Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 154, it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments, that it has power to make provision in the Bill:

(a) to amend the Road Traffic Act 2016 to repeal section 39;

(b) to amend the Road Traffic Act 2010 to rectify certain technical errors in sections 13A and 13B;

(c) to amend the Road Traffic Act 1994 to provide for detention of by An Garda Síochána of vehicle being driven by an unaccompanied learner driver; and

(d) to amend the Road traffic Act 1961 to provide for an offence by the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle which is driven by an unlicensed driver or by a learner driver who, contrary to regulations, is not accompanied by a qualified driver;

and for consequential amendment of the Long Title to reflect the content of the Bill.

During the earlier stages of the Bill I indicated my intention to bring forward a number of amendments. In particular I gave a commitment to rectify the errors in the measures inserted by the Oireachtas into the Road Traffic Act 2016, which was meant to create an offence for the owner of a vehicle where that vehicle was driven by an unaccompanied learner driver. I also committed to introducing an amendment to enable an Garda Síochána to detain vehicles driven by unaccompanied learner drivers. These measures, together with a few technical amendments which I am proposing, necessitate an alteration to the Long Title so that it will encompass the Road Traffic Acts 2016, 1994 and 1961.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not agreed, no. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill which the Minister, Deputy Ross, has been introducing has taken some time. We have had a number of set views of committees back. This is a complete change to the construct of the original Bill. I, on behalf of the Rural Independent Group, am fundamentally opposed to this Bill if some measures are not included to assist learner drivers and their families in accessing taxi services or some semblance of transport so that they are not locked in their homes unable to get to education or work. As the Minister knows, we are struggling to rebuild the rural economy and now we are going to lock people up, unable to travel. What kind of impact assessment has the Minister carried out on this Bill to see what impact this draconian measure will have on rural Ireland, and particularly on families in rural Ireland?

I am not anti-road safety. I do not want anyone to die on the roads but learner drivers and their parents are under pressure. They have to wait for God knows how long to get a test. In my county the wait is up to six months. If they fail a test they have to wait a month before they can reapply. This is totally unfair and discriminatory against rural people, especially in very rural areas. Within 20 miles of Dublin there are plenty of small rural towns and villages and country land. It is an attack on the rural populace and it is totally unacceptable. It is my duty as a rural Deputy to oppose such legislation because, whether it is the case that the Minister is trying to confuse the Bill or to conflate it with something else, it is a total no-no until such time as we have some of the services the Minister has here in Dublin, that is to say, buses, taxis, the Luas, the DART and now a €1 billion or €2 billion underground project as well. To hell with the people of rural Ireland. It is as bad as the time of Cromwell - to hell or to Connacht with the people.

It is totally insensitive, over the top and unfair at a time when people cannot get tests. People are waiting six months to get tests in my county. They are then waiting a month if they fail a test, sometimes for the most frivolous of reasons. We have to have a whole overhaul of the test system. If people fail on a very minor issue they should be able to get a restricted licence. They should not fail outright for failing on one item. I have spoken to people who went in for tests and who, because the reclining seat button was not working correctly they failed the test. I have spoken to other people who have gone in for tests and, because there was fog, they were told to go home and that they could not do the test. I was speaking to a lady recently who, after having driven 25 miles to the centre, was told to go home because it was too frosty.

The testing system is outdated, draconian and totally ridiculous at this stage, as are the rules and regulations. It would be a better fit for the Minister and his Department to try to introduce a progressive testing system. There should be simulator programmes in schools. The theory test should also be done in schools. There should be a whole revamp of the testing system so it is not down to the fickleness and frailties of one individual at one snapshot in time during a half an hour of driving. I oppose the introduction of this aspect into the Minister's Bill, which was already anti-rural from the start.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously I am a member of the committee which debated this Bill. We debated it at pre-legislative stage and then it went through Second Stage and Committee Stage.

We knew the aforementioned amendment was coming but as there were some difficulties in ensuring it was technically correct, we are seeing it at quite a late stage, which we had expected. It is not the ideal way to introduce an amendment. Having said that, the motion is important and I will support it. I think it is aimed at saving lives, including rural lives. It probably came as a surprise to many of us that it was not part of the legislative framework to begin with. The origin of this is the Promoting Awareness, Responsibility and Care on our Roads, ​PARC, group, which consists of families who have had a loved one - indeed, in some cases, more than one - killed by people who were not licensed to drive on their own. We must keep them very much to the fore. This measure is intended to try to ensure that some of these terribly sad cases do not reoccur. In many ways, this legislation gives some degree of meaning to these awful tragedies in that at least the victims' loved ones, by making the argument, are trying to protect other people into the future. For this reason, I support the motion. I do not like the idea that we do not see significant measures such as these introduced when the Bill is first published. I accept that things are added afterwards, usually on Committee Stage. This is quite a late stage at which to add such measures, which is why the mechanism of having this debate in advance of proceeding to Report Stage is occurring. There were some arguments to include other aspects in the Bill in respect of cycling, for example. They were ruled out of order on the basis that they were not consistent with what the Bill was attempting to do. I would make the argument that this is slightly at variance with the other aspects of the Bill, although I think they are all intended as a road safety and life-saving initiative. Therefore, as I said, I will support the motion.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have a brief opportunity to comment on this. It is unusual procedure. In my time in the House, I think I might have only seen it on one other occasion. A whole range of important measures that are necessary to improve road safety have been introduced in this country. It could be said that the Minister should have brought these issues before us in a more comprehensive consolidated Bill on Second Stage and then brought them to the committee. The reality is that as of yesterday, 49 people have tragically died in road traffic collisions so far this year, I think just two fewer than this time last year. While the 2017 figures were lower than those of the previous year, with 159 fatalities in 2017 compared with 187 in 2016, there are still far too many families and friends left totally devastated week after week and month after month because of injuries and deaths sustained in serious road traffic collisions.

There is a sense of déjà vuhere because we thought, with the 2016 Act, that we had addressed the major amendments here, which are referred to as the Clancy amendments. I was looking back at the 2016 Act earlier, specifically section 39, which I think was proposed by Deputy Munster to achieve legal certainty in respect of learner drivers. The Attorney General, presumably, and the Minister felt this was not legally watertight and that it could not be commenced. This means we have this sense today that we are going back over something we thought we had dealt with. I also note in the 2016 Bill that we tried to address the issue of rickshaws in this city, which is an ongoing controversial issue. It is there in the Bill. What is the practice in this regard? I know this is an unusual Dáil in that it passes a measure and then it is simply not commenced.

I of course welcome amendments concerning drink-driving and I hope the motion will lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road, especially in rural Ireland where, as my colleagues to my left know, alcohol is a factor in 81% of road traffic collisions. The Road Safety Authority has compiled data on alcohol's involvement in fatal crashes, which show that between 2008 and 2012, alcohol was a contributing factor in 38% of fatal crashes. Therefore, I believe that the attempts by my colleagues on the left of the House, Deputies Mattie McGrath, Danny Healy-Rae and others, to weaken the penalties for those caught drink-driving are the result of a misconception of these amendments and they must be rejected. If one looks back through the figures year after year, there is no question but that the approach the Minister is adopting is the correct one.

I welcome the European Commission's recent road safety statistics, which show that Irish roads are now the fifth safest in the EU at 33 per 1 million inhabitants and that the number dying on roads around Europe is decreasing, although the 2020 target apparently will not be achieved. Some 25,000 deaths are still happening year on year. The figures still show that around 70 people are dying day in, day out on EU roads. In the Gallery today we have some of the people whose lives have been altered forever due to fatal road traffic collisions. These are the real people behind the statistics. I know Ms Fiona Clancy is here with us tonight. She tragically lost her mother, Geraldine, and her sister, Louise, in a fatal collision with an unaccompanied learner driver. These are the people, those families and friends who are devastated, who we must remember. For this reason I believe that, although the approach may be unusual, the best way is to proceed and to bring the Clancy amendments finally into active law. As I said, we thought we had achieved this in the 2016 Act, and that gives us this sense of déjà vu.

Regarding the amendments and the 2016 Act - and the Minister might address this when he comes back - if the new learner driver laws are passed into law, whereby a vehicle driven by an unaccompanied learner driver will be seized by the Garda and the owner held liable, will the present law still stand whereby the unaccompanied learner, according to the 2016 law and earlier law, receives a fixed charge payment notice? This became a penalty point offence in the 2014 Act. Will the Minister assure us that there will not now be a loophole again whereby fixed charge payment notices, FCPNs, will not be issued where vehicles have been seized?

Looking at some of the issues on which, I hope, we will get a chance to speak in the hours ahead and tomorrow evening, it does make a strong case again for consolidation in order that we will not find ourselves in this kind of situation in the future. The Minister's predecessors, Deputy Varadkar and Deputy Donohoe, and now the Minister himself have all welcomed work which they said had started and was ongoing in respect of consolidation of traffic law. I think the Taoiseach told me one morning on Leaders' Questions that in areas such as company law and taxation law we have consolidated highly complex legislation and we then move on it year after year. There is therefore surely a case - and the debate tonight from all sides surely shows it again - for a strong consolidation of traffic law. Having said that, I am strongly in favour of proceeding with the Bill and allowing the Minister to bring forward these amendments, which would be a significant step forward for the safety of all road users in the future.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, Deputy Fitzmaurice normally gets time. Every week at the meeting of the Business Committee some group gives way to him. I accept that. I believed there were seven speakers tonight but the others are not here. Surely, if there is time within the time allocated, Deputy Fitzmaurice should be allowed, like any other Deputy, to speak.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not fair to ask them to do that. They have plenty to say.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a problem. Other people are not here.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hold on a minute now - I want to talk and I cannot get in because another discussion is going on.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it at this point I introduce my amendments?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to move three amendments.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When do we get the chance to move amendments?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am totally opposed to provisional drivers being added to the Bill because it will affect young fellows in rural Ireland. The Minister need not shake his head because it will affect them. It has already affected one young fellow in Killorglin and a few more in different places. He lost his apprenticeship because he could not get to work. His father and mother could not allow him to take the car any more. They would not take the chance on the journey from Killorglin to Kenmare. Now he is at home and he has no prospect of getting another job. I am opposed to this measure.

Several other measures could have been put into the Bill that would help these young drivers, and every young fellow should get one chance. I believe people are entitled to get a chance in this world. We could fit the cars with speed limits and other modern techniques could be used to monitor people's driving and if they went over a certain agreed limit, they would not get insurance or their licence renewed. We could have gone down several other roads, but what the Minister wants to do is to paralyse and isolate them, keep them at home and give them no chance. It is very unfair. The Minister does not care because he is here in a cosy spot in Dublin where he can get at taxi, a DART or a bus. I do not begrudge people in the city who can do things like this, but people in rural places like Killorglin, Glencar, Cahersiveen or Lauragh have no other way to travel without a car. This is the gospel truth and we are not making up lies. I am defending their right to have one chance to go on the road. If they do not get that chance, it is wrong, and the Minister is wrong in what he is doing.

Why is the Minister trying to criminalise honest good living people in rural Ireland who have never done anything wrong to anyone? It is sad to think people who are lonely will be made more lonely and more isolated because if people lose their licence in rural Ireland, they are stranded and cannot go to work or go to the shop. With the Minister's new Bill, people will have no opportunity because he suggests people will be put off the road if they are caught in the 50 mg to 80 mg blood alcohol bracket. There is no need whatsoever for this. I asked the Minister at a committee meeting to prove the necessity for this, and he gave instances of cases from 2008 to 2012 and stated that in those four years 36 people were killed in incidents involving alcohol. He did not come out and individualise the cases and prove it was not someone walking along the footpath after having a few pints and stepping in front of a driver who had no drink at all. Could it have been the case that a young fellow who had one pint and was not over the drink-driving limit at the time met black ice and hit a bridge or a pole? Could it have been cases like this? The Minister never proved it. He said data protection would not allow him to give the cases.

I am saying to him, to everyone in the Gallery and to anyone who is listening that anyone who drank a pint and a half pint never caused a fatality or an accident. No one in the 50 mg to 80 mg bracket caused a fatality. Is this the price the Minister extracted from the Fine Gael Government? Is this what he got from Fine Gael, to be allowed to introduce these draconian measures? The Fine Gael Deputies, who are not here, have traditionally gone into farmyards and places in rural Ireland and rural Kerry and have got votes there, but I can tell the Minister that if he is anywhere near them they will get no vote at the next election, whenever it will be, because he is hurting people who never did anything wrong to anyone.

It is sad to think that a farmer coming home from the mart will not be able to come into the pub to have one pint or maybe a pint and a half pint to tell people what he got for his animals or how the day went for him. All of this will be gone. People will have to stay inside at home. They will be like rabbits inside a burrow when the fox or the harrier is around. They are afraid to peep out because some fellow like the Minister will be outside. This is no laughing matter. This is what the Minister is doing to people in rural Ireland. He is paralysing and isolating them and treating them like dirt. The Minister has the facilities here. He has buses, taxis, DARTs, trains and everything else at any hour of the day or night that he wants. This is not available to people in rural Ireland. This is what he and the Government that has him there as a Minister are going to do to the people of rural Ireland.

I am sad it has come to this. I have tabled an amendment and I will move it when the opportunity arises. This is the most hurtful and serious issue. There has been a lot of talk since I came up here about rural Ireland, but it is only lipservice because everything the Government does hurts the people in rural Ireland. Whether the Government realises it or not, that is what it is doing. It is hurting the people in rural Ireland and the grand people in Lauragh, the Black Valley, Glencar and Knocknagoshel. Let every man talk for his own county and I will talk for mine. This is what the Government is doing to the people. It is hurtful and I can tell the Minister, because the people will tell him themselves, they hate him down there and they will never forget what he is doing to them.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 70, the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.