Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I will take up some of the points raised in the last contribution. I introduced an amendment in this House to the Road Traffic Bill 1995 to give local authorities and the Minister power to introduce a minimum speed limit. It had an interesting history. It was Fianna Fáil legislation. Fine Gael was in Opposition, and Fine Gael supported me in my amendment. The Government then fell and people changed sides. Fianna Fáil went into Opposition and Fine Gael went into Government. I put forward my amendment again and I had the support of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael opposed it.

Another issue I objected to in that legislation was the requirement that people had to carry their driving licence with them at all times. I objected to it simply because of the type of driving licence we issue in this country. I have appealed time and again for the Minister to ignore Europe and introduce a credit card sized driving licence for us and change it subsequently to accommodate Europe when Europe finally gets around to doing it. For the past 15 years I have been listening to promises that we will have a decent driving licence in Europe. It is now an offence if someone does not have their driving licence with them when driving a car, although I recall the Fianna Fáil Minister at the time, when I objected to that section in the 1995 Bill, saying it would never be implemented in this country.

I wish to raise a number of other issues. Many people have spoken, and I am taking advantage of this being a Second Stage debate, on the question of the reduced alcohol limit and particularly its effect on rural Ireland. I agree with the points made about that but when the Minister is challenged with that again there are a number of issues to which a response is needed. This is not a one-off position. It goes back to planning and it relates to the one-off housing debate. If we are allowing people to build houses out in the country away from all resources, unlike the rest of Europe where people tend to live in a village and drive out to their farm during the day, that is an issue. I support one-off housing as long as it is done in a controlled manner but we should examine that.

I raise another issue which the Minister might find strange. I heard somebody say recently in the argument about the IRFU, free to air etc. that people go down to their local pub to view those channels but for a local pub to have Setanta or Sky available to local people is almost prohibitive. It is an issue we must examine. Also, pubs should be required to provide a café type service as well as a bar service, although I realise that is not quite relevant.

I want to pick up on the point about the lack of uniformity in the speed limits. On his way to work the Minister sometimes travels on the N2. One could give examples but the speed limit on the old road used to be 120 k/hr until two years ago but the speed limit now from one of the Minister's county towns, Ashbourne, is 80 k/hr and once one hits the Dublin border it is reduced to 60 k/hr for no reason whatsoever. The same gardaí will give the same advice. I understand the reason if one is coming up to dangerous junctions, and there is one a kilometre or two beyond that, the Ward cross, but I am very unhappy with the way speed limits are determined. That is one example but I could give the Minister 24 more. There is a lack of uniformity in that regard. There is no question in my mind that there should be a minimum speed limit, and not just on motorways. What I have outlined causes a great deal of trouble for people.

I refer to the position in France. I heard the Minister speak during the week about driving through France and that his TomTom told him when he was over the speed limit. I want to tell the Minister that it does the same in Ireland. It is not just in France that the TomTom will tell somebody that they are over the speed limit.

In France, where agricultural vehicles must travel on the road the speed limit is reduced to accommodate that fact. There is a tractor sign or something like that indicating a reduced speed limit for a mile or two in those cases where farmers have no option but to travel, and at least people know that is a planned event.

I agree with the point made by Senator Ellis about the North, the South and Europe. That should be Europe-wide, and I am sure the Minister would share that view. I ask the Minister for his views on it.

Senator Ellis raised a point about some of the legalities in the Bill. A number of them bother me also and I ask the Minister to come back to me on them. I refer to the question of people being guilty of intent to drive. The Minister might have dealt with that earlier as I did not hear all of his opening contribution but how do we prove intent? That appears to be something that could be abused. If somebody in a pub is asked to hand over their car keys and they refuse and say they will drive home, it is clear that is intent but what is the context in which that would arise?

I ask the Minister also to revisit the point he refused to concede in the Dáil, namely, the question of breath testing following road traffic accidents. The wording in the Bill should not be "may" but "shall". There should be a requirement that anybody involved in an accident would submit to a breath test. Whether it is done an hour later or immediately, it should not be perverted by the lack of equipment at a particular time. I ask the Minister to revisit that. I accept the Minister has made a major move on it, on which I compliment him, but I ask him to go the final mile in that regard.

I refer to the point raised by Senator Ellis, namely, the question of applying the law differently to the specified people and the question of taxi drivers or public service vehicle drivers etc. I refer to section 3. There are a number of aspects which bother me about it but I refer to the question raised by Senator Ellis. Can we apply the law differently to people with a similar responsibility in a similar position who are both drivers? It appears to me that if somebody is driving and they break the law, they have broken the law and they should not be driving. The fact that they are carrying passengers does not seem to be any reason it should be different. I understand there is more responsibility but either they should be driving or they should not. We might say they should not be driving because they are carrying passengers but the next person coming down the road could be carrying three or four people as well though not for gain. The only question that arises, therefore, is whether somebody is engaged in a business. That seems to be close to invidious discrimination, which is outlawed by the Constitution, and I would like to hear the legalities involved in that. I am sure the Minister has had internal discussions on it and that it has come up previously but I would like to hear the legal position clearly outlined.

The definition of "specified person" includes the driver of a public service vehicle, a taxi driver or a hackney driver but paragraph (c) of section 3 states: "is the holder of a driving licence licensing the holder to drive a vehicle in the category D, D1, EB, EC, EC1, ED, ED1 and W while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of such a vehicle". It does not matter whether they are involved in a for gain business or otherwise. It is not in the course of business necessarily. Paragraph (d) states that a person driving a small public service vehicle would be in breach while attempting to drive or being in charge of such a vehicle when it is being used in the course of business. That goes back to the first question. There is a difference between paragraphs (c) and (d). In paragraph (d) it would appear it only arises if they are plying their trade. Does that mean that a taxi or a hackney driver driving his or her vehicle for personal purposes and not in the course of business would not be a specified person?

Subsection (2) of section 3 states that where a person holds a driving licence and is a specified person etc. it is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the person was driving at the time of the alleged offence. That seems to challenge the presumption of innocence in that a person must prove their position, and it sits uneasily with me. I am not objecting to the reduction in the limit but I have serious questions about how that is to be implemented and whether it creates a difficulty. Issues arise in that regard. In terms of the application of the law, is it constitutional to have a different requirement on somebody merely because they are plying their trade as opposed to another driver, even though they both have the same potential to cause an accident, they both could have the same number of people in their car, they both could be driving at the same speed etc? That seems to be a lawyer's dream.

The other point is the difference between paragraph (c) and (d). In section 3(1)(c), the person does not even have to be involved in the business because I presume it refers to a larger vehicle. However, this is making fish of one and flesh of the other, both between subsections (c) and (d) and between the ordinary driver and the taxi or hackney driver. Subsection (2) states, "it is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the person was driving". This turns the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt. It turns the normal state of things on its head.

I will finish on a positive note. I have no doubt the Minister will deal with my questions in his reply. I affirm what I said earlier that the Department and the Minister are doing a superb job, as are bodies such as the Road Safety Authority, to bring driving speeds down to very low limits. I do not think the impact of these measures is generally realised. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, road traffic deaths were far more numerous on a pro-rata basis than at present. This Bill is a very welcome development which is to be lauded and for which I congratulate the Minister. I agree with the provisions in the legislation. I intend tabling one or two amendments on the issues I have raised but I will examine the Minister's responses very closely before I make a decision one way or the other.