Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister. My party is supportive of the Bill which it wants to see pass through the House as quickly as possible and then the Dáil before being implemented. As the Minister acknowledged, improving road safety and assessing the progress made to date are priorities that are genuinely shared by both sides of the House. The issues the Bill seeks to deal with were recognised by my party when legislation was introduced last June. I welcome the introduction of such legislation.

I wish to focus on a number of areas, in respect of which clarification and answers from the Minister would be appreciated before we proceed to take Committee and Remaining Stages. We support the overall thrust of the Bill and the policy underlying it. When the Road Traffic Bill 2010 was before the Seanad, we had detailed discussions on its elements and how it could be improved. In the interests of saving time, I do not propose to rehearse all of the points made, but I will refer to five issues, some of which were touched on during our previous discussion and are pertinent to this Bill.

We discussed the issue of drivers caught driving while under the influence of drugs. The Minister answered that he did not want to progress the matter through legislation because there was no clear policy in place on what instruments could be used to detect the presence of drugs and how the Garda would respond to such cases. Has any progress been made since? Unfortunately, it is become frequent for drivers to drive with drugs in their bloodstream and the issue must be addressed. I understand, however, why such a provision is not contained in the Bill, given the Minister's eagerness to have it passed through the Houses in the time remaining to us, but what work has been done to that end and does he expect the issue to be addressed in a future road traffic Bill?

I wish to raise a minor point about the vehicles covered by the Bill. Since the Minister stated road traffic legislation was often contested in court, clarifying the definition of "a vehicle" might prove worthwhile. The Bill and the original Act use the same definition, namely, a mechanically propelled vehicle. Given the use of electric cars and electrically powered vehicles, is the Minister confident that they will be covered by the definition? I am sure they will be.

The Minister referred to oversight. He stated, "I did not want an oversight in providing for mandatory testing to undermine the entire testing regime and undo all what we were trying to achieve together." I am confused as to what is the oversight and I ask the Minister to clarify it and to explain how he believes it would play a role in slowing down implementation of the Bill.

I refer to the statutory instruments necessary to ensure implementation of the Bill. Due to the desperate cutbacks in spending across all Departments, the funding is not in place for many projects. I ask the Minister to confirm his confidence that the Estimates for his Department will be able to fund the proper and comprehensive roll-out of these statutory instruments and the Garda Síochána will have sufficient training and the back-up of sufficient statutory instruments. It is worthwhile raising this point because yesterday the new Garda Commissioner stated that the level of funding available to him to deal with organised crime has been halved compared to the allocation for last year and what he was expecting this year. It is important, therefore, to clarify whether the Minister is confident that the funding will be in place to ensure the proper roll-out of both the training and the statutory instruments.

I refer to subsections (6) and (7) of section 2 of the Bill which introduce a discretion for a member of the Garda Síochána as to whether he or she is of the opinion that the testing of a participant in a collision or some other event would be prejudicial to the health of the person. I am interested in the Minister's thinking as to how "prejudicial to the health of the person" will be defined. Could it be taken to mean that a person's life might be in danger, that his or her quality of life might be threatened, or does it mean with regard to how the person feels when the incident has taken place? Such a phrase, in my view, will be contested in the courts. It also gives a degree of discretion to the Garda member making the decision. I ask the Minister to confirm the thinking behind that section of the Bill and how it can be determined that such a test is prejudicial to the health of the person.

I will be proposing an amendment on Committee Stage and I will speak in detail on it. My amendment proposes making clear to the participant in the incident that if he or she fails to comply with the instructions of a garda, he or she will be guilty of committing an offence. My amendment seeks to probe what is the interaction between the garda and whether we can do everything possible to ensure the person is clear about the directions of the garda and that he or she understands the garda is protected by the full weight of the law and has the ability to sanction that person if he or she does not comply with the instructions. I would appreciate a response from the Minister when he speaks at the conclusion of Second Stage. I wish to be constructive, to understand the thinking behind the Bill, to ensure it is passed promptly and that it will stand up in court if challenged. Progress has been made in reducing the number of fatalities and accidents on the roads. We all want to see this continue. The Fine Gael Party is pleased to see this loophole being filled and we look forward to the implementation of the legislation as a further tool in helping reduce the number of people killed on the roads.