of Business we had a discussion about accountability to the Dáil. The time has come for the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Enda Kenny, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, the leaders of the other parties, the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach to sit down together because we must have accountability to the Dáil. It one writes to the National Roads Authority it is impossible to get an answer. It is impossible to get an answer from many of our State agencies. The people vote to put us into this House and they expect us to represent them. It is only right that if I put down a Dáil question to the Minister on the National Roads Authority, the Road Safety Authority or whatever, I should get a reply. If the Minister and his officials send that question to the roads authority it should respond to him and he should respond to me.

Members of this House are getting more and more frustrated, as are the public, and that is the reason they come to us. Nine times out of ten they have tried to get information they want or make their own case to the National Roads Authority but they cannot get that information. We are elected to this House and whatever we want an answer on should be given to us.

Deputy Mitchell spoke about the ombudsman. I read the ombudsman's report and even that office is now curtailed. When we have the debate in the House I will point out that we should abolish that office if we do not give it the authority and the power to investigate. It has been strangled by the Government which is not giving it the resources or the manpower to do its job. That is wrong. We would not need an ombudsman or these agencies if the State answered the questions. Why can we not get the information we want? Why not give the public the information? What is there to hide? Sensitive information should not be given, but why not give the information required? Every State agency should be accountable to this House.