Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2017

Vol. 963 No. 3

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I will start where I finished last night. I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I spoke about this Bill for approximately 15 minutes last night. It will have a big effect on rural Ireland. I do not think the Minister realises what rural Ireland is about and what it means. This drink-driving Bill will have an unnecessary effect on the everyday lives of people in small rural areas. There is no need for this. The existing legislation is strong enough. The Minister does not seem to take that on board. He lives in a big urban area in Dublin. He does not realise how people in rural Ireland live, the problems they face every day or what their situations are.

My party introduced mandatory testing and supported the legislation that decreased the alcohol limits. Our limits are some of the lowest in Europe, so why are we trying to do more? They are some of the lowest in Europe so we have already led the way. Why is the Minister trying to go further and make ordinary people suffer more? The latest proposal from the Minister is to introduce automatic disqualification for three months for those driving with a blood alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml. This offence is currently punishable with three penalty points, provided the driver is not a learner or professional driver and has not previously been found guilty of the same offence. As I said last night, the legislation is already in place to control this but it needs to be implemented. That is the point I am trying to get across to the Minister. These draconian measures he is introducing will make the situation worse and make the penalties more severe. He is forgetting about ordinary people who are trying to live ordinary lives in rural communities. He is upsetting the whole social fabric of those communities.

The Minister is portraying this as a catch-all Bill that will prevent more people from drinking and driving. Our party does not condone drink-driving. I said that last night. Nor are we prisoners of the Vintners Federation of Ireland, as the Minister has incorrectly alleged. I also said that last night. I am a rural Deputy and standing up for my people in Carlow-Kilkenny does not mean that I am representing the vintners. I am not; I am representing the people who voted for and elected me. It is important to think about that aspect.

There needs to be stronger enforcement of existing laws, as well as an examination of ways to address the full range of causes of road deaths. This was highlighted by a recent "Prime Time" programme, which found that the current legislation governing drink driving is not enforced consistently. That was proven on a programme on RTÉ on Monday night last. I hope the Minister saw it. I saw the programme and I took a lot of comfort from it. There is a huge body of road legislation dating back to 1961 that contains a number of anomalies and inconsistencies. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, both committed to consolidating this legislation during their respective terms as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. This was never achieved, however. In the interim, there continue to be huge disparities in the penalties that apply to drink-driving offences in court. It says everything about the Minister's real approach to road safety that he has taken more than half a year to commence provisions relating to learner drivers following their successful passage by the Dáil last year. If the Minister was serious about protecting road users, this would simply not have been the case.

Research confirms that drivers with a blood alcohol limit of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml make up a very small portion of the number of fatal collisions. This is specified in the Fatal Collisions 2008-2012 report of the Road Safety Authority. Just 4.6% of cases involved this level of alcohol. In half of the cases in which alcohol was cited as a contributory factor, the drivers had blood alcohol levels of more than 200 mg per 100 ml, four times the legal limit.

I can read all I like and I can refer to all the statistics all I like. All I am telling the Minister is that rural Ireland is exceptional. I come from rural Ireland and I represent rural people. The Minister does not see the difference. He lives in Dublin and does not see the problems in rural Ireland. I ask him to reconsider this Bill and to consider from where we come.

Ireland is an unusual country.

On a point of order, we need a quorum. This is a hugely important matter. Look how many people on the Government side are here to support the Bill.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

There is a lot of different legislation going through the House at different times and for different reasons.

Neither I nor any other Member believe that people should be allowed to drive when over the blood alcohol limit. To do so is indefensible. No Member would try to defend such behaviour because that would be unfair to those who may suffer because of it. It is positive that a practice that was commonplace is no longer so.

There are very many issues regarding what is at stake, how society is organised in Ireland and how we legislate. As regards housing, Ireland differs from most countries in Europe in terms of one-off housing. It was a bad idea to allow one-off housing all over the country. Many Members may disagree with me in that regard. The argument is often made that if one is born on a farm, one should be allowed to build on that land. I have no problem with that, provided that the new build is constructed near the existing house. Allowing sites in the middle of nowhere to be sold on the open market to whoever could afford to buy them was poor planning and had huge environmental implications.

I remember asking the former Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan, how many of the septic tanks in Ireland the Department was going to check for compliance. There was a big furore over septic tanks at the time and much concern about the impact faulty tanks were having on the water table. It took me about ten minutes to get an answer out of him. He eventually told me that it was going to check approximately 8% of the septic tanks in the country. I asked him how many septic tanks in Wexford he thought were operating properly and within the rules. He said that the soil is good in Wexford and septic tanks work well there. I told him he was wrong and that although the land in Wexford is good for many purposes, it is not good for percolation. Half the septic tanks in Wexford are contaminating the water table and a link between contaminated water and cancer is not unproven. It is a huge problem in Ireland but the Government is not dealing with it. I have checked the rate at which inspections are being carried out in Wexford. At the current rate, it will take almost 200 years to inspect all septic tanks. Faulty tanks will keep poisoning the water table. It is strange with what issues we become obsessed.

Another outcome of one-off housing is that it would be almost impossible to provide a good level of public transport to all houses in Ireland. That could not be done because houses are all over the place. We do not have a good public transport system anyway. Although small improvements are being made, huge problems remain. I live in a village of several houses in the countryside. I could not leave and return to that village on a Friday or Saturday night using public transport. I accept that it would be difficult to provide that but, given that I live in a village rather than an isolated house, it should be done. In most countries in Europe, if one's home is in a cluster of houses or a village, one can travel to and from it using public transport. However, that cannot be done in Ireland. That will not change in the short term. I am not saying that the Minister should aim to ensure every small village in rural Ireland be serviced by public transport, even on a 20 hour basis, because that is not feasible. However, we must change our attitude to rural Ireland.

There has never been much State investment in indigenous industry. We have taken the lazy approach and been happy for foreign direct investment to provide most manufacturing jobs. Agriculture is a very good indigenous industry but we do not compare well with any European country in terms of manufacturing, although we would in terms of foreign direct investment. There was a time when the Government was able to ask a company coming to Ireland if it would be interested in setting up in a particular area and could suggest a suitable place. However, for a long time nobody has been able to tell foreign companies where they should set up. If the proposed location is not within an hour of Dublin Airport, companies are not very interested. The country is becoming more centralised in Dublin and the surrounding areas while the countryside is more and more neglected. There are fewer jobs available in the countryside and young people who grow up there move to a city as soon as possible in order to find employment. That means that it is harder for banks and post offices to remain open in small towns and small shops are struggling. The State has immense potential to make a difference in those areas.

A targeted and proactive approach by the Government would make a big difference. It should tackle the fact that rural Ireland is dying and try to change it. It should help every village in Ireland to flourish, not just cities and big towns. It should create a situation whereby young people would be able to remain in the area in which they grow up, which is not currently the case. Ireland is not the only country to have these problems but there has been a rapid erosion of rural Ireland over the past 20 years. I am very familiar with some small villages in northern Italy that have taken a different approach.

In one small village with which I am very familiar there is a real local authority. It is called a comune. It has some real power to run the local area. It runs the schools, a health service, the libraries, the refuse services and the water services. It organises community festivals. Of the income tax paid in the region, it is allowed to take a certain percentage in order to pay for the work it does. This is regional power. We do not have it. There is a local authority in Wexford but it is powerless and totally dependent on central government to do everything. It waits for handouts from central government. It used to receive motor tax revenue; I do not think it does any more. All it gets now is the commercial rates revenue, to the best of my knowledge. The local authority works out at the start of the year how much money it needs to keep running for the year and it works backwards to calculate the level at which it will set the rates for the year, despite the fact that about a third of those who have to pay commercial rates are either struggling or failing to pay them. It does not make sense. Rates in Ireland are ridiculously high. It is difficult to run a small business in this country. I know several people running small businesses, and it is not easy to make ends meet doing so. We have even built the buildings for some of the people who run huge businesses, foreign direct investment companies coming here, we have put in the infrastructure and we have given them grants to come here. More often than not, we charge them very little tax. However, for an individual trying to start a small business in rural Ireland there is very little State help. Someone I know very well was trying to start a small industry in Wexford in the past year and a half. I inquired here with the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation whether grants were available to help someone start up and was told there were. The person trying to start the industry looked into them and found them so prohibitive and restrictive that it did not make any sense even to sign up-----

What does this have to do with the Bill?

-----to seek Government help because it did not materialise into anything worthwhile and actually placed restrictions on the individual as to how he would start his company and run it for the first few years. There is not enough help for indigenous industry in Ireland. If there were, it would be good for small communities. It would be good for small communities if we changed our mind about local government. We all know that local government has been problematic, but we told them they were not working very well and that there was a lot of poor practice going on and we took even more of their powers away from them. We took more and more. We took more of their revenue-raising independence. We have watered down the local authority to such a degree that we do not actually have local authorities anymore; we have local administration that is dependent on central government for a handout in order to make ends meet. It would make a huge difference if we had real local government. It could be a huge benefit. Since local authorities did not perform well and were disappointing much of the time, instead of minimising them and stripping them of authority and finance, we should have fixed them.

This is a road traffic Bill.

It is all related.

I live in rural Ireland. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle refers to traffic. If a village is on the wane, it is not attractive for any transport company to service it. If there is no transport in or out of it, no one can go anywhere. Are we just going to carry on as if this will work itself out or is it possible we might get a Government that will some day say that things could be different and better organised and that there is a better way of approaching the way in which the State treats rural Ireland. There is a better way but it will require different thinking.

If I were back building, I would build in Dublin, which is where I was building before, because that is where the work is. I do not blame people for coming to Dublin to make a living because this is where a living is made. The N11 is getting busy every morning again because there is no work in Wexford and we still have over 15% unemployment. I listen to Ministers here tell me weekly that the national figure has fallen under 6%. I am sorry, but it is still over 15% in Wexford. The N11 is getting busy again with people having to drive up and down every day for work in Dublin. The idea that they might find accommodation in Dublin while working up here during the week was a runner in the past but is a non-runner now. It is out of the question because we have a housing crisis and rental costs have gone off the Richter scale because they are unregulated. We do not regulate the rental market or the way in which we supply housing, and there is a price to be paid for this. We talk about addressing climate issues, yet we are clogging up the roads because we will not create work in places such as Wexford and we are forcing the people in Wexford to travel to Dublin, 160 km from where I live, to find work. They cannot afford accommodation in Dublin so they drive up and down every day. This is not great for the environment. In 2007, at the height of the boom, there were 50% more Wexford people working outside of the county than in it, and we are going back there. More and more people are leaving the county again and having to go to Dublin. There is a serious lack of joined-up thinking in the Government's approach to rural Ireland, and that is a fact.

Bogaimid ar aghaidh anois go dtí Fianna Fáil. Tá Deputy Curran ag roinnt a chuid ama leis an Teachta Eamonn Scanlon.

On a point of order, I do not know whether it is in order for someone to deliver a speech which never mentions the subject of the Bill at all, which is what we have just witnessed. I would like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's views on the fact that we are putting up with a filibuster while lives are being lost as a result of this Bill not passing through the House. I ask him specifically not to tolerate the antics-----

-----of Opposition Members in this regard, filibustering a Bill which is here to save lives and calling quorums before then leaving the House themselves.

That is democracy.

People's lives depend on our doing this work.

(Interruptions).

Deputies must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Lives are being lost while Members opposite filibuster.

We have democracy in this House.

The contribution by the last speaker had nothing to do with the Bill. The Chair should be stricter in dealing with that type of thing.

(Interruptions).

I have no control in this regard. I did raise it with Deputy Wallace and he told me that it was relevant; creating jobs in the country. The provisions of this road traffic Bill are very clear and the Minister is, of course, anxious to see it progressed through the House. However, I have no control over the length of Members' contributions. My position is that many of the Deputies who wish to speak are genuine in their views.

Some of them are totally genuine. However, the last contribution had nothing to do with the Bill.

On a point of order, while I disagree with Deputy Wallace's view on once-off housing, the point he was making concerned the lack of public transport provision in many areas and the associated difficulties for people in getting where they want to go. Second, I have had my name down to speak on the Bill for a long time, as do other Deputies. We are waiting our turn. When the Minister was in opposition, he was entitled to speak on any legislation that came before the House. Just because he is now a member of the Government, he should not be trying to block others from having their say.

There is a blatant filibuster taking place here. Outside this House, lives are being lost.

If the Minister really is concerned about saving lives, he should concentrate on increasing the Garda presence.

(Interruptions).

I cannot control the length of Members' contributions.

On the basis of the disrespect the Minister has shown to the people of rural Ireland, I am calling a quorum.

And then the Deputy will leave the House, as he has done on all the previous occasions.

We live in a democracy.

A quorum has been called.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Most of my remarks will relate specifically to road safety. Before I begin, I wish to express my objection to the Minister's comments before the quorum was called. For ordinary backbenchers in my party, which has more than 40 Members, it can be difficult to get speaking time. In order not to waste time, I am prepared to share with a colleague rather than rambling on for the whole 20 minutes available in this slot.

I was referring specifically to the contribution of the previous speaker and the Members who are calling quorums and then leaving the Chamber.

The Minister is completely out of order.

Deputy Curran, without interruption, please.

I have listened to colleagues focus on these proposals from a rural perspective, but I intend to deal broadly with the road safety aspect. The record of the Minister's predecessors in office, going back to the late Seamus Brennan and, subsequently, Noel Dempsey, shows what was achieved in this area by my party in government. In 2001, we introduced the penalty points system and, in 2005, mandatory alcohol road tests. The Road Safety Authority was established by a Fianna Fáil-led Government in 2006 and, three years later, it rolled out the installation of safety cameras. In 2010, we introduced the graduated driver licensing system. Our record in this area is strong and I acknowledge the Minister's effort, in bringing forward these proposals, to build on it.

The Bill is specific in its purpose, namely, to introduce a regime of automatic disqualification of three months for drivers found to have a blood alcohol level of 50 mg to 80 mg per 100 ml. It is worth emphasising the point, because there seems to be some misunderstanding in this regard, that it is already illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 50 mg or more. What is at issue here is the penalty which applies to that offence. When the Minister introduced the Bill in the House, he said it was about saving lives. In fact, as well as seeking to prevent road fatalities, we need to reduce the incidence of serious, life-changing injuries. It behoves us all to be as honest as we can be in this debate and to address the proposals in view of the evidence available to us.

One of the things that struck me when I was researching this issue is that there is no standard international practice in this area. Different countries have a whole range of different policies on what is and is not appropriate. It is difficult to find scientific evidence that indicates clearly the point at which driving is impaired. A blood alcohol level of 0% is well defined and measurable, but beyond that point things are less clear. Why, for example, have we chosen 50 mg as the threshold when some countries have lower levels? I had expected more of that type of detail and background information from the Minister as he progressed these proposals.

In his opening statement on Second Stage, the Minister outlined the dramatic improvements in road safety since the 1990s. In 1997, for instance, there were 472 road fatalities in the State. Twenty years later, that number looks to be more than halved for this year. The figure is still too high, but the various policies that have been implemented have improved road safety significantly. The Minister went on to say that between 2012 and 2016, 3,000 fixed-penalty notices were issued to drink-drivers in the 50 mg to 80 mg category. In the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, he indicated, 35 people died in collisions who had an alcohol level between 21 mg and 80 mg, of whom 16 had a level of 50 mg or higher. I do not understand why the Minister chose that period to illustrate the numbers. It was right in the middle of this period that the law changed, which meant there were three years where the cut-off was 80 mg and two years where it was 50 mg. That causes confusion rather than adding clarity.

The Minister stated that moving from the current penalty regime to one of automatic disqualification will give clearer direction and a more severe disincentive, which will encourage more people not to drink and drive. The reality, however, is that of the more than 8,000 people who were breathalysed and failed the test in 2016, 93% had a blood alcohol reading above 80 mg, which already incurs disqualification. That is my real concern with this Bill. I do not want to see a false hope put out there that these provisions will dramatically improve the situation. In fact, we are way behind the curve in what we should be doing.

I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister last March on the issue of road safety.

I would have liked an opportunity to raise the matter in the Dáil but we do not get those opportunities. The Minister's reply indicated that the number of road deaths in Ireland increased by 15% - from 162 to 188 - in 2016 and compared the increase with what is going on in other countries, such as the UK, France, Denmark, Norway and the United States of America. I never understood why the comparison was offered because there was no rationale given as to cause and effect. In the written reply in question, the Minister said that the main causes of fatalities on our roads are speeding, intoxicated driving, the use of mobile phones and failure to wear seat belts. The Minister also said he intended to introduce further legislation this year. Will the Minister clarify if the Bill before the House is the only such legislation? More importantly, a month ago the Minister indicated that he was going to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage in respect of learner drivers and so on. Given that the reply to which I refer was written in March, I do not know why there was no urgency to deal with the problem. More of the legislation should have been brought forward at the time rather than seeking to deal with the matter in the form of amendments on Committee Stage. In the last part of his reply, the Minister said, "the Road Safety authority is embarking on a wide ranging safety campaign of education and advertising while the numbers serving in the Garda Traffic Bureau will be increased by 10% which will assist with  enforcement, and the Gardaí have confirmed that road safety enforcement is a priority for An Garda Síochána ...".

I recently checked what is happening in respect of road safety because a number of years ago I was stopped more frequently and I wondered if I was just lucky, unlucky or what was going on. I looked at the numbers in the Garda traffic corps. On 31 January 2012, there were 931 members of An Garda Síochána attached to the traffic bureau. I will not go through every year but, on 31 January 2017, there were 669 in the traffic bureau. The Minister's reply indicated that there would be a 10% increase, in which case I would have expected to see 700 or 730 members of An Garda Síochána in the traffic bureau. I recently submitted a follow-up parliamentary question to see where the numbers stand because we are still not seeing what we expected to see. On 30 September 2017, the numbers attached to the Garda traffic bureau had dropped from 669 in January to 631. There is a continual drop in the strength of the traffic corps. We can introduce all the legislation we like, but if we are serious about road safety-----

-----the public must be assured that the laws are being enforced and that they will be caught if they drink-drive. It is of far greater urgency to do that than anything else. In 2016, the Minister indicated that the numbers had increased and I believe there is a direct correlation between less enforcement and increased road fatalities.

The Minister made the specific point that this is a small Bill with one purpose. I am genuinely disappointed that we are doing so little on road safety in the Bill. In is reply to my parliamentary question in March, the Minister clearly indicated that one of the greatest causes of road fatalities is speeding. Some weeks ago, there was a high-profile case in the courts concerning a gentleman who had been caught speeding on the Naas Road - which is not far from my area - and who was fined €400. When we consider the wealth attached to this person, whom I shall not name, it seems that a €400 fine will not act as much of a deterrent. I understand the Road Safety Authority had proposals for graduated fines proportionate to a person's earning capacity, yet none of these proposals is being explored.

The Bill only addresses one very small aspect of the problem. I am disappointed that since the Minister's reply to my parliamentary question in March, this is the only legislation of its kind that has been introduced. We should have done more; we need to do more. I have referred to matters such as greater enforcement and education and awareness campaigns. The enforcement element is really significant. The number of officers with the Garda traffic corps is declining year on year and the 10% increase to which the Minister referred in March has not materialised. I do not blame the Minister but it must be remembered that road safety falls under his remit. No matter what he says, during the period in which he indicated that the number of officers in the traffic corps would rise, the exact opposite happened. I fail to understand how this could have happened, particularly when one considers that the replies currently issuing from the Minister's Department are the same and continue to state that road safety is going to be a priority.

Unfortunately, the issues relating to road safety are not addressed in this Bill. The only element that is addressed is the move towards mandatory disqualification. The rationale and the numbers were not very clear in the context of determining an increased risk. The Minister has indicated the figures for a period, which spans the old and the new systems. While coroners' reports can show a level of alcohol in people who are involved in fatal accidents, there has not always been a clear indication that this is the only cause of such accidents. More research and detail are required, not just in the context of the Bill but also from a road safety perspective.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. I come from a rural area and I represent rural people. In general, such people are decent, honest and hardworking. They would do anything to help their neighbours and communities. Usually, these people are elderly and their families are away working. Reference was made earlier to there being no jobs on offer in communities such as those that I represent. There are no jobs there and these people's families have had to move away. The only social life they have is to attend community functions or go to the local pub. If a person goes to his or her local pub, it may be the only contact he or she has with the members of his or her local community besides, perhaps, the postman. The person may have a drink or two and play a game of cards. I know what the Minister is trying to do with this Bill, and nobody wants to see people killed on the roads, but, to my knowledge, there has never been a road fatality in my area that was caused by one of the people to whom I refer.

The Bill will kill a way of life for people. That is genuinely what is happening here. Not only will we do it, we have almost done it already because people are so frightened and concerned. These are responsible and decent people who would not offend or hurt anybody and have never done so.

They are taxpayers too.

Ireland has rules that are stricter than most other countries in Europe. Fianna Fáil proposes to increase the number of penalty points from three to five and to increase the fine to €500 for those caught with blood alcohol limits of between 50 mg and 80 mg. This is a sufficient deterrent because eight out of ten accidents that occurred as a result of alcohol have all involved blood alcohol levels of between 100 mg and 200 mg. Those are the people we need to go after.

Speeding is the other issue. As I went home one night recently, a car overtook me close to a bend on a road with a double white line. I got a fright because there was a line of cars in front of me. When drivers who behave in that way are caught, they should definitely be reprimanded very strongly with a threat of jail. Not only could they cause their own deaths, if anything was coming the other way as they approached the bend there could have been six or seven people killed, including myself. These are the drivers we need to go after, not the honourable, decent people out there.

When we consider where accidents happen, it is on national primary roads. Some of these roads only have two lanes. There needs or be more investment in roads. There are very seldom road fatalities on dual carriageways but they often occur on national primary roads. The latter should be dual carriageways. Parts of the Mullingar to Sligo road are only wide enough to accommodate two cars or, just about, a car and a lorry. That is a fact. I refer the Minister to the section of N4 from Castlebaldwin to Collooney.

There are 27 white crosses on that stretch of about 11 km of road to mark where 27 people were killed, not because of drink but because of speed, possibly, and because the road is not of sufficient quality for the traffic on it. The traffic on that road is constant.

Another issue that the Minister did not look at was phones. If the Minister went for a drive today he would see someone smoking or on the phone and driving at the same time.

Or doing their make-up.

This is causing more accidents than alcohol now. To be fair to most young people today, they are responsible. In my home town, when I go to the pub and see young people there they act responsibly. They are not drinking and driving. The older people might chance it now and again but most people act responsibly. They try to get taxis to take them into town and home again, which is very difficult. As other speakers said, everyone wants a taxi at the same time and that does not work. There is no public transport whatever, where someone in Dublin can go out onto the street and put up his or her hand and there will be a taxi, but there is also the option of taking the Luas, the Dart or a bus. The people who I represent have no opportunity to get transport if they wish to socialise for a night. I am not talking about people who drink heavily, I mean people who might have one or two drinks, who respect the law and have always done so and defended the law. These are the people who we will make criminals out of. It is very wrong and we should look at this again. I do not support what the Minister is doing. I understand what he is trying to do but we should recognise that there are people who are responsible, who might have two drinks and are not road hogs and do not cause accidents.

I have to interrupt the Deputy and ask him to move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share