Vol. 203 Tuesday, No. 11 29 June 2010

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Tuesday, 29 June 2010.

Business of Seanad ………………………………641 Order of Business …………………………………641 European Union Treaty: Motion ……………………………660 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motion ……………………661 Post-Release (Restrictions on Certain Activities) Orders Scheme 2010: Motion …………661 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010: Committee Stage … … … 661 Visit of Australian Delegation ……………………………662 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010: Committee Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages……………………663 Motion for Earlier Signature……………………………667 Business of Seanad ………………………………667 Road Traffic Bill 2009: Second Stage …………………………668 Business of Seanad ………………………………688 Business of Seanad ………………………………688 Road Traffic Bill 2009: Second Stage (resumed)………………………688 Adjournment Matters: Respite Care Services ……………………………698 Mobile Telephony ………………………………700 Schools Building Projects ……………………………702 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Máirt, 29 Meitheamh 2010. Tuesday, 29 June 2010.

————

Chuaigh an i gceannas ar 14.30.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Business of Seanad An Cathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to give an update on any meetings he has had or intends to have with his counterpart in the North- South Ministerial Council to have telephone companies provide all-Ireland telephone tariffs and packages to promote business and social interaction.

I have also received notice from Senator Healy Eames of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to provide an updated report on the purchase of a site and construction of a new school for Gaelscoil de hÍde, Oranmore, County Galway.

I have also received notice from Senator of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health and Children to provide sufficient funding for the continuation of all essential services provided by the Daughters of Charity service for people with an intellectual disability at St. Vincent’s Centre, Navan Road, 7.

I have also received notice from Senator Denis O’Donovan of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to outline the reasons the necessary works on the Bandon river, County , as a result of the severe flooding last year, cannot proceed because of threatened legal action by the Central Fisher- ies Board.

I regard the matters raised by Senators Keaveney, Healy Eames and Donohoe as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. I regret that I have had to rule out of order the matter raised by Senator O’Donovan, as the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has no official responsibility in the matter.

Order of Business Senator : The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, to be taken without debate 641 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

[Senator Donie Cassidy.] at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, motion re Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 1; No. 3, motion re post-release (restrictions on certain activities) orders scheme 2010, to be taken without debate at the con- clusion of No. 2; No. 4, Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010 — Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 3; No. 5, earlier signature motion, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 4; and No. 6, Road Traffic Bill 2010 — Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 5 but not before 4.45 p.m. and to conclude not later than 7.30 p.m., on which spokespersons may speak for 12 minutes and all other Senators for ten minutes and Senators may share time, by agreement of the House.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill will be brought before the House this week. Every Senator is conscious of the cutbacks we have seen imposed in recent years. We have the parents and families of children protesting at the gates of today because of the cutbacks to services for the intellectually disabled. A mother has told me about the respite care service that has been cut. Another has told me about the number of staff being cut back and the way the service to her child will be reduced as a result. There has been a range of cutbacks in the health service. We have seen medical card withdrawals and cutbacks to services for persons with special educational needs. Some €22 billion has been given to a dead bank and our children are carrying on their shoulders the debt resulting from that decision. None of these issues has caused a Government Deputy or Senator to question his or her support for the Government to any degree, yet there is a crisis of conscience in regard to the legislation that will be brought before the House tomorrow. The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill has been met by much criticism from Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators. Seven Fianna Fáil Deputies stood up in the Dáil to express their strong opposition to its provisions. Two Independent Deputies have said they will not support the legislation. Senator O’Donovan has outlined his views on other legislation. I have a number of questions for the Leader. Does he support the legislation being cham- pioned by the ? Does he expect Senators on his side of the House to support it? Is he willing to allow more of his colleagues lose the party Whip, as the Green Party insists on progressing its agenda? Why is so much time being spent on this legislation when we have critical issues affecting citizens that I have outlined day in, day out which are exemplified more than anything else by the protests outside the gates of Leinster House at the cutbacks to services for persons with special needs? We need to hear from the Government parties on the critical issues affecting every citizen. On the day after the murders of two people in in Mafia-style hits, what is the Government doing to tackle gangland activity? We were told by a previous Minister that we were seeing the last sting of a dying wasp and heard from another that the legislation that would make a difference was in place. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister for Justice and Law Reform come to the House to address the issues which led to the latest gangland killings on the streets of our capital city last night.

Senator Joe O’Toole: This has been the most difficult year imaginable for the economy. As Senator Fitzgerald said, families have never found it more difficult to survive and to fight their way through the recession. I am quite appalled by the EUROSTAT food price survey which was released yesterday. It found that at a time when Irish farmers are getting 20 cent a litre for their milk, the lowest price for 40 years, Irish consumers, people buying food and dairy products, eggs, cheese and milk in supermarkets, were being charged the second highest prices in Europe. This is an inconsistency which is utterly unacceptable. For all those people who are 642 Order of 29 June 2010. Business quick enough to talk about the private and public sectors and inefficiencies in one or the other, this is a clear sign that market forces do not work on behalf of the consumer in all cases.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole: It is time we had a close look at this. I know the Leader sat on a committee which dealt with the whole question of price control and issues such as the groceries order. I do not wish us back in a command economy but if price control is the only way we can get fairness into ordinary trading of food products for ordinary families who are being hit from every side, then it is time we considered taking such action. We cannot countenance a situation to continue where our farmers are being paid the lowest prices in 40 years and our consumers such as housewives and shoppers buying those same products in supermarkets, are being charged the second highest prices or the highest prices in Europe. It is completely unacceptable. I ask for a discussion on this issue with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister of State with responsibility for food. The farming community and the consumers should at least recognise where we stand on this and allow people to go on the record. If it means we have to do things that we did not do before or have not done for a long time, such as introducing price control, then that is what we need to do.

Senator : When the House returns in the autumn after the summer recess — that is, if there is the same configuration in these Houses as there is at present and according to who is in Government — there will be a short period of three months or perhaps less, before the budget. We had many phoney debates in the House last year about the budget and about the proposals for cuts. The debate became quite sterile. I suggest to colleagues that this autumn we might take the debate to a higher level than perhaps was possible last year when there was a sense of crisis — not that there is not still a sense of crisis — to get beyond simply talking about budgetary measures and cuts and readjustments, necessary as those are, but look to the future of this country. In particular, we should look at the very important issue of investment. We should discuss investment in the economy, investment in infrastructure, investment in people and in ideas so that we can genuinely turn the economy around. This would ensure we would have an economy when we get through the more immediate pressing budgetary crisis. My party has brought forward a very carefully considered proposal for a strategic investment bank to marshal investment, to marshal resources towards productive activity, to get away from this long hangover we are experiencing as a result of basing our entire future on the construc- tion industry. We need to look at new ideas and ways to marshal available funds into that kind of productive activity in the future. Those of my colleagues who have suggested that my party has no policies or deals in soundbites, might look at this document. I suggest it could form the basis, along with proposals from other parties, for us to get away from this sterile, if necessary, debate about the budget and look to the future. I noted another contribution today which is relevant to the discussion. In Britain there is a proposal for the establishment of a new green investment bank. This type of initiative will seek to marshal public and private sector funding, given that it is so difficult to get financing for projects, including green projects, to help make this kind of investment which will fund pro- ductive activity in the economy. I know the Green Party supports such measures. I say that sincerely, but we must do more than talk about it. We need initiatives such as our proposal for a strategic investment bank or the green investment bank in the UK. Let us go beyond the immediate debate and brickbats about whether certain measures should be in the forthcoming budget, important as that should be, and have a real debate about the future of the economy. 643 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator Marc MacSharry: I join Senator Alex White in calling for that debate so we can have a meaningful input into making the next budget. We should have a series of debates, with suggestions coming forward. A property tax was mentioned and it may be useful to debate the concept of a property tax in this House. If it is being contemplated by the Government, could it be applied in such a way as to ensure the less well-off are not penalised and those in a position to pay can pay? It would be interesting to debate issues such as the strategic investment bank proposals of the , which may well have merit. There was a debate on employment last week but I call for a debate specifically on the county enterprise boards. Interesting figures emerged in recent days, relating to the period 2000 to 2008. In assessing the performance of enterprise boards, the number of jobs created by enterprise board was in the region of 12,000 while Forfás reports indicate those created by the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and Údarás na Gaeltachta dropped by 18,000. It is important to have a debate on the reconfiguration that may take place in respect of enterprise boards. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water just because Mr. McCarthy’s report insisted on their abolition or their being subsumed into Enterprise Ireland. We must focus on the micro- employment sector and the good work done in that area. It is too simple to suggest county enterprise boards be incorporated into Enterprise Ireland. During 2000 to 2008, they outperfor- med their higher profile colleagues in IDA and Enterprise Ireland. That is an important issue that must be taken on board. We must have savings and consolidation.

Senator : I second Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment to the Order of Busi- ness. Two years ago we were promised we would have a designated unit for cystic fibrosis sufferers in St. Vincent’s Hospital. It is a disgrace that building has not yet commenced. Cystic fibrosis sufferers must still queue in accident and emergency units and are placed in wards where they are at risk of infection. Statistics show that those who suffer from cystic fibrosis living in will live ten years longer than on this side of the Border. That is a damning statistic for any health service. How much longer must those with cystic fibrosis and their families fight for basic necessities and facilities? We have regional hospitals throughout the country and they should have facilities and services to cater for cystic fibrosis. We have excellent consultants in many of these hospitals who specialise in cystic fibrosis but they do not have the facilities or other services. There is a lack of beds, isolation units and physiotherapists for adult cystic fibrosis sufferers. How long will we allow this to continue? The Minister for Health and Children must come into this Chamber and explain why the unit has not been started. She must account for her stewardship in this area. We must hear from the HSE why these facilities have not been provided for our people who are suffering on a daily basis. This is a matter of life and death. Members need to get off their backsides and do something about it.

Senator : I agree with Senator Alex White that a debate is needed on a third banking force and investment bank. My party has been quite clear that, as is the case in the United Kingdom, it should be a green investment bank. The difference between aspiration and policy is that with aspiration, one lacks the detail of stating what are the new ideas, what level of investment is needed and what are the desired outcomes. I would argue that Opposition parties’ documents lack this and are aspirational rather then fully fledged policies. Moreover, the Government’s smart economy document at least details what can be done. What should be done in a debate is not merely to indulge in mom and apple pie rhetoric but to outline the hard decisions that will be taken and the unpopular decisions that must be taken if in government.

Senator Alex White: Has Senator Boyle read the document? 644 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator Dan Boyle: Because the reality——

Senator Alex White: Has Senator Boyle read the document?

Senator Dan Boyle: I have.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions, please.

Senator Dan Boyle: For the next five years, whoever is in Government and whatever is the configuration of that Government, public expenditure controls will be required. Consequently, all political parties must outline their positions in respect of such public expenditure controls and what pain would be entailed.

Senator Alex White: No problem.

Senator Dan Boyle: As for the debates that are occurring in the other House and will take place in this House, I wish to correct the record in respect of the comments made earlier by Senator Fitzgerald. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill is not a Green Party Bill. It is a Bill the process of which commenced in 2006 under the then Fianna Fáil Minister for the Envir- onment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche.

Senator : The Green Party has left it mark on it though, as it has been com- pletely changed.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions now.

Senator Dan Boyle: Moreover, the recommendations of the working group form the basis of that legislation.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Half of them were not consulted.

An Cathaoirleach: Please.

Senator Dan Boyle: I look forward to seeing how prominent members of , who have advocated animal welfare rights in the past, will vote this evening. Similarly, I am anxious to find out whether Labour Party Members are willing to do the same.

Senator Paudie Coffey: We also will be watching how Government Members vote.

An Cathaoirleach: Members, please.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Government is wobbling enough as it is.

Senator Dan Boyle: I commend Members of the——

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: In particular, the Fianna Fáil Members should be watched.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions. Members are on questions to the Leader on the Order of Business, please.

Senator Alex White: They should wobble to the left a little.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am asking the Leader how both legislative items are to be processed in the coming week. I commend two Members of the other House who do not support the Government but who clearly will support this evening the Government position as outlined in the programme for Government. 645 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

[Senator Dan Boyle.]

I will conclude by noting that I find it somewhat depressing that some within our political system make an issue of such things when there are more important matters to be discussed. There are economic difficulties and social policies to be debated.

An Cathaoirleach: Time, please.

Senator Dan Boyle: However, the reality of processing legislation——

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: They appear to be the Senator’s priorities.

Senator Paudie Coffey: They are Green Party priorities.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time has elapsed. No interruptions, please.

Senator Dan Boyle: The reality of processing legislation in both Houses is that Members must deal with individual items of legislation as they come before each House.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It reflects the Senator’s priority.

An Cathaoirleach: Time, please.

Senator Dan Boyle: I would like to see a future scenario in which either of the Opposition parties does not present a Bill or motion during Private Members’ time that does not relate directly to the economy.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Where is the Climate Change Bill?

Senator Alex White: Very sad.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The Government is using its own time highly creatively tonight.

Senator David Norris: I support my colleague, Senator O’Toole, who expressed his concern about the prices for various products. In particular, we are right up at the top for bread, cereals, meat, milk, cheese and eggs. The list is interesting because I believe I was just about the only Member of this House who opposed the abolition of the groceries order. Members were told by allegedly reputable financial sources that a list of goods would fall in price. However, the price of every single one of them has risen. What I prophesied has happened, namely, prices have risen and the net impact of the removal of the groceries order has been to concentrate power in the hands of some of the larger supermarkets and food conglomerates and to drive out the smaller shops.

Senator : Good.

Senator David Norris: I am not certain whether my colleague and friend, Senator Quinn, meant to say “good” when I was talking about the driving out of the small shops. Perhaps he did because Members know his theme is that the customer is always right. I greatly regret that Ireland still is a customer for Israeli arms and expressed considerable concerns in this regard on an Adjournment matter. I seek a debate on the arms trade in general in light of articles that recently have appeared indicating the European Union intends to buy substantial quantities or many millions of arms from the Israeli companies that devised, facili- tated, produced and operated the drones that were used in the murders of civilians in Gaza. 646 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Finally, I refer to the issue of human rights. I am sure the Leader will agree it is very sad that, in the aftermath of the President’s successful visit to China, a Tibetan environmental activist has been sentenced to 15 years for doing nothing other than standing up for the envir- onment. I hope these matters will be raised with the Chinese Government which is continuing a programme of oppressive imperialism in Tibet.

Senator : I share the comments made, particularly by Senators O’Toole and Norris but I am sure by others also, on the EUROSTAT survey. In fact, it is not a concern any more, it is real anger at a multinational which is hiding behind statistics and the assumption that somehow because we are an island nation we have higher transport and taxation costs. The EUROSTAT survey blows that argument completely out of the water. It is past time that the people concerned were brought to book in that regard. I do not know how this could be done under legislation, but during his time as a Deputy the Leader of the House chaired a committee which examined this and other issues and I am sure he will respond to the comments made. It is past time that some action was taken, particularly in the light of the fact that as an island economy we make a big play of the green environment in which we grow basic foodstuffs which we manufacture and sell abroad. It has reached a sorry state that other countries in Europe are selling our produce much cheaper than we can sell it in this country. Farmers are correctly up in arms over the fact that their incomes have reduced significantly in recent years. What do farm families think when they look at the EUROSTAT survey? What annoys me, in particular, is that everyone in the economy has been tightening his or her belt in the past two years. People have taken cuts in their wages and working week. I charge the multinationals, specifically one company which has come to this country and in effect dominated the grocery sector.

Senator Jim Walsh: Tesco.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator.

Senator Paschal Mooney: It is using the most despicable habits and activities to put pressure on suppliers in this country. It is time it was brought to book. This is not about cost anymore or creating or maintaining jobs but capitalist greed that is driving this particular multinational to keep prices artificially high. It is long past time that it was stopped.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I too voice concerns, as expressed by Senator O’Toole and others on the EUROSTAT pricing survey which shows clearly that this country is now one of the most expensive in the eurozone. Farmers and farming communities are the primary producers of top quality, green produce. On many occasions in the House we have debated how we can find new export markets. They are the ones who are doing the hard work. How must they have felt when the statistics were published yesterday? They must be demoralised to see the profit margins being whisked off by the multinationals, as my colleague opposite indicated. It is important that we have a debate on sustainability in Irish produce, the future of farming and how profit margins can be retained to sustain farming families. Two Government Bills are going through the Houses of the that are essentially anti-rural, as most Members of the House realise. It is the thin end of the wedge. I refer to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill which are an attack on traditional, rural pursuits that date back as far as Fionn and the Fianna. The Leader’s party calls itself the Soldiers of Destiny and the word “Fianna” is in the title. I urge Members to take the admirable stance adopted by Senator O’Donovan last week and stand up and be counted in support of rural Ireland because this is only the start—— 647 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

An Cathaoirleach: We can debate the matter when the Bill is before the House.

Senator Paudie Coffey: ——of a succession of legislation that will have serious consequences for the greyhound and horse industries. I remind the Leader that ten local authorities have opposed the legislation referred to by resolution. Members of his party have voted in local authorities, people who elected the Leader and his colleagues to this House. I appeal to Fianna Fáil Senators and Deputies to stand up and be counted this week in support of rural Ireland.

Senator John Ellis: Like my colleagues, I refer to the EUROSTAT survey which shows exactly what we have been saying for the past 12 or 18 months, namely, that primary producers are being ripped off, while the multinationals are making enormous profits at the expense of rural Ireland and primary producers. We must do something about this. We had an inquiry into the cartels which operated in the car industry, following which car dealers were prosecuted. The same type of investigation needs to be carried out into the food industry. The pressure applied to suppliers of multinationals is enormous. They are forced to take from producers the margin they must give to the multinationals. The net result is that although primary producers are subsidised by the European Union, the subsidies are often their only income. Excepting imported food, I predict food shortages in Europe within the 3o’clock next five years. Food production is not viable now and something will have to be done about it. I raised with the Leader the possibility of having a debate before the summer recess on expenditure on infrastructure by the Government, especially in view of the €6 billion that is to be spent thereon. We should debate this. It is important that the money be spent, that we do not just talk about spending it and that we have full details on where it is proposed to be spent. Spending money will help to reduce unemployment. That should be the aim of everybody.

Senator : I read in The Irish Times today that the State has paid well more than €17 million in fees for banking crisis advice. I notice that €3.9 million was paid to Arthur Cox from September 2008 to June 2009 for consultancy work on the State bank guarantee, the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and the recapitalisation of Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Arthur Cox advised the National Asset Management Agency, as it has advised some of the banks. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Finance whether Arthur Cox has a monopoly on legal advice to the State and State agencies? If so, it is very unhealthy. There are potential conflicts of interest about which I do not feel comfortable if one firm is advising so many State bodies on the same issues. We are always saying in this House that the Seanad should have more responsibility and that there are committees that can do valuable work. We have a committee to deal with an issue that is doing extraordinary damage to this House. I refer to the investigation into Senator Callely’s expenses claims over the past two years.

An Cathaoirleach: That is under investigation by the committee, which is sitting at the moment.

Senator Eugene Regan: I am very concerned about the manner in which that committee is going about its business. It is very important that it get it right and that it obtain the information with which it can verify the facts and draw verifiable conclusions.

An Cathaoirleach: I am not going down that road. That committee is sitting.

648 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I concur with some of the speakers on many of the issues that have caused concern among those who are less well off, including working class people and the many unemployed. Will the Leader clarify a matter in respect of how the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill was ordered? What bothers me is that the Bill was parked for nearly three months on Committee Stage. When we dealt with Report and Final Stages two weeks ago, I was astonished that a Minister, despite the delay of several weeks, refused to table any amendments in the Seanad. This is a bad precedent to set. I am in the position I am in and am not seeking to be glorified but this issue has developed a huge head of steam and might bring down the Government, which I certainly would not like to see at this stage. I ask the Leader, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to determine whether this is the way the Seanad is to be treated in the future. The Minister had ample opportunity to table amendments. He suggested certain amendments in the House and at the same time said that under no circumstances would he accept amend- ments in the House. We are asked to return the week after next to deal with amendments that may very well be sorted out in the Dáil. This troubles me severely because it puts me in an invidious position.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It happened with the Adoption Bill and with other legislation.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: In fairness to Senators Coffey and Cummins on the other side of the House, they had only six amendments tabled on Report Stage, three of which were legit- imate. If this issue had been dealt with in the House through full and proper debate, the huge head of steam that has built up in the past ten days could have been avoided. I refer to an old hobbyhorse of mine in respect of which I do not wish to lock horns with the Leader. About a year ago, the Leader promised me a debate, before the summer recess, on the fishing industry and the Common Fisheries Policy. I would be extremely disappointed if I had to head back to west Cork this summer not having had such a debate. It is so important to people in rural Ireland and those involved in the fishing industry.

Senator : I join Senator Fitzgerald in asking the Leader a specific question. Is it the case that the Government of which he is a member puts more value on the stag and on dogs than on human beings? If the Leader answers that question honestly, the answer will be that it is.

Senator Jim Walsh: Why ask if he knows the answer?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Not one Member opposite came into this House to vote against the cuts in social welfare or any financial matter which affected people. We have not heard one positive comment about employment from them, and today we got a frenzy by the national media and backbench Fianna Fáil TDs and some Senators about stags and dogs. What hap- pened to people? What happened to the people in Neilstown last night who were killed? Where has zero tolerance gone? Where has the last sting of a dying wasp gone?

An Cathaoirleach: A question to the Leader.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: That is a specific question to the Leader.

An Cathaoirleach: What are the questions?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Those are comments attributed to members of his Government who came into Government on the crest of zero tolerance. Where is it today? There are cuts in 649 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

[Senator Jerry Buttimer.] gardaí. There are gardaí in Cork city who have not a car to drive in because it has been taken off the road because it has gone over the threshold of miles. There are gardaí who cannot get the proper equipment because of the cutbacks. How can they do their work, if that is the case, not supported by Government? We have Government who today — I note the silence opposite — go out on the plinth and talk about stags and dogs, but they cannot talk about people. They cannot talk about the people about whom Senator Cummins spoke who are affected by cystic fibrosis. Their silence is deafening. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: First, I commend the Garda on the massive drugs seizure this week — €10 million worth of cocaine. It shows the co-operation taking place is very important but is also working. It will ensure that people on our streets in every town and village in Ireland will have less drugs at their disposal. I want to raise with the Leader the fact that on Friday at the Council of Europe there was a report unanimously passed looking for regulation to be brought in by national parliaments to ban the mosquito device. The mosquito device is a sonic device that is being used against young people to stop them congregating in public places and it is a breach of their fundamental human rights. The biggest difficulty is that people under the age of 25 are being focused on. Everybody is born with an arc of hearing and they can hear very high or very low. As they grow older everyone loses capacity at a particular frequency. Because we do not hear this device, we think it does not exist but there are people in the Gallery who would hear it. Whether we are going along with a nephew, niece, grandchild or child, often those children are not of an age at which they can say there is a problem because they have not got the words to articulate it and we do not hear it because we are over 25. It is a very serious issue, according to the European Youth Forum and, therefore, addressing the issue received international unanimity at Council of Europe level. I ask that we would have a debate on this issue here. Unless people are debating it they are not aware of it. Because they are not aware of it they think it does not exist and because they think it does not exist there are young people being targeted right around the country and being punished for a crime they did not commit.

Senator Feargal Quinn: We all were jolted by the EUROSTAT figures. I suggest the fault and the answer is in our own hands. When I entered the grocery business way back in the 1960s power was in the hands of the suppliers and those of us in the grocery business were told by Jacob’s, Cadbury and others what we must do, what we must sell and we could not sell at a certain price or they would not supply us. Then in the next 20 years power came into the hands of retailers, I am delighted to say, and we were able to say to the suppliers that we would do what we wanted. Power is now in the hands of customers, the citizens of Ireland, the consumers. They are the ones who have the choice, particularly since competition is no longer in the hands of Irish retailers but in the hands of retailers from whatever part of the world. Every town in Ireland it seems has two German retailers, one British retailer and a number of Irish retailers. If we have anybody to blame for high prices, it is ourselves for not being able to insist on getting lower prices because there is fierce competition. I disagree with my friend, Senator Norris, on the groceries order. The groceries order was there to protect suppliers. It did not protect suppliers. If it did protect suppliers, it was not in the interests of consumers. I agreed that the groceries order needed to go because that was in the interests of consumers.

Senator David Norris: We were told prices would come down, but they did not.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I will use milk as an example, as I did not examine the EUROSTAT findings well enough to be sure. I tried to buy milk in France, Germany and Spain while I was 650 Order of 29 June 2010. Business on vacation. The only milk one can get is long-life milk. It is not the same milk. One can get milk like ours but it is very difficult to get it. Some 94% of the milk consumed in France, Germany and Spain is long-life, UHD milk. Here is an opportunity for Irish producers to be able to do something, to be able to get the real milk we are used to and that is so good. The dairy industry has an opportunity to do something on that basis. New Zealand has a company called Fonterra, which accounts for 2.7% of the global market. Glanbia, our largest company, accounts for 0.4%. Surely there is something that Ireland can do in terms of manufacturing to ensure we produce products that the rest of the world wants. The matter is in our hands. In particular, the issue of pricing is in the hands of the consumers to demand what they want. They have a choice between a number of different outlets. It is in the hands of the suppliers to produce the products their customers want.

Senator Jim Walsh: I support the call by Senators Alex White and MacSharry for a debate on job creation. We should consider ideas like England’s green investment bank. We must concentrate on unemployment. It will take some time for the numbers of unemployed to reduce, which is the inevitable outcome of any recession caused by a financial meltdown. I join Senators who discussed the EUROSTAT figures. It is alarming that, although we are in a recession, our prices are among the highest in Europe. There are a number of reasons, including the Tesco monopoly mentioned by Senator Mooney. I was taken by Senator Quinn’s comments, in that it is up to the consumers to play their part. Unfortunately, they are not playing their part. Senator O’Toole might be surprised to hear me say it, but I concur that the market does not work in every scenario. Where it does not, we should be prepared to regulate. At this point, we should consider price controls. My final point is on a related matter. I seek a debate on last week’s comments by the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland on improving our competitiveness and the impediment posed by the joint labour agreements to job creation. Many of these agreements predate the introduction of the minimum wage. Not so long ago, we debated the construction industry. A large number of the people who are unemployed come from that industry. General operatives’ wage rates in the industry are 40% higher than they are in Germany. Will the Leader arrange a combined debate on these issues? Prices relate to wages and vice versa. I would like an urgent debate as soon as possible.

Senator Nicky McFadden: I rise to extend my sympathy to the Corbally family. Valuable life was wasted in cold blood. I commend the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Fachtna Murphy, on the sensitive way in which he spoke during the lunchtime news about the two young men’s families and the teenager badly injured in the back of the car. I question how the good, honest and decent people of Neilstown in the Clondalkin area are able to live in peace and comfort. I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to attend the House urgently to debate justice and how we are dealing with gangland crime. Children number among all of these families, yet drugs, greed and money have become the catalyst for the degeneration of society. I urge the Leader to bring the Minister to the House to discuss how we are going to deal with the matter. On another issue, Mr. P. J. Stone has come out strongly on the revolving door system in the prison service and the fact that the Thornton Hall project is not proceeding. Planning per- mission was obtained to build a road and monumental amounts of money have been spent on design teams, etc. It is clear the penal reform system is not working. We should have a debate on how we rehabilitate prisoners and persuade people not to take this degenerate route towards killing people without necessity. These two points need to be discussed urgently because we are talking about a breakdown of our society. People need to be able to live in peace and harmony without the threat of violence consistently hanging over their heads. 651 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator : On the points raised by Senator O’Toole and others, I ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on consumer rights, pricing and the EUROSTAT survey. Senator Quinn is right in saying there is no strong consumer lobby in Ireland. There should be a consumer group in every town monitoring prices, similar to the name and shame campaign I launched here on petrol and diesel prices. I was followed by the Fine Gael Party which I hope will rebuild its website on the issue of prices.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: There is a reference to “Rip-off Ireland” on the website.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions, please.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It was called “Rip-off Ireland”.

Senator Terry Leyden: If there was a strong consumer group in every town, with prices being published every week in the local newspaper showing exactly who was the most competitive, the people would respond, as would Tesco, Dunnes and all the others.

An Cathaoirleach: What question does the Senator have for the Leader?

Senator Terry Leyden: I have a question for him, to which I hope he will respond, although it might be more appropriate for the Cathaoirleach to do so. Senator Regan’s contribution in The IrishMail on Sunday was extraordinary in that he was second-guessing the work of the committee chaired by the Cathaoirleach. I am surprised the Cathaoirleach is not taking action because I regard what the Senator is doing as being in contempt of the hearings being held into the matter. He is reflecting on another barrister who is not a senior counsel, as yet, namely, Senator Alex White, as well as Senators Fitzgerald, O’Donovan——-

An Cathaoirleach: I chair the Seanad and do not need anyone to tell me how I should do so. The House is hearing questions to the Leader on the Order of Business and I do not want to hear comments to Members across the floor about what they did or did not do, or put in print.

Senator Terry Leyden: I am not reflecting on anyone, but I want to know whether the Cathaoirleach read The Irish Mail on Sunday. If not, he should do so. You should bring that man before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to refer his questions to the Leader. We are on the Order of Business.

Senator Terry Leyden: There might be more of a response to Fintan O’Toole than there was——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is out of order.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator might make the headlines.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Leyden not to lower the standard in the House. If he keeps this up, I shall ask him to leave.

Senator Terry Leyden: I thought I was raising it, actually. He is the one who is lowering it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is Senator Leyden now the Cathaoirleach? He should respect the Chair. 652 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator Terry Leyden: You are the assassin.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, we shall have none of that across the floor. That language is uncalled for and I ask the Senator to withdraw it immediately.

Senator Terry Leyden: I meant to say “political assassin”, but I withdraw it.

An Cathaoirleach: I did not hear the words “political assassin”, only “assassin”.

Senator Terry Leyden: I withdraw it.

An Cathaoirleach: I do not want this to continue on the Order of Business. I call Senator Mullen.

Senator Rónán Mullen: The Cathaoirleach might reset the start button.

An Cathaoirleach: It has been pressed half-way.

Senator Rónán Mullen: It is customary for Members to address points to the Leader or the Cathaoirleach at this point in the proceedings. I would be grateful, however, if the Leader or Green Party Senators for whom I have the highest regard conveyed to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, that many have expressed disquiet at his comments on the rights of church leaders to comment on legislation. I refer, in particular, to the Civil Partnership Bill, on which he said something to the effect that he thought the era of church interference had come to an end. Archbishop Martin spoke with his usual clarity when he observed that only one year ago some politicians had been giving out about church leaders for not being vocal enough in making their position on the Lisbon treaty known. I was disappointed at the Minister’s comments and believe they reflect a failure to understand the views of all groups within civic society must be welcomed. As a Minister, he should welcome the participation of all groups in the debate. Since I have no doubt he would not object to church pronouncements in support of environmental protection, I can only conclude it was a cheap shot given the perceived weakness of the church at the moment. I regret it. It would be greatly to his credit if he took an opportunity to withdraw the comment, having reflected on it. The bishops are correct in calling for a free vote on this issue, particularly as it has to do with delicate issues of conscience.

An Cathaoirleach: What is the Senator’s question to the Leader?

Senator Rónán Mullen: It would be very regrettable if politicians got worked up about issues such as pub closing times or country sports but were not seen to support a free vote when important issues relating to family, marriage and sensitive issues of conscience are concerned.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Children know when a gesture of discipline is a loving one as opposed to a self-indulgent one. We should seek to educate parents but not to over-regulate family life.

An Cathaoirleach: Time now, Senator. I call Senator Dearey.

Senator : I ask the Leader for an urgent resumption of the debate on health services we had in the House with the Minister for Health and Children the week before last. During that debate, I put it to her that the reconfiguration of health services in the north east was being done in a hasty and premature way given the inability of the Lourdes hospital in 653 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

[Senator Mark Dearey.] Drogheda to deal with the additional load resulting from the closure of acute services at the Louth hospital. It is with a heavy heart that I have to say this move has gone ahead. I am concerned, angry and dismayed at this move. The Minister has the power under Part 7 of the Health Act 2004 to direct the Health Service Executive review its transformation programme in the north east and suspend it pending a decision on whether the Lourdes hospital is fit to be the de facto regional hospital. I believe it is not and most people in the region do not see it as such either. Given its litany of disastrous malpractice and record on hygiene, which I admit it is making strenuous efforts to improve, it is not fit to take the additional load that is about to be imposed on it. I look forward to the resumption of the debate on health services so that the Minister can respond to my plea for a suspension of the transformation programme in the north east. For Senator Norris’s information, the Green Party always opposed the groceries order being revoked. While I was not a Member at the time, as a councillor I opposed it being rescinded. I saw such a move as not being in the best interests of the indigenous food sector. Instead, I saw it as a breach of the ancient model of retailing of selling as much as possible in as small a space as possible in as short a time as possible. The order stood generations and town centres well. It is a model that needs to be re-examined now that the era of cheap credit and energy, which led to the proliferation of the large out-of-town retail park model is coming to an end. Town centres are beginning to claim for themselves their function again. In that light, the groceries order needs to be revisited.

Senator : I join colleagues on this side of the House who have raised concerns about some of the legislation to be dealt with in the House this week. I have particular views on the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill which I have voiced before. In the past weeks I have asked the Leader for a debate on the care of the elderly, particularly for supported care homes and Alzheimer’s care. Every day of the week I am told by members of the public that it is appalling the Oireachtas is devoting a large amount of time to debating stag hunting when people are worried about where their elderly parents, aunts or uncles will see out the rest of their lives. There are also other issues of concern to people which have been raised by other Senators. The Leader is on the record as saying we would have a debate on the care of the elderly before the summer recess yet we will sit for four days this week and it is not on the schedule. It is particularly disappointing listening to Senator Boyle’s comments on what the Opposition should have in its Private Members’ time. We had statements on employment last week and most of the Government speakers praised the Government’s belated action with regard to a holiday on PRSI. There will be a two hour debate tomorrow night on the very same thing they were speaking about last week, that is, the kind of self-congratulatory motion the Government side always introduces on Private Members’ business. If the Leader cannot hold a debate on care of the elderly during regular time, perhaps he could put it down during Government Private Members’ time.

Senator Eugene Regan: Hear, hear.

Senator John Paul Phelan: The Leader should have done as much this week. I wish to see the matter discussed as soon as possible.

Senator Eugene Regan: He should do it. 654 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator John Paul Phelan: I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Cummins’s statement on the sufferers of cystic fibrosis. This is a real issue of life and death. We are discussing stags and greyhounds here this week but these people are worried about whether they will live or die, a shocking indictment of where the Government’s priorities lie.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I refer to the importance of what Senator Rónán Mullen said with regard to free speech not only for one church, but for all churches. I compliment the Church of Ireland bishops which has been very much to the fore on the issue. I have no wish to go into the issue but the Leader should acknowledge the importance of what Senator Rónán Mullen said with regard to upholding the right of free speech of churches, groups and individ- uals and to interact with any debate on any legislation in the State. If we suggest in some way that it is not politically correct to do so then what we have is a dictatorship in disguise. All genuine democrats in the State contribute to the maintenance of an ordered and civilised society. Central to this way of life is law and order. This law and order is so well served by the Garda Síochána. The massacre of two young men recently must have sounded alarm bells for everyone in the State once again. In effect, it means the gang wars going on at the moment are virtually out of control. In the past, we were always particularly comfortable with the notion that good would always succeed over evil. There may be a growing misconception or perception abroad at the moment that we should let the gangs fight it out and eliminate each other. We saw exactly the same in Chicago with the Mafia and we know precisely what happened to society as a result of that. I agree with Senator Frances Fitzgerald that we need to prioritise on issues which are fundamental to the continuation of an ordered society. I call on the Leader to hold a debate specifically on this issue before the summer recess. I am concerned that we are acquiescing at the moment to a cancer in our society that we should confront.

Senator : I wish to address the issue raised by Senators Mullen and Ó Murchú in the past few minutes. It is important that those of us who do not necessarily agree with the views expressed by those in the hierarchy should defend their right to state them. It is difficult to maintain that they should keep their mouths shut because we do not like what they say and it is wrong do so. We should let the message go out from this House that even if these people express views of which we do not approve, the House approves their right to voice them. No group, whether the Roman Catholic church or any group especially unpopular at the moment for other reasons, should be suppressed or silenced in their views. All lobby groups and individ- uals have a right to an opinion, even if we do not share it. That should go out, as Senator Ó Murchú stated, whether we are referring to the Protestant or Catholic bishops. Let us hear and respect what they have to say. With this in mind, this side of the House should ask the Leader the position on the Civil Partnership Bill which, I presume, will come before us next week or the week after. The Seanad is meant to be less political than other Houses. Will the Leader consider allowing a free vote to Members of the House? The Cathaoirleach will correct me on this but I do not think the Seanad recognises parties or the fact that we have parties as such. On an issue of this sort, which is obviously of deep concern and a conscientious concern to Members of this House, it would be appropriate that the Bill should go to a free vote rather than a party vote. It has been a long time, if ever, since the Seanad has been allowed a free vote on an issue of this sort but the Government is not threatened by it. Even if that Bill was defeated or amended there would be no threat to the Government and the Bill itself might be improved. I ask the Leader to consider that in the light of the strong feelings held by members of his own party and by other members of this House.

655 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

Senator John Carty: I support Senator O’Toole and many other colleagues who spoke on the EUROSTAT. It is damning that a quote cannot be given by the factories for lamb given that we have the second highest prices in Europe. Will the Leader ask the two relevant Ministers to come into the House? As Senator Ellis outlined, there is a cartel which has to be broken if farmers are to get an equitable price for their produce. If what is going on continues there will be no farmers to produce and then we will know their value. I support Senator O’Donovan’s call for a debate on fisheries. Senator McCarthy and I attended a meeting recently in Brussels on fisheries where it was stressed that the next couple of weeks will be vitally important to the fishing industry so far as the European concept is concerned. On a lighter note, I am delighted the Cathaoireach has got a new ally across the way in Senator Buttimer who will support him and is seeking respect for the Chair.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I refer to the viciousness of the criminal gangs here. The murders last night were atrocious. It is a miracle that the teenager in the back of the car escaped with his life. We wish that youngster a full recovery. It is appalling that there is such scant regard for human life in this day and age. It is astounding that some prisoners have access to mobile telephones and blackBerries while in some parts of the country some Garda stations do not even have e-mail facilities. For the Garda to detect crime and secure convictions it is essential that every resource it needs is supplied. I support the comments of the Garda Commissioner to that effect on the radio earlier today. We must bear in mind that at the end of the day a family has lost two sons and men and women who have lost two brothers. It is an appalling tragedy. I object to the use of the term “known to the Garda”. We know the scale of corporate crime during the boom. We know the people who have bankrupted the State who literally walk the streets as free people and they will never be termed “known to the Garda”. That does not lessen the crime of robbing two young men of their lives and putting a family into turmoil and grief and the tit for tat killings that may follow as somebody else, somebody who is completely innocent, may be caught in that cross-fire. It is imperative that the resources the commissioner speaks of so often are provided to him and the force to enable them to do an effective job and put this type of scum behind bars where it belongs.

Senator : I share Senator Fitzgerald’s concern at the escalation of gangland crime and not only murder but double murder on our streets. When feasible I would wholeheartedly welcome a debate on this matter. My concern is that one of these gangland activities will involve some innocent member or members of the public who may be injured or killed. Will the Leader arrange briefing documents in regard to regulations governing health related service providers, such as all types of counselling services, professional, ethical and so on? Particularly today one will be drawn to media coverage on pregnancy advice and counselling services. There is also a huge industry in psychotherapy and cosmetic surgery. Will the Leader to ask the Minister for Health and Children when she comes before the House on the health debate to include these issues and the regulations governing them? Perhaps we could have the information prior to the Minister coming before the House.

Senator : Like other Senators I ask for a debate on freedom of conscience. I am cognisant that there have been question marks over the hierarchy of a couple of churches speaking out on the issue. It is incredible that in this day and age people would not understand that not only does the hierarchy have a right to speak out but the hierarchy of the churches has a duty to speak out on the gospels. That leads to the Civil Partnership Bill. The European courts has now decided that it is not a fundamental human right notwithstanding the fact that it was certainly misrepresented. It was in the air that if we did not pass the Bill it would be 656 Order of 29 June 2010. Business directed by Europe. That simply has not happened. One of the bases for the production of the Civil Partnership Bill has now been taken from underneath it.

Senator : I appreciate the Cathaoirleach allowing me to speak so I will be brief. As a country and a State we depend completely on the role of carers in the home. As Government policy has shifted towards keeping people in their own homes we depend on carers even more. I appreciate that the Leader has indicated that should the pressure of business allow he will try to facilitate a debate on carers before the end of the session. Will this debate be taken before the end of the session? It would mean a lot to carers to know that we acknowledge and recognise their role and that we are making provision for the future.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Fitzgerald, O’Toole, Alex White, Cummins, McFadden, Ó Murchú, McCarthy and Callely raised various issues regarding ministerial portfolios. As we all know the Minister for Health and Children will be in the House again this week and next week when it is timely that all the issues on health should be put to her. In regard to the information being requested of me today, she has been very forthcoming and has been extremely support- ive. Her appearance in this House two weeks ago was first class, as I said on the Order of Business last week, and in respect of all information required she was extremely forthcoming. I agree with Senator Cummins in regard to cystic fibrosis patients who live up to 10 years longer in the North of Ireland. This is a serious issue and one that I am sure the Minister realises. However, we want to get her response when she comes to the House next week. I join the many Senators I have mentioned already, including Senator Buttimer, in their comments on the two horrific murders that took place last night. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has the greatest number of requests for legislation to deal with the increasing difficulties faced by the Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner. I convey our condol- ences to the family of the two bereaved and wish the young man well who has been seriously injured. On the level of investment being made in the Garda Síochána, I noted that the two new Garda stations opened last week at Ballymote and Claremorris cost in excess of €11 million at a time of scarce resources. The commissioner is on record as having acknowledged and thanked the Minister for the investment being made. However, the challenges facing the commissioner, the Garda Síochána, the Government and we as a nation are mind boggling. We never thought we would see the day that one house in a nice quiet residential area would have a €9.5 million factory manufacturing illegal substances. Two guns were also found there. Some €60,000 was found in another area and millions of euros worth of drugs. The men and women who represent us in the Garda Síochána need all the support and help they can get and it behoves Members on all sides of the House to ensure they receive it. We have an excellent Minister for Justice and Law Reform who is doing everything he can to give the Garda Commissioner, at his request, the tools required to beat the criminals at their own game. Senators O’Toole, Norris, Mooney, Coffey, Ellis, Quinn, Walsh, Leyden and Carty expressed serious concern about the EUROSTAT report on the major differences in prices. I understand the report is nine months out of date and that there has been an 8.6% reduction in prices here since the work on the report was carried out. I also understand there has been a 5% increase in the strength of sterling against the dollar. If that is the case, there is a serious difference in prices for consumers today from what they were then. I chaired the committee which dealt with the groceries order. As Senator O’Toole correctly pointed out, all parties — the Labour Party, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil — which were represented on that hard working committee by Members such as Senators Leyden, Coghlan and Callely supported retaining the order. There is no way it should be legal to sell below cost. It is that simple. It is unfair to say those 657 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

[Senator Donie Cassidy.] of us who were reared and still live in rural villages are better off now than we were when there were small shops in villages. The big supermarkets are eliminating the corner shop. We had a choice of up to five outlets in which to buy products, but that is no longer the case. I am still a member of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and will bring this matter to the attention of its Chairman after the Order of Business. I will ask him to convene a special meeting of the committee to resume our deliberations on the EUROSTAT figures. I will refer back to the House with the findings of the committee after the summer recess. However, I understand there has been a substantial reduction of 8.6% in prices here since the figures were collected for the report. Senators Alex White, MacSharry, Boyle, Ellis and Walsh called for a special debate on investment in the economy, investment banks and the new investment bank in England. It is a matter of huge importance. I was delighted when the confirmed last week that 5% of GDP would continue to be invested in capital projects. As Senator Ellis € 4o’clock pointed out, this amounts to a figure of 6 billion, which sum is crucial for invest- ment in major projects. In the dual carriageways from Dublin to Cork, Dublin to Galway and Dublin to Limerick we can see the massive infrastructural investment that has taken place, which investment was necessary and from which our constituents are benefitting hugely. I will have no difficulty in organising a debate on the issue. During Private Members’ business tomorrow night we will debate a Fianna Fáil motion on job creation and everything relating to the schemes being brought forward such as the PRSI incentive scheme. If a Member has a good idea in that regard, I certainly wish to hear it. I will also allocate whatever time is required, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, for debates on the issue to support whatever can be done to create jobs. Senator MacSharry referred to the enterprise boards and the reconfiguration being discussed and considered by the Minister. Like the Senator, I acknowledge the great performance of the boards which are out-performing many Government agencies. I hope this will be acknowledged by the Government. I will certainly invite the Minister to come to the House to discuss his proposals for the future of the boards. Senator Norris raised a human rights issue relating to China. I will convey his strong views to the Minister for Foreign Affairs after the Order of Business. Senators Regan and Leyden spoke about State spending. Senator Regan also referred to €17 million being spent on legal advice. As we all know, legal advice is the one area that appears to be unaffected by the recession. We must have an all-day debate on the high fees of barristers, solicitors and everybody connected with the legal profession. I ask Members of the House who are members of the legal profession, including Senators Regan and Alex White, and have expertise in the area to come to the assistance of the State at this crucial time in the coun- try’s history.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Well said.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The call made today is timely. I will seek the assistance of colleagues on all sides of the House in that regard after the summer recess.

Senator Terry Leyden: Write about that in The Irish Mail on Sunday.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Leader did not answer the question the Senator asked.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The Senator is not a legal practitioner.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Answer the question he asked. The Leader is ducking and diving. 658 Order of 29 June 2010. Business

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator Buttimer.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Leader should answer the question he was asked. It might send me a signal.

Senator Terry Leyden: Throw him out.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Leader would not answer the question he was asked. There is a cosy cartel over there all right.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer, please give the Leader a chance to answer.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He did not answer the question.

An Cathaoirleach: Give him a chance to do so. He has not concluded.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He has had 20 minutes in which to do so, but he has not answered it. He has been waffling for 20 minutes.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator O’Donovan referred to the greyhound Bill. The business of the House is ordered well in advance; everybody receives the schedule for the following week on the previous Thursday. That will continue to be the case. Senators O’Donovan and Carty called for another debate on the fishing industry. I have no difficulty with that proposal and will endeavour to ensure the debate takes place before the summer recess. I will convey to the Minister the strong views expressed by Senator Keaveney. With regard to the issues raised by Senator McFadden, I will see what I can do and reply to the Senator on the Order of Business tomorrow morning. Senator Walsh called for a debate on competitiveness. I will arrange such a debate. Senator Dearey spoke about the debate on health issues due to resume in the presence of the Minister next week and issues of concern in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. The Minister can update the Senator and the House in that regard next week. Senators Phelan and Corrigan sought a debate on carers and the elderly. Senator Corrigan has asked for such a debate on many occasions in the last few weeks. This will be the closing debate in the House on Wednesday, 14 July, before the summer recess. Senators Mullen, Ó Murchú, Ross and Hanafin expressed their strong views on free speech and defended the right of church leaders to express their views on the difficulties being experi- enced in various areas. I fully support this. Senator Ross also called for a free vote on the Civil Partnership Bill. Other Senators also spoke on the issue. The Bill will be brought before the House before the summer recess. I will inform Members next week when it will take place. Senator Callely spoke about briefing documents relating to the health portfolio. To my know- ledge, all briefing documents can be easily accessed in the Oireachtas Library and on the Internet. However, I will make inquiries about the matter the Senator has brought to my attention today.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Fitzgerald has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That a debate on the issues that led to recent gangland killings be taken today.” Is the amend- ment being pressed? 659 European Union 29 June 2010. Directive: Motion

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 30.

Tá

Bradford, Paul. Mullen, Rónán. Burke, Paddy. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. O’Reilly, Joe. Cannon, Ciaran. O’Toole, Joe. Phelan, John Paul. Coffey, Paudie. Prendergast, Phil. Cummins, Maurice. Quinn, Feargal. Doherty, Pearse. Regan, Eugene. Donohoe, Paschal. Ross, Shane. Fitzgerald, Frances. Ryan, Brendan. McCarthy, Michael. White, Alex. McFadden, Nicky.

Níl

Boyle, Dan. Leyden, Terry. Brady, Martin. MacSharry, Marc. Butler, Larry. McDonald, Lisa. Callely, Ivor. Mooney, Paschal. Carroll, James. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Carty, John. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cassidy, Donie. O’Brien, Francis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Donovan, Denis. Daly, Mark. O’Malley, Fiona. Dearey, Mark. O’Sullivan, Ned. Ellis, John. Ormonde, Ann. Feeney, Geraldine. Walsh, Jim. Glynn, Camillus. White, Mary M. Hanafin, John. Wilson, Diarmuid. Keaveney, Cecilia.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Jerry Buttimer and Maurice Cummins; Níl, Senators Niall Ó Brolcháin and

Amendment declared lost

European Union Treaty: Motion Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Frame- work Decision 2004/68/JHA

a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 27th April 2010.”.

Question put and agreed to. 660 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon 29 June 2010. Revenue Levy) Bill 2010

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motion Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 23rd July, 2010 and ending on 30th June, 2011.”

Question put and agreed to.

Post-Release (Restrictions on Certain Activities) Orders Scheme 2010: Motion Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Post-Release (Restrictions on Certain Activities) Orders Scheme 2010, copies of which were laid in draft form before Seanad Éireann on 19th January, 2010.”.

Question put and agreed to.

Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010: Committee Stage

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3 Senator Joe O’Reilly: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, after line 53, to insert the following:

“(6) No carbon revenue levy is payable by an electricity generator that has purchased the full value of their carbon allowances available to them until the end of 2012 in a commercial transaction.”.

The logic behind this amendment is that it is very unfair to expect a new entrant to come into the market on the basis of already existing market structures and which will continue to be in place from now until 2012. A new entrant into the market will have to pay a separate lump sum for the carbon allowances it will require. It is also to be noted that this lump sum is to be paid on top of what it pays for the power stations it has purchased. One of the ways in which I believe this to be unfair is with regard to market competitiveness. Any new entrant will do so under existing market structures that will be in place until 2012. These structures will leave the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage as it will be competing with existing businesses which received 85% to 90% of their carbon allowances for free under the Kyoto carbon trad- ing provisions. The new entrant will be, in effect, treated the same as the existing generators who were given 90% of their carbon allowances for free and therefore the new entrant will be paying on the double. New entrants will also be competing with companies which are making unearned profits through charging customers for the release of carbon emissions for which they already have an allowance. If we are to be truly serious in our commitment to creating more jobs and incentivising more people to enter into new businesses, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. If it is financially impossible for new entrants to enter into this market we will not see any growth in this sector and as a result, the capacity to create jobs will be greatly diminished. 661 Visit of Australian 29 June 2010. Delegation

[Senator Joe O’Reilly.]

This amendment is predicated on principles of fairness and on the principle of creating the most conducive environment for job creation and creating a level playing pitch, so to speak, in competitiveness terms. This amendment proposes to address a possible anomaly in the legis- lation. I commend the amendment to the Minister and ask him to consider embodying it in the legislation, either in its totality or in a version.

Senator Jim Walsh: I have listened to the points made by Senator O’Reilly. The motivation behind his amendment is just as he articulated. Over recent years and thanks to the Minister and his Department, there has been a significant co-ordinated effort being made to inject real competition into the area of electricity generation. This is not an easy task. Many countries, in particular smaller countries such as Ireland, have had a State monopoly on the generation of electricity. The State company was established to provide for the electricity needs of the coun- try. This arrangement has provided a good example of how the semi-State sector can play a part and be efficient. The ESB has been a remarkable company, not least in the international business it has built up with its expertise in consultancy services. In order to provide competition, which is legislated for in EU regulations, there has been a growth in green energy provided by alternative suppliers and this is to be welcomed. The Minister has spearheaded the construction of the interconnectors which will provide energy from our neighbouring island and in time from France and continental Europe. The amendment recognises where significant investment has been made. I am familiar with the arrival of Endesa into the Irish market. It has purchased Tarbert and Great Island stations. Great Island station is quite close to my home and I know many of the people who have worked in Great Island. The purchase of the Great Island station means jobs and competition will all be supported. I raised the following point during the debate on Second Stage. I concur with the thrust of the legislation regarding the carbon levy, specifically where windfall profits are coming back. There is an anomaly where new entrants, who are not in production at this stage, have factored the windfall into the purchase price of the facilities. It could have the effect of creating a distortion in the market.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: That is the point of my amendment.

Senator Jim Walsh: I can see the difficulties if the Minister makes an exception for specific companies, even though the Bill makes provision for exceptions in certain areas. I am not sure it envisages this eventuality. I ask the Minister to see if there is some way this can be recognised so those with the historic investment will find themselves in a position to treat it as a windfall and repay it but those who factored the windfall into the capital costs of the purchase cost of generating stations will not be in a such a position. I hope this will not have an impact on further investment in these facilities to bring them to their maximum potential. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on the conundrum presented by Senator O’Reilly’s amendment.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again

Visit of Australian Delegation An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Before I call on the Minister to reply, Members of the House will join me in welcoming Senator John Hogg, President of the Senate of Australia, and a delegation from the Australian Parliament. They are very welcome to Ireland and to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope they enjoy their stay in Ireland.

662 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon 29 June 2010. Revenue Levy) Bill 2010

Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1: In page 5, after line 53, to insert the following: “(6) No carbon revenue levy is payable by an electricity generator that has purchased the full value of their carbon allowances available to them until the end of 2012 in a commercial transaction.”. —(Senator Joe O’Reilly) Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy ): I join with the comments of the Leas-Chathaoirleach regarding our cousins from Australia, who are very welcome. Unfortunately, I must deal with these rogues on a more immediate basis. While I am impressed by the intent of the amendment proposed by Senator O’Reilly, I cannot accept it. This is a complex area. I have sympathy with Endesa but I do not think it would be equitable to make a special case. Although Endesa purchased the generating station and the associated allowances for a significant sum, this purchase and the underlying assump- tions made by Endesa in the valuation process were commercial judgments and risk assessments made by a private sector firm. A number of factors have changed since Endesa made its valua- tion and purchase decision, including falling electricity demand and falling electricity market prices. These factors also have an impact on companies that have recently invested in and built new generation stations. This is the nature of commercial investment decisions. At the time of the Endesa purchase, there could be no certainty about the future price of carbon and no commitments were given to any party that generators would continue to be able to benefit from the single electricity market committee decision. The single electricity market committee decision specifically stated it was up to governments to recover windfall gains from generators arising from the decision. As such, any preferential treatment to exempt an individual firm would not be justified. Investment in new power generation tends to have a projected lifespan of over 30 years. This levy is simply recovering a temporary windfall over the next two and a half years so any effect it might have on investments with such a long projected payback should be minimal. Endesa is likely to pay small amounts under this levy since generating stations are rarely dispatched by the market operator. This legislation carries through the Government’s commitment to ensuring a transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive electricity market. In the long run, upholding this commitment is far more important than providing for preferential treatment in this case. I can understand the intent of the amendment but I cannot accept it.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I join the Leas-Chathaoirleach in welcoming our visitors from Australia. I am disappointed the Minister is unable to accept the amendment or the spirit of the amend- ment and come back with an altered version. I do not see that the matter merits further elaboration. I have put the argument and I do not see the point in rehashing it.

Senator Jim Walsh: I have listened with interest to the Minister’s reply and I can understand the point he makes. He cannot appear, and should not be, discriminatory in this matter. I have a local concern that Endesa can get up and running. The broader issue is competition in the electricity generating market and in this respect it is highly desirable that Endesa is up and running. I appreciate what the Minister said about companies making commercial decisions and bearing the consequences of those decisions. If some of the factors used in modelling the internal rate of return or if its assumptions turn out to be inaccurate, the company carries 663 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon 29 June 2010. Revenue Levy) Bill 2010

[Senator Jim Walsh.] responsibility for that. One would like to see that happen in the banking sector but I am conscious of the overall consequences for the economy if we took that line. As a principle, I cannot disagree with the Minister and the points he made. Is there another way of belling the cat in order to ensure a company that has made a specific commitment in terms of capital investment and in being a participant in the energy market is not going to be deterred or disadvantaged seriously because of the manner in which this is being applied? Can the Minister see how we can ensure we have an additional player in the electricity generating market?

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Without repeating the argument, I want to use Senator Walsh’s last phrase, belling the cat. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance that, without accepting the amendment, he will examine the question and see if there is a method of creating fairness. I take his point on market forces but this is outside the control of the company. The potential for it to happen existed but there is potential for many things to happen. It is unfair to Endesa and we must try to create a competitive environment. Ultimately, this would be good for consumers. Will the Minister assure the House that he will examine this matter and see if there is another way to bell the cat? If so, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the interests of achieving the objective of the amendment, which is job creation, competitiveness and a successful economy. That is the thrust of our approach to the Bill and to all legislation before the House.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I am keen to see Endesa investing in our country and in power plants. That is in our interest. When the companies were coming into this country, one of the commit- ments I gave was that they were coming into a market where there is transparency and non- discriminatory arrangements. This was the crucial centrepiece of the commitment I gave to investors. They were entering a fair and competitive market. This is an important principle from which I do not want to divert. In hard case instances like this, where we see companies in different circumstances, those different circumstances are a vagary of market investment decisions rather than Government regulatory decisions. In the long run it would be much worse and act as a disincentive towards long-term investment. It is important to give a commitment, as the Government has done, to have a regulated competitive market to benefit all players equally. This is the single commitment I can give.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 2 in the name of Senator O’Reilly is deemed to be out of order, as it pertains to taxation.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 3 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Joe O’Reilly: While I accept the Cathaoirleach’s ruling arising from Standing Orders and its objective legitimacy, it is a pity Members are unable to debate the proposed amendment because it was an attempt to return more of the unearned profits directly to consumers, reduce costs and charges to consumers and lower energy prices. While drawing Members’ attention to my party’s advocacy of this legislation, my colleagues, Senators Coffey and Buttimer, said on Second Stage last week was that Fine Gael took grave exception to the tardiness of its introduc- tion. It is a great failure of the Government that this was not achieved a couple of years ago. Fine Gael has been advocating implementation of such a windfall tax, through Deputy Coveney in Dáil Éireann, for a couple of years. Consequently, this legislation is welcome, although it is 664 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon 29 June 2010. Revenue Levy) Bill 2010 late in appearing. Fine Gael advocated such measures early, continues to do so and still sup- ports the principle behind it. I ask the Minister to consider imposing an 80% rate of tax to enable better benefits to accrue to the consumer and reduce energy costs. One of the best methods and most likely ways in which success will return to the economy and enable the country to emerge from recession is by improving competitiveness in respect of exports and domestic production. Our pricing must be competitive. Central to such competitiveness and competitive pricing is the cost of energy. This is the reason I suggest to the Minister that a rate of 80%, rather than 65%, would be more apt. Electricity generators are earning a profit by charging consumers for the cost of carbon, despite having received an allocation for carbon allowances from the Government that allows them to emit carbon freely until 2012. I will not go through the case to be made for the amendment, given that it has been ruled out of order, but my point is that in the interests of consumers, competitiveness and creating an economy fit to compete in global markets, there is merit in increasing the charge to 80%. Although Fine Gael supports the legislation, I again underline a point without digressing from the legislation in hand. However, the commentariat, to use that often used expression, in the economic and every other sphere now accepts that Fine Gael’s position on the good bank- bad bank proposal was correct. Government policy is evolving towards that position, as is the proposal Anglo Irish Bank has made to the European Commission. Fine Gael is equally correct on this legislation. This is another example of the party’s foresight, as I am sure Senator Walsh will acknowledge. Although it may take the party a while to get across its message, it is happy that it will actualise at some point, although one would wish to see it occur earlier. I reiterate that Fine Gael’s preference is for a rate of 80%, rather than 65%.

Senator Jim Walsh: I accept the principle that there is no representation without taxation. Therefore, the Lower House should be the one that makes financial decisions. However, given the parlous state of the public finances, perhaps there might be a role for the Seanad, at least an advisory role, with regard to financial matters——

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Hear, hear.

Senator Jim Walsh: ——rather than consistently having amendments ruled out of order. On the subject under discussion, I am not sufficiently proficient to give a view, but I made a point on Second Stage regarding a matter of concern to me, in respect of which I applauded the introduction of this legislation. Taking away such windfall profits from the generating com- panies makes them focus to a much greater extent on their commercial cost base, rather than having in-built cushions which sometimes give rise to inefficiencies. With regard to the rate of 65%, I understand this means such companies will retain 35% of the profits which, on the face of it, appears high. Perhaps there is a good reason for this.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: The rate of 65% as set out in the legislation is included for a reason. Setting the rate at this level allows the Government to recover a substantial portion of the windfall gains from generators but also to ensure it avoids over-recovery of funds. The latter is a real risk because the levy is only an approximate figure of the windfall gains electricity generators are earning. The easiest and most precise solution would be to charge electricity generators the market price for each free carbon allowance they receive. However, I under- stand this would be in direct contravention of EU Directive 203/87 which requires member states to allocate at least 90% of carbon allowances to generators free of charge. Since inter- ference with the terms of the directive would be legally impossible, the Government cannot levy for the free allowances directly and has been obliged to consider other options. 665 Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon 29 June 2010. Revenue Levy) Bill 2010

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

The structure of the single electricity market means that the precise calculation of the wind- fall gain for each generator in each half hour period would be a technical and administrative nightmare and require significant time and resources to accomplish, if it was possible to make it. Further complicating the issue is the fact that a generator may have been obliged to purchase a portion of the carbon allowances it is using. A generator receives its free carbon allowance allocation from the EPA based on the national allocation plans. The current plan which covers the period from 2008 to 2012 based the allowances to generators on an average figure of their output in the period from 2003 to 2004. Whether a generator is required to purchase additional allowances depends on how much its current output varies from this historical output figure. Needless to say, if a generator has been obliged to purchase allowances on the market, it is not earning windfall gains on that portion of its allowances. The Government also faces the difficulty that a certain portion of the emissions for each generator is attributable to in-house consumption, that is, electricity consumed directly by the generator and not sold to the market. Since it is not sold to the market, generators are not earning a return for such output, yet tye are required to surrender allowances for it. Therefore, there is no windfall gain on this element of generators’ emissions. It should be remembered that generators are required to incorporate the opportunity costs of carbon on a day-ahead basis and that all scheduled generators receive the same system marginal price. Therefore, it can be stated the system marginal price reflects the anticipated opportunity cost of carbon. However, the method of calculation of the levy is to use a simple arithmetic average of the daily price of carbon allowances during the levy period, rather than what generators actually bid and receive for carbon. The difference between the two is unlikely to be significant but is yet another abstraction the Government has been obliged to create to ensure the levy can work effectively in practice. For these reasons, I have been obliged to adjust the levy amount downwards by a percentage rate; 65% is my Department’s best estimate of a figure that will raise significant levy proceeds, while avoiding over-recovery. My concern is that in setting the rate higher, one would create a risk that the levy would start to claw back sums from generators in excess of the windfall gains they are making in practice. One of the fundamental tenets of the levy is that it can be justified because generators are, in effect, getting something for nothing. We should not lose sight of that in trying to increase the percentage rate at this point. The Bill, however, provides the Minister with power to amend that figure. I will keep the issue under draft review and conduct a review of the percentage rate if I deem that generators are getting off too lightly. As per the Bill, any such review will be conducted in public with any interested parties having an opportunity to respond to any proposed changes.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: That is encouraging in the context of what we are trying to achieve. It is fair. How often does the Minister propose to conduct the review? Would it be an annual review?

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Given the legislation is limited to two and a half years, by definition I do not think it would be an annual review. It is not a multi-annual approach in the sense it is coming to an end. I imagine once a year would be reasonable in that timeframe.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration. 666 Business 29 June 2010. of Seanad

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Senator Jim Walsh: I thank the Minister. It is always a pleasure when he comes to the House to discuss these issues, many of which are technical. He engages with the House and is very forthcoming with information. I compliment him.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I endorse the remarks of Senator Walsh and thank the Minister for his engagement with the arguments made. He does so on all occasions when he attends. I also thank the civil servants who accompany the Minister. I thank my colleagues, Senators Coffey and Buttimer, who took Second Stage of the legislation for me last week because I was away. I regret I was not present for the entire debate. I know they will have done an outstanding job and will have applied their usual diligence and capacity to it. I would like to have been present for the entire debate and I apologise to colleagues for my absence. I thank them for their efforts. The legislation is worthwhile. I hope it will further enhance the economic potential of the country.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Eamon Ryan): I thank both Senators very much indeed. I thank the Seanad for its assistance. We must have put five pieces of legislation through the Houses in the past year. That is not an insignificant number of Bills from a Department which is relatively small in Government terms. It is a large output. The Seanad had a key role to play in respect of many of them. I thank my officials for their work, which in this case has been highly productive and timely. We have got the Bill through in time to put it into place, subject to the President signing it. That will have a direct effect and benefit on many Irish people working in companies using energy. This is substantial legislation and I very much appreciate the House’s effort in getting it through in time. My officials have done excellent work in bringing the Bill to fruition. I look forward to returning to the Seanad again with the next Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010: Motion for Earlier Signature. Senator Jim Walsh: I move:

That, pursuant to subsection 2° of section 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution, Seanad Éireann concurs with the Government in a request to the President to sign the Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill 2010 on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to her.”.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.

Business of Seanad Senator Donie Cassidy: I seek the support of the House to suspend the sitting for a further ten minutes until 4.55 p.m. The Minister is on his way.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: Of course.

An Cathaoirleach: There is a vote in the Dáil.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I am willing to agree to a suspension until 5.05 p.m. 667 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

An Cathaoirleach: Until the conclusion of the vote in the Dáil.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Until 5.05 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4.50 p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

Road Traffic Bill 2009: Second Stage

Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): It is good to note when other matters are being discussed in the other House that the Seanad, in keeping with the role it plays, will discuss this afternoon matters of life and death. The Bill represents the continued resolve of the Government to save lives and reduce injuries on our roads through appropriate legislation that supports our policies on traffic law and road safety generally. That is why I am pleased to take the Road Traffic Bill 2009 in the House this afternoon. Senators will be aware that road safety is to the fore of our national consciousness. Legis- lators from all sides of the House and policy makers are fully aware of the pain and anguish associated with the road collision statistics we see on a daily basis. In this context, the Government and all parties in the Oireachtas have responded to the issues through the promotion of legislation to support road safety initiatives and the ongoing advancement of safety performance. The cohesive policy structure that binds the various road safety measures has been set down by the three Government road safety strategies to date. The current strategy, covering the period 2007 to 2012, has been the trigger for many of the major provisions being discussed here and contained in the Road Traffic Bill 2009. To emphasise the importance that the Oireachtas places on road safety, this is the sixth major legislative initiative that has been taken on traffic law in the past decade. The legislative progression during that time has seen the introduction of many innovations: the fixed charge and penalty points systems, a new structure of speed limits based on metric values, the introduc- tion of mandatory alcohol-testing checkpoints, the establishment of the Road Safety Authority and most recently and the introduction of the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between this country and the United Kingdom. The advancement of road traffic legislation reflects a response to the changing nature of road usage. This past decade has seen a significant increase in vehicle volumes. To put this in context, there were nearly 2.5 million registered vehicles in Ireland by the end of 2009. This was a 27% increase on 2003, a 74% increase on 1997 and a 275% increase on 1983. The increased number of vehicles on the road has led to many changes, a principal one being the unprecedented levels of investment in our road networks. This investment continues into 2010 with allocations of more than €412 million for regional and local roads as well as €1.1 billion for the national roads programme. A total of €15 million has also been provided towards road safety measures under the programme. This persistent investment has played a major role in reducing deaths and injuries on our roads in recent years. The major inter-urban roads prog- ramme, which is well advanced and will be completed by the end of this year, is a significant improvement and will continue to support our safety objectives for many years to come. Road safety was one of my priorities as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the 1997-2002 Government. The first road safety strategy, published in 1998, and subsequent strategies have reduced the numbers of people killed on our roads. In 1997, 472 people lost their lives in collisions. These fatality records provide a sad reminder of the 668 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage losses suffered by people over the years, particularly in 1972 when road deaths reached a staggering 640 despite having a good bit less than half the number of vehicles on our roads that we do now. This figure is astonishing. In contrast to 1972, last year was the safest year on record with fatalities reaching 242. While this represents a large reduction, it also represents a great deal of pain for many people. It is never good news when discussing lives lost, but our roads are, without question, becoming safer for all users. In 2009, the European Transport Safety Council, ETSC, ranked Ireland sixth in the top ten best performing EU countries for road safety. To put this in a wider context, we were ranked 16th in 2005. Our latest high ranking position was based on figures for 2007 and it is anticipated that we will achieve even better results this year when the statistics for 2008 are taken into account. Last Tuesday, I was privileged to accept the 2010 Road Safety PIN Award from the ETSC in recognition of the Government’s sustained successful strategy in reducing road deaths. The award marks outstanding road safety performance among the 27 EU member states. The award was a tribute to the road users in Ireland for the manner in which they have embraced road safety, to the Garda and the Road Safety Authority, RSA, for their commitment to reducing fatalities and injuries on our roads and to the many campaigners who have focused on the issues of road safety and reducing the number of road deaths. Everyone has played a part and it was my privilege as Minister to receive the award on behalf of Ireland. Senators will recall that the first road safety strategy, which ran from 1998 to 2002, asserted the necessity for co-ordinating actions across a range of disciplines and organisations. It is estimated that not doing so would have resulted in the number of road deaths reaching approxi- mately 550 in 2002. A continuation of the “business as usual” approach would have seen annual road deaths rise to well beyond that figure in 2009. Through the adoption of road safety stra- tegies, we have been able to identify and link measures that reinforce the advancement of the safety message. The establishment of the Garda national traffic corps and the RSA has had a profoundly positive effect on transmitting that message through enforcement, detection, edu- cation and awareness. The current strategy was the subject of a wide-ranging consultation process, not only with the public at large, but with key stakeholders. The outcome of this process is reflected in the 126 actions in the strategy. Each of those actions has a designated stakeholder responsible for its delivery. Such debate informs policy and leads to the kind of legislative development being considered today. The experience gained to date from consultations and involvement with stakeholders has been invaluable in forming this Bill. As everyone knows, road traffic legislation is one of the most challenged in our courts and, therefore, requires that the drafting process of any new legislation must also focus on making the provisions as robust as possible. This is a concern and the Lower House had a good debate on various provisions. Good suggestions were made, some of which I was able to take on board. Others I was unable to take on board because of strong legal advice to the effect that some provisions were tried and trusted in the courts and that case law backed up the use of certain words and phrases. It is important that we bear this fact in mind as we discuss the Bill, partic- ularly on Committee and Report Stages. Turning to the specific provisions promoted in this Bill, it has passed through the Dáil and a number of amendments to strengthen its provisions were agreed. The primary focus of the legislation is to advance the road safety agenda through changing driver behaviour, particularly in the area of intoxicated driving. In this context, the Bill provides for lowering of the legal blood alcohol concentration, BAC, from 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 20 milligrammes for learner, novice and professional drivers, and from 80 milligrammes of 669 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.] alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrammes for other drivers. The equivalent levels in urine and breath will apply. This provision is central to the approach of the 2009 Bill. The Bill also provides for the mandatory testing of drivers involved in road traffic collisions where injury has occurred. It introduces administrative fixed penalties for certain drink driving offences and preliminary impairment testing to assist the Garda further in its enforcement role, particularly in respect of the increasing problem of drug driving. The Bill amends the fixed charge and penalty point provisions by introducing the option of a fixed charge payment on receipt of summons. It sets out certain presumptions in respect of the delivery of fixed charge offence notices and seeks to improve certain matters relating to the endorsement of penalty points on driver records. Regarding driving licences, the Bill amends related provisions to ensure that penalty points and disqualification can be applied to non-national driving licences and to give the Garda powers to seize a licence in certain circum- stances. In addition, the Bill amends provisions and penalties in respect of inconsiderate, care- less and dangerous driving. It also restates provisions on intoxicated driving, consequential disqualifications and fixed charge offences in a consolidated and clearer format and includes a number of minor amendments to the Road Traffic Acts. On Report Stage in the Dáil, I also introduced an enabling provision for a payment deposit scheme in respect of out-of-State drivers detected for road transport offences, initially those relating to driver hours, tachograph and operator licensing. Drivers suspected of committing these offences will be required to make a payment deposit at the roadside. It is proposed that any payment deposit received will be treated as a fixed charge or as a deposit against any fine imposed by the courts if no selection is made by the driver within the prescribed period. In more specific terms, sections 4 to 7 provide for intoxicated driving offences. The scientific evidence on drink driving is conclusive and irrefutable. Alcohol consumption impairs driving and affects driver capacity in a variety of ways, including psychomotor skills, cognitive func- tioning, choice and simple reaction times, visual function, vigilance, perception as well as the ability to divide attention and absorb information. The current road safety strategy identifies the need to legislate for and introduce a reduction in the legal blood alcohol concentration, BAC, level for drivers, but does not specify what that level should be. In determining the limit to which the BAC should be reduced, I sought the advice of the Road Safety Authority. That advice was informed by a number of issues, including known driver behaviour, past offending rates, enforcement practicalities, best international practice and research as well as analysis of data held by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. In taking the approach I have advocated in this Bill, I am encouraged by the findings and recommendation of a recent report in the UK by Sir Peter North. Drawing on new comprehen- sive research commissioned from the National Research Institute for Health and Clinical Excel- lence, the North report has recommended that the current drink drive limit in the UK be reduced immediately from 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milli- grammes per 100 millilitres. The research concludes that as many as 168 lives, approximately 7% of road deaths in the UK, could be saved in the first year of the reduced limit, rising to as many as 303 lives saved by the sixth year following any changes to the law. This could have significant implications for road safety and enforcement on the island of Ireland if it proves possible to have the same BAC levels on both sides of the Border. While the RSA’s advice does not address the issue of appropriate penalties for drink driving offences, following the reduction in the BAC level, I have given much consideration to the structure of penalties under the Road Traffic Acts for such offences. The deterrent effect of a potential disqualification is a significant factor in changing driver behaviour in this country on 670 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage drink driving. While wishing to maintain the overall principle that intoxicated driving is and should be considered a serious offence, one which attracts such automatic disqualifications, I am mindful that in providing for lower BAC levels, some recognition should be made for those detected for the first time at the lower levels. Accordingly, the Bill provides for two measures in this regard. As a transitional measure, in advance of the introduction of the lower BAC levels, provision is made to amend section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2006 to allow for an administrative option for those detected within specified lower levels, not exceeding 100 milligrammes, to pay a fixed charge, accept a six month disqualification and avoid having the matter dealt with in a court. Following the intro- duction of the new levels, penalties are provided for on payment of a fixed charge. The status of the driver and the BAC level detected will determine the disqualification period and associated penalties. For learner drivers and the recently qualified, as well as professional drivers, the penalties on payment of a fixed charge associated with the specified BAC will be three months disqualification and a €200 fine. All other drivers will receive three penalty points and a €200 fine for a first offence. This fixed charge option in lieu of court proceedings will only be available once in a three year period to drivers who are not disqualified at the time of detection. However, the application of appropriate penalties will not single-handedly save lives. Good enforcement and detection practices are also vital in achieving this aim. In this context manda- tory alcohol testing, MAT, was introduced in 2006 and has proved to be a very successful intervention. Close to 530,000 breath tests were carried out in accordance with the MAT scheme in 2009. An Garda Síochána, as a key partner, has had a major role in delivering on road safety results through ongoing roadside operations and a stringent testing regime. The percentage of drivers detected with excess alcohol levels continues to fall, thus confirming the deterrent effect of this measure. Section 9 of the Bill provides for mandatory testing of drivers involved in road traffic colli- sions where a member of the Garda attends at the scene of the collision and where injury has been caused to another person who requires medical assistance. This is yet another improve- ment on the current legislation. In fact, through a Dáil amendment I have strengthened this provision still further by making it mandatory for a member of the Garda to test drivers where he or she is of the opinion that the driver has consumed intoxicating liquor. I have been asked, previously, to explain why there is no provision to test drivers involved in all collisions. This is because, in many instances, the collisions result in material damage to vehicles only, are generally minor in nature and are settled by the drivers concerned. Having the Garda called to each and every one of such instances would be a waste of Garda time and distract gardaí from more important road safety functions. I would prefer to have gardaí trying to detect real breaches of road traffic law rather than settling relatively minor squabbles. Complementary to the measures already outlined will be the introduction of preliminary impairment testing. I want to emphasise that it is illegal in Ireland to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. Gardaí are obliged by law to determine whether a driver is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent. This obligation is more difficult when trying to determine the presence of drugs, since the tell-tale smell of alcohol from the breath is not present. There is currently no suitable device available that will permit roadside testing of drivers for drugs. However, the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is keeping abreast of developments in this area and will inform me when a suitable device has been identified for testing and certification. I am aware of devices being used in other countries such as Australia but the different atmospheric conditions in that country and in certain parts of Europe may render these devices unsuitable here. Considerable efforts are being made at a European level to find a solution to these 671 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.] particular issues. I can assure the House that as soon as such a solution is found, we will move to have it introduced here. Unlike alcohol, however, there is no legal limit for drugs. Detections for drug driving are on the increase and as concern grows for the effects of both polydrug use and incidences of mixing drugs with alcohol while driving, a more detailed review of the regulat- ory regime in relation to this issue has been raised in the context of the current road safety strategy 2007-12. It is planned that such a review will commence this year and will require very detailed consideration and consultation by the relevant key stakeholders involved. In the interim and arising from the actions in the strategy, section 11 of this Bill provides that a driver may be required by the Garda to perform tests, known as preliminary impairment testing, to assist in determining the extent to which he or she may be under the influence of an intoxicant. That section also provides for the making of regulations by the Minister to prescribe how such tests should be carried out. I am absolutely certain that the combination of the reduced BAC levels, along with the introduction of preliminary impairment testing and the extension of the testing regime at collision sites will further augment the momentum that has been achieved to date in reducing road fatalities and increasing road safety overall. As previously mentioned, enforcement needs to be a key element in any road safety agenda. The Bill contains a number of provisions aimed at improving aspects of the enforcement of road traffic offences. An Garda Síochána is responsible for the detection of road traffic offences. Many of the offences are included in either the fixed charge or the penalty point scheme. The aim of these schemes is to increase the effectiveness of Garda enforcement, to improve driver behaviour through the deterrent effect and to reduce the volume of road traffic offences coming before the courts. From a road safety point of view, I see this trend continuing into the future with more offences being included under these schemes. With regard to fixed charges, at present payment is possible within 56 days of the issue of the notice but there is currently no option for payment after that date. While some 70% of fixed charge notices are paid, an estimated 30% end up in court for failure to pay within the prescribed 56 day period. The case has been made to me that, for a number of reasons, a person may not be able to make a payment within the prescribed time but many would rather make a payment than be prosecuted in court. The Bill, therefore, provides for a final option of payment not later that seven days before the date set for the court hearing. If the payment is made within that period, prosecution will not proceed. Where fixed charge offences proceed to court, other amendments have been included in the Bill to improve the effectiveness of the overall fixed charge system. Section 38 sets out certain presumptions for prosecutions for fixed-charge offences, in particular the presumption that a notice has been served where there is proof of posting or delivery of the notice. Any penalty points or driver disqualification arising from paid fixed-charge notices or court convictions must then be applied to the driver through the driver licence record, held on the national vehicle and driver file in the Department of Transport. The Bill’s main provision on penalty points is under section 53 which provides for amend- ments to facilitate the endorsement of penalty points where a licence record does not exist or has not been identified, or where the person is the holder of a foreign driving licence. It also provides for the transfer of any penalty points accumulated from such a record to a pre-existing record which is later identified. The 2002 Road Traffic Act provides that a person who is alleged to have committed an offence under the Road Traffic Acts must produce his or her driving licence to the court on the first day he or she is due to appear before the court or on a subsequent date at the discretion of the presiding judge. The Act also provides that the court shall record whether the licence 672 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage has been produced. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court to record the driving licence details to facilitate endorsing penalty points on the licence record of drivers convicted of such offences. Issues arising relating to the application of these provisions were identified during the exten- sive discussions that preceded the drafting of the Bill. Consequently, section 63 establishes a requirement to produce a driver licence and a legible copy of the licence to the District Court clerk on the first day of the court hearing. This will further assist administrative procedures in the courts and the application of the penalty points to the appropriate driver licence record. In this context, it is vital the driving licence system is robust from an enforcement perspective. Accordingly, this Bill has established a new requirement that will further validate the identifi- cation process of licence applicants. Section 57 specifies that licence applications including renewals must include a personal public service number, PPSN. In addition, section 58 provides for the offence of applying for a driving licence or learner permit while disqualified for holding a licence. The introduction of mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the United Kingdom on January 28 marks a significant road safety measure because it aims to target some of the most dangerous drivers on our roads. It is also a good example of the co- operation between the jurisdictions and, separately, our joint determination to save lives and reduce injuries on our roads. Part 6 also provides for amendments to the definition of a “driving licence” to bring foreign driving licence holders into the scope of the application of sanctions for road traffic offences including a disqualification from holding a driving licence. Section 64 will also ensure a person who is in receipt of a disqualification order stands disqualified from holding a driving licence, whether that person holds an Irish or a foreign driving licence. The Bill provides for several necessary initiatives that will help to bring clarity to a number of areas with particular attention being paid to deterrents. In addition to the new and amended provisions already described, I have taken the opportunity in the Bill to consolidate the intoxi- cated driving provisions from several earlier Road Traffic Acts in a clearer format and with consequent repeals. This means all intoxicated driving provisions will now be together in one Act. I intend to achieve the same for other areas, such as bringing all provisions for penalty points under one section. A key determinant of road safety performance is the behaviour of road users. Consequently, the primary focus of our road safety strategy is positively to influence that behaviour. This can be attained through initiatives across a range of areas including the enactment and enforcement of laws that promote good road user behaviour. Such laws must also be underpinned and supported by the application of fines, prison sentences and driving disqualifications as well as well as the necessary technological resources. The Road Traffic Bill 2009 is another important element of our road safety programme and will, without doubt, build on the achievements of recent years. It will help to deliver additional improvements to the manner in which all drivers interact with our road system. Society expects and requires these improvements whether in the short, medium or long term. Road traffic legislation is the most challenged in our courts. I want to ensure, therefore, that this Bill is as watertight as we can make it. Since passing the Bill in the Dáil, I have asked officials to undertake another detailed examination of the provisions. This exercise has brought to light several minor drafting issues for which I propose to move amendments on Commit- tee Stage. 673 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.]

The Bill is targeted at specific areas of driver behaviour. Road traffic legislation is complex, covering a wide range of activities. I have taken the approach of concentrating on certain key priority issues. I hope this approach will help to deal with these issues in a more focused and prioritised way. When taken with the institutional changes referred to, the Bill marks a signifi- cant watershed in the deployment of road safety policy. I look forward to the co-operation of Members in facilitating the Bill’s passage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I welcome this legislation which Fine Gael Party will support. The amendments we will propose on Committee Stage will ensure the constructive improvement of the legislation and its most effective operation. A frequent criticism we hear of how politics is conducted in Leinster House is that the Government and the Opposition spend all of their time locked in fruitless battles of exchanges that neither party will accept. In my time in the Oireachtas I have noted occasions when the Government and the Opposition come together to deal with issues of such national interest or importance that they are above party politics. The attitude adopted towards the Road Traffic Bill 2009 is an example of this. The need to improve road safety and to make our roads safer for drivers and pedestrians is accepted by all Members. Some of the pressures brought to bear on this legislation could have opened up the temptation to play opportunistic politics in either opposing or delaying its pass- age. That temptation was not taken up by Members on this side of the House. Those who believed the legislation could have been improved have been heard. People have been constructive and responsible in trying to translate these views into amendments. Again and again one hears the citizens, at times legitimately, complain about the way politics is practised. This Bill provides a template as to how all Members hear the views of everyone concerned and improve the legislation for the benefit of all. While we on this side of the House have views as to how this legislation could be improved and better policies introduced, there is much in this Bill to be welcomed. Four particular elements make this Bill worthy of support. First, the reduction in the blood-alcohol limit. Second, a new and lower blood-alcohol level for inexperienced motorists or professional driv- ers. Third, the mandatory testing which is being introduced for roadside injuries and accidents. Fourth, an aspect which particularly impresses me is the clarity in the Bill with regard to the production of driving licences and the need to make clear that when notice is served for penalty points, the presumption is that it has been done properly and clearly. This is an especially welcome improvement and I hope to see it implemented quickly to deal with the issue of the number of penalty points being quashed at court. The position at present allows people to escape from the fines and sentencing to which they should be subject. We are determined to see this issue being dealt with properly but other policy issues and failures should be discussed alongside the Bill. The Bill makes greater statutory provision for the firm and successful operation of roadside testing and checkpoints. The information the Garda is providing indicates a reduction in the number of checkpoints and the hours allocated to conduct checks at such points. The figures I have indicate that in 2008, some 70,000 Garda hours were made available for checkpoints and in 2009, the number declined to 55,000 hours. We do not have the 2010 figures available for the number of checkpoints or the hours allocated to them. However, the expectation is that the trend should and will decline. It is a source of genuine regret that at a time when this legislation will improve the effectiveness of checkpoints and the powers available to the Garda 674 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage with regard to offences taking place on our roads, the number of hours allocated for inspection is declining. This is a pity given the importance of the legislation being enacted quickly. I call on the Minister to respond to this point. One point made many times previously relates to the effect of the Bill on rural life and on people who do not have access to the public transport links available in urban parts of our country. I recall when we debated the legislation on the establishment of the National Trans- port Authority I raised a point concerning why the power and strategy for road transport sat with Pobail, a different Department. We must find ways to maintain and improve the rural transport links throughout the country to ensure better implementation of this law and to ensure people have options such that at no point will they be inclined to get into their car when they should not. Tackling this issue and dealing with it effectively would lead to an improve- ment in safety on our roads and to avoidance of the accidents, death and injury which the Bill seeks to address. I refer to the roll-out of speed cameras, an issue which has been touched on in this House and elsewhere. Until the end of 2009, there was a sanctioned roll-out of only 45 speed cameras. It is clear from other countries and it is backed up by international evidence that as speed cameras are rolled out there is a reduction in death and injuries on our roads. It is regrettable that when such legislation as this is introduced, we do not see the necessary infrastructure in place to provide a full armoury of tools to the Garda and transport officials to ensure we continue to battle to reduce death and injury on our roads. The legislation refers to the appliances necessary to conduct roadside testing and other tests following accidents. We are aware already that it will take a further 12 months to secure the 86 appliances deemed necessary to allow the Garda Síochána to implement the measures in the Bill. Given the amount of time spent preparing the Bill and the need, acknowledged across all sides of the House, for the Bill to be implemented, it is clear this is a missed opportunity. We must find measures to accelerate this process such that we do not find ourselves in a situation where the legislation is available to be enacted but is not enacted because the neces- sary appliances are not available. I refer to the issues in the Bill to which I will refer on Committee Stage, which I intend to flag and to which I will return in more detail. I refer to the use of the breathalyser. If the appliance is not available at a checkpoint or at a time of accident or injury, its use becomes discretionary at a later point. This is an omission with which we should deal. I note the term “apparatus” is defined very tightly for breath testing. An apparatus is only defined for checking the level of alcohol in the blood. I realise the appliances are not yet available but perhaps we could include a definition of an apparatus to allow for testing for drug content in a given driver. Part 4 relates to payment deposit and there is reference to transport officers. Is it possible to tighten up this reference to ensure the definition includes traffic wardens who are available, of whom we make use and who are mentioned in other parts of the Bill? I refer to the notices that will be affixed to vehicles for fines and penalties imposed on a driver. Can we do anything to put in place a provision to allow a garda to show the courts that a given notice was definitely affixed and visible on the car, such that we do not find ourselves in a situation where a penalty or potential conviction is challenged in court because it is not clear whether the notice was affixed to a vehicle? These are the areas to which I will return. We must do all we can to ensure the Bill is successful. A good deal is contained in the Bill but there remains a good deal to which we can return at a later point. Graduated driving licences can be examined. I note that in Northern Ireland if a person commits a driving offence the penalty may include attendance at a special driving class in addition to a fine. Apparently, this measure has been remarkably successful 675 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator Paschal Donohoe.] when used by the Thames Valley Police in the UK, in which jurisdiction re-offending rates have been reduced by more than 60%. We must consider further education programmes in our schools and media to ensure the horror of a driving accident is brought home to people and we must do all we can to deter them. These are the main concerns I hold with regard to the Bill and the issues to which I will return on Committee Stage. That we have reduced the number of road safety incidents from 107 per million inhabitants to 54 per million inhabitants during recent years is worthy of cel- ebration. I note the Minister was recognised for this and deservedly so. All of us have a stake in reducing the number of incidents even further and this is a goal to which we are all commit- ted. This Bill goes some way towards that end and this is why we support it. However, I believe we have further to go and I will return to our amendments in these areas.

Senator John Ellis: I welcome the Minister to discuss the Road Traffic Bill 2009 which has taken some time to get this far, but the teething problems have been well and truly addressed by the Minister. That brings me back to something I have said in the House on numerous occasions. There should be a mandatory publication period of six weeks before legislation is brought before either House in order that people will have time to go through it line by line to see if there are problems that need to be ironed out. Too much legislation passes through the Houses of the Oireachtas without being fully scrutinised. The net result is that when it is put into every day use, anomalies and problems emerge. We all welcome the success of the road safety campaigns undertaken in recent years. The Road Safety Authority has done tremendous work. Sometimes people say it is too diligent on certain issues, but the results speak for themselves and the reduction in the number of road deaths is significant. At other times people say the regulations are too harsh and that they especially affect rural life. This is an issue to which I will return. We must look at the danger posed by drug driving, which is criminal. It is worse than the danger posed by alcohol because it is hidden. One does not realise a person may be under the influence of drugs and in some cases it will not be detected. It is sad that we still have a problem in finding a way to detect the use of drugs. A few years a swab system was used in Australia as an initial test. If one failed the test, one was subject to a full blood test. Despite the position adopted by the Minister, this issue should be looked at again because there must be some way of dealing with it. In many instances the Garda will be unable to determine if a person is under the influence of drugs without undertaking a preliminary test. We also come across another problem presented by people who are genuinely taking pre- scription drugs. Given that people can sometimes show a reaction, the issue needs to be exam- ined in the Bill, if it is not too late to do so. In many cases prescription drugs can be as harmful as alcohol or non-prescription drugs. The matter should be examined in the context of providing advice. It should be clear what prescription drugs people should not use if they wish to drive. It is stated on some prescriptions that the drugs prescribed may impair a person’s ability to drive, but it is not stated it is dangerous to drive. This issue needs to be examined. We are all aware there has been annoyance at the proposed changes on the part of people living in rural areas. I live in a rural area. I was brought up in a pub and understand how people are affected. I also understand the reasons people living in rural areas feel hurt because in many cases taxis are not easily available. As a result, some people will take a chance, which is not a good idea. Their only hope is to designate a driver. The younger generation has moved on and will designate a driver or find a taxi or minibus. Young people are not taking the risks our generation took in drinking and driving. This shows the progress that has been made in raising awareness of the dangers posed by drinking and driving. 676 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

Another issue raised concerns morning check points. A person goes home at midnight having had five or six pints and gets up at 8 a.m. thinking he or she is ok. No one is in a position to say he or she is capable of driving at that point; neither is anyone is in a position to say he or she is incapable of driving. I do not think one can go around with a breath tester in one’s back pocket to ascertain whether one is capable of driving. This is one of the issues that causes problems.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand there is a vote in the Dáil.

Senator John Ellis: I propose the sitting be suspended until 6.10 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 6.10 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Ellis was in possession when the sitting was suspended. As he is not present I call Senator O’Toole.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I compliment the Minister and his staff on the reduction in the number of road traffic deaths over the last couple of years. It really is a great credit to the Department and to all the other agencies involved. I must declare an interest as I am the vice chairperson of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The board is issuing its annual report today and it takes a keen interest in reduced numbers of accidents, particularly deaths. It very much sup- ports that operation. The Bill has been well debated but I wish to take up one issue, on which there was a long discussion in the Dáil between the Minister and Deputy Broughan. It is the issue of conducting a breathalyser test after an accident and the use of the words “may” or “shall”. Senator Ellis has arrived so I am prepared to give way to him.

Senator John Ellis: If the Senator is prepared to give way, I wish to finish my contribution. I thank the Senator. I did not realise it took so long to get from the fourth floor to the Chamber. I referred earlier to testing on the morning after. On the issue of professional drivers being subject to a different set of criteria from ordinary drivers, I wonder what will be the legal consequences of that when challenged. I believe they will have to be common for both. I might be wrong but I asked somebody in the legal profession who told me that while it might be provided for in the law, common justice would mean they should be equal for all. I am not a lawyer but this should be examined. Somebody with a concentration of between 50 and 80 gets three points and it was originally proposed that the points remain on their licence for five years. There was a suggestion that this might go back to three years and I see that this has been agreed. I believe it should only be three years. It is a warning, and if they do not heed the warning, they can understand the consequences. It is a great thing to get a warning, have the opportunity to get one’s act together and move on. I am delighted the Minister decided to bring it back to three years. We all welcome the mutual recognition of penalty points between the UK, Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, the same question was raised with me about this as was raised regarding the professional drivers. Where does this stand under EU law? If it was common across the EU, everybody would probably be happy. However, can one legislate for this under EU law without being subject to challenge in the European Court? I accept that a person would require enormous financial resources to challenge something like this in the European Court. In the context of the media, the right to privacy is more protected under European law than under Irish law but to take a case on that ground one would first have to go through the 677 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator John Ellis.] Irish court system, which few can afford, to secure one’s right to privacy. This question was raised with me and I do not know whether it is legitimate but can one have this system for Ireland and the UK without it applying across the rest of Europe? I am not in a legal position to know but I believe there are certain provisions in European law which might cause problems in implementing the system. We have had tremendous success in reducing the carnage on the roads. The Garda is to be complimented. In many instances, the gardaí take a very objective approach to problems. If they see somebody leaving a premises who they consider to have consumed quite an amount of alcohol, they will tell the person to give them the keys or to leave the car and go home. People will accept that advice. In the old days, certain gardaí preferred to allow the guy to travel down the road before taking them into the station, although at that time the person did not get banned from driving so it did not matter a great deal. It is something on which the gardaí must be complimented. They take a very objective role when dealing with these problems. The problem of dangerous driving worries everybody. There is a certain amount of dangerous driving on the roads but some laws can lead to a person being capable of being charged for dangerous driving. I saw an example of this on my way to the House today. A car was being driven on a motorway at 30 miles per hour. There was a truck behind the car but the driver had to break the law to overtake that car. The guy travelling at 30 miles per hour was a greater menace than a fellow who would drive up the road at 90 miles per hour. The lorry driver had to break the law to overtake that driver because lorry drivers are not supposed to leave the inside lane. This issue should be examined. I am aware that the Minister has discussed it with the National Roads Authority. It must be dealt with. It is most unfair that if there was an over- zealous garda in a squad car behind the lorry, the lorry driver could be prosecuted and receive two penalty points. The effect of that for a professional driver is very serious. Perhaps there is a case to be made for a minimum speed on motorways. It might sound funny but a case can be made for it. The guy travelling at 30 miles per hour is a total menace; he will cause chaos. In addition, one is not allowed to drive agricultural vehicles on motorways because they cannot travel at more than 50 km per hour, although some can do 70km per hour, while motorbikes of a certain cubic centimetre, CC, capacity are also not allowed on them. There is a need to consider having a minimum speed on motorways. I am not suggesting it for regional or county roads, just motorways.

Senator Joe O’Toole: 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 Oppo- sition 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. 678 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

I wish to raise a number of other issues. Many people have spoken, and I am taking advan- tage 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 679 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator Joe O’Toole.] 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 differ- ently 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 680 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage 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.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I welcome the Minister and I commend the Bill. It is unfortunate the Minister had to leave the House to attend the Dáil to talk about a much less important Bill, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill——

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator should say that to Deputy .

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Allow the Senator without interruption, please.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I know Deputy Gormley would agree with me entirely. Last year, 240 people were killed on Irish roads, a decrease from 410 at a maximum. This is a very good news story but 240 deaths is unacceptable and the Minister is well aware of this. He is introduc- ing this Bill in which he proposes to reduce the permissible level of alcohol in the blood from 80 mg to 50 mg and he is to be commended for this measure. It is extraordinary when health issues are raised that people will make the case that one death is far too many and we need to spend a lot money on medical procedures. We should not be prepared to accept that so many people are being killed and many more injured on the roads. One of the reasons for the decrease in the number of road deaths is better quality roads and better quality cars. The NCT test ensures cars are maintained to a higher standard of road worthiness and this helps to bring down the number of road deaths. There is good evidence from across the world that good quality roads lead to fewer road accidents. A total of 33% of road accidents are caused by blood alcohol content being above the acceptable limit. We have to move to a situation in which our society will accept that no level of alcohol in the blood is acceptable for a driver. I do not believe it is acceptable to drink and drive in any way, shape or form. I hear all the arguments about rural people and the social life in the west but it is incumbent on society to find ways in which people can have a good social life without having to drink and drive. There is no problem with people drinking but there is a big problem with people drinking and driving. It is possible to have designated drivers. Com- munities are wonderful at adapting to new situations. I do not believe we should allow people to be isolated but we need to consider measures whereby those who live in isolated areas can find a way to have a decent social life without having to drink and drive. This is the challenge. The two should not be mixed. It should not be the case that everybody should be allowed to drink and drive because a few people in the country find it difficult to have a social life. That is not an acceptable argument. Senator Joe O’Toole talked about planning issues. I agree that planning is an important aspect in the prevention of road accidents. The length and difficulty of journeys are important considerations. We must ensure people have safe journeys. There is a greater potential for accidents if there is a combination of high speeds on small country lanes. In my area of Galway, there was a farcical situation where the speed limit on good quality two-lane roads was reduced to 50 km/h while just slightly up the road, one is entitled to go at the maximum speed limit on a small boithrín. This was ludicrous and I railed against it. Thankfully, measures are being introduced to ensure appropriate speed limits are being put in place. However, more needs to be done. 681 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin.]

I refer to the practice in the North of a category of restricted drivers. My car has a learner driver L plate on it because my wife is learning to drive. I have a full licence. I notice a few smiles on the other side of the House.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is a pity the Senator cannot drive the Government. I apologise, they are doing the stag Bill.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: We will see what happens this evening. If the Senator waits his turn in a couple of years he might be able to say that with a bit of confidence.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: There will be nothing left in rural Ireland after the Senator’s party.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Nothing except stags.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator without interruption.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I grew up in rural Ireland and it is safe and well with the present Government and we will see that after today.

(Interruptions).

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: The Minister’s efforts will make both rural and urban Ireland much safer. This Minister has got the right approach to this issue. I also commend Gay Byrne, whom I noticed said he would not continue with his job unless he saw a decrease in the number of road deaths. He is as good as his word. I note the European target is 205 road fatalities, which is 50% of the peak this year. I believe this is just about possible. It would be a fantastic achievement if this happened. However, I will add the rider that 205 road deaths is not acceptable but it is certainly a lot better than 410 deaths. I have been presented with costs for road deaths. I do not like to introduce the word, “cost” in this context as each death is a human tragedy. Every family in this country knows people who have been killed on our roads. I note the focus both on alcohol and drugs. This is important because I question why illicit drug use should not be tested for. I also raise the issue of tiredness which, in my view, is a cause of accidents. People should be educated to the dangers of driving when tired as they do not associate tiredness with death or danger. In some cases, people who are extremely tired are much more dangerous on the road than people who have taken a small amount of illicit substances. I am not saying the other guys are safe but tiredness is a great cause of road accidents and this is known to be the case.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Why not ban that as well?

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I think that is a good idea. We will ban tiredness. We are banning everything in this House at the moment.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Government should tax it as well.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: We will ban Fine Gael if the Senator is not careful.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I have heard that one before.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I have lost my train of thought. 682 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

Senator Jerry Buttimer: There are no trains in rural Ireland.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I appeal to the Leas-Chathaoirleach. It is lovely to have these nice interjections but it is difficult to speak with these interjections.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Please allow the Senator without interruption.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: We need to move towards a situation in which everyone in the country is involved in the aim of minimising road deaths and making an effort to drive safely. We must consider the ways other countries have been successful, the methodologies they use for driver re-education and the way they enforce penalty points. When the late Minister, Seamus Brennan, introduced the penalty points system there was an immediate reduction in road deaths but unfortunately it crept up again very quickly. The reason this happened was that people felt it was not adequately enforced. There was a fear factor but subsequently people felt they could get away with it. As a society we must ensure we minimise road deaths. I notice the Minister tightening the screw all the time. The Minister must consider greater enforcement of the penalty points system. I came home one evening from a political meeting in Galway and I was breathalysed for the first time in my life. Luckily I had been drinking tea, which is thankfully not an alcoholic substance. Members of the Garda Síochána were carrying out ran- dom breath testing of every car, which is the right way to go. People must fear the breathalyser, especially late at night. Some think they can get away with drinking alcohol and driving home and this is quite often when accidents happen. We must tighten the screw on this measure. Fine Gael is the party of law and order and I hope its Members agree that we need proper law and order in respect of road accidents. We must get very tough on this matter. Some 205 road deaths and a huge number of injuries is unacceptable. Even one death on the road is unacceptable. We must work in that direction.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which the Labour Party will support. I do not intend to deliver a long speech on Second Stage but to comment on key elements of the Minister’s proposals. The Labour Party welcomes the reduction of blood alcohol content for regular drivers from 80 mg per 100 ml to 50 mg and from 80 mg to 20 mg for learner, novice and professional drivers. This will keep Ireland in line with the rest of Europe and reflects the recommendation of the Road Safety Authority. Those with a blood alcohol content between 50 mg and 80 mg are not the ones who are primarily the cause of road accidents and carnage on the roads. Nevertheless, the change will have the effect of modifying behaviour with regard to drinking and driving and therefore I welcome it. It may have the effect of modifying the behaviour of those who take not just one or two pints but five or six. They may modify their behaviour to reduce the amount. The Minister has come up with a sensible and reasonable position with regard to lesser penalties for people who violate the law at the lower end of the spectrum. I welcome this and it is open to the Minister to amend the legislation in future if this gets in the way of the overall intent of the changes, which is to modify behaviour. The proposals on learner drivers and professional drivers are also reasonable and take account of the specific training circumstances and needs and lack of experience of novice driv- ers. However, if the legislation is to have the desired effect, it will require improved enforce- ment and detection. The Minister referred to this in his speech and it is the key to success. I am not clear how this has come about because there has been a reduction in Garda resources and a ban on overtime. I see a mismatch in this area. Section 8 provides for mandatory testing at roadside collisions but this is not unequivocally required to happen on all occasions. That must be addressed on Committee Stage and I will 683 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator Brendan Ryan.] table an amendment to address it. My colleague, Deputy Tommy Broughan, attempted to address the issue by tabling an amendment in the Lower House but without success. We must find a way to deal with this in the House. Driving under the influence of drugs is a serious issue. There is no suitable equipment for roadside testing for drugs and this is unfortunate. I can give the example of a situation I did not observe at first hand but to which I was reasonably close. A driver was out for the night with his family, his wife or his girlfriend and needed to get home from a distance of approxi- mately five miles. Fearing being caught by the Garda Síochána if he drove home, rather than taking a taxi home he decided to drink soft drinks for the night but was continuously seen going out to the smoking area to smoke cannabis. This continued for several hours. He had no fear of falling foul of the law and this is a major problem identified by the Minister. The introduction of impairment tests, in the absence of roadside testing equipment, is to be wel- comed. This is the only measure the Minister can reasonably attempt at this stage. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to keep technology under review in order to put something more reliable in place. We all wish the scientists well in their efforts to address the matter. The changes proposed to the current inflexible 56 day period for paying fines are good and will deal with any genuine situations where an individual is not in a position to pay a fine within the 56 day period. The proposal will allow payment up to seven days before the court hearing but it may encourage more people to leave payment to this later date. This needs to be monitored. This legislation attempts to deal with serious road safety issues but the key issue causing carnage on our roads is speed. Unfortunately, many young people in particular seem oblivious to the dangers of speed. This is the issue that will deliver results if it gets the right focus as part of a road safety strategy. Gardaí sitting with speed guns at points on the edges of towns trying to catch people driving a couple of kilometres above the limit is rather like shooting fish in a barrel and should have no part in a genuine road safety strategy. On a recent news programme, I heard a senior Garda source comment that this is only done where the area has been identified as high risk. I do not believe that and many Senators do not believe that. These drivers are a soft touch and resources would be better used elsewhere. The Minister should take account of this. The Minister mentioned progress on road improvements and this must be recognised in respect of many new sections of motorway. However, the condition of many non-primary roads is causing serious road safety hazards. Local authorities are cutting back on road maintenance for budgetary reasons and there are many serious potholes across the country. This is a serious issue of which I have seen many examples. People are coming to clinics complaining about this issue and the Minister must address it. Does he accept this and can he give a guarantee that he is working with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to remove these hazards in a systematic way in conjunction with local authorities? I welcome the legislation on behalf of the Labour Party and look forward to its implementation, with some amendments on Committee Stage.

Senator James Carroll: I welcome the Minister. It is the second time he has appeared since I became a Member of this House. I welcome the Road Traffic Bill. Senator Ellis spoke on many elements of this Bill and the most important aspect is that it represents another step in saving lives on Irish roads. We all want to see this and we welcome this aspect of the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on receiving the PIN award from the European Transport Safety Council. This highlights that road safety measures we are taking are seen across Europe, as well is having an impact on Ireland. A number of international newspapers focused on what 684 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage we are doing with our economy through austerity measures and trying to turn things around at the economic level. This award shows the good work of the Minister and his predecessors is being taken into account across Europe in respect of road safety. While researching my contri- bution to this debate, I was horrified to learn there were 640 road deaths in 1972. I note the comparable figure today is approximately one third of that number, even though there has been a quadrupling of the number of vehicles on the roads. One can imagine the traffic levels on the roads, especially on rural roads, back in the 1950s and 1960s and while the advent of a degree of wealth in the 1960s probably led to a large increase in car numbers, road behaviour and attitudes probably did not change much. The Minister can derive great pleasure from the simple fact that people are alive and will remain alive as a result of this legislation and of previous legislation he has introduced. This is a great achievement and it is a great honour for the Government to introduce such legislation. The current road safety strategy contains 126 actions and in his response the Minister might outline their status and how precisely they are being measured. While I acknowledge they are being measured in an objective manner, it is in the nature of such items that some of them will be analysed subjectively. I ask the Minister to flesh out precisely how progress on the actions is proceeding and whether success is being achieved. While one can have all the key objectives in the world, one must break them down into precise actions and steps regarding how they are to be achieved. I ask the Minister to elaborate on this. I note Senator Ó Brolcháin has just mentioned this issue but as the youngest Member of the Oireachtas, I believe the appropriate blood alcohol concentration level is 0 milligrams. I acknowledge it has been suggested that the presence of alcohol in medication means that reaching this limit might not be completely achievable. However, younger people of my gener- ation with whom I went to school or with whom I work on a daily basis — outside this House of course — all concur that when going out, one simply does not drink and drive. Previously, I used to work with my father and noticed that ten or 15 years ago, people of his generation would have had four or five pints and then would have hopped in the car and driven home. I thought nothing of it at the time because that was the norm. However, younger people take taxis or designate drivers, although some pubs are lax in their provision of free soft drinks to such designated drivers. I am sure the Fine Gael Members opposite will concur that a blood alcohol concentration limit of 0 milligrams should be put in place. In many respects, this prob- ably is a generational issue. It may be that people of my father’s or grandparents’ generation would believe it was okay to drink and drive because that was the cultural experience of the time. However, younger people realise that one simply does not do this and that if going out, one gets a taxi or one goes out as part of a group. I wish to digress slightly from the legislation and to touch on Senator Ryan’s comments on the categorisation of roads. While the motorway infrastructure is one of the best legacies of the Celtic tiger, some county roads or local primary, secondary and tertiary routes are suffering as a result of the bad weather and inclement conditions experienced over the past six months. A number of people have been in contact with me, through my clinics and my office, with regard to the categorisation of roads. Some people have different interpretations of the manner in which roads have been categorised and seek to have particular roads recategorised to a higher level in order that works are completed or undertaken on them. The Minister should touch on this subject in his response. I note that section 9 of the Bill introduces mandatory testing of drivers in any road traffic accidents and incidents that take place. The Minister has strengthened this Bill by providing that where a garda is of the impression that a person has consumed alcohol, he or she may be tested mandatorily. As previous speakers also noted, I have been randomly breath-tested twice. Once, while zipping up the road as I rushed home from college to attend a political meeting, 685 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

[Senator James Carroll.] luckily within the speed limit, I went over the brow of a hill and was stopped and randomly breath-tested. This definitely has an effect as human nature is highly interesting. I have read studies to the effect that Italian and Irish people have a healthy disrespect for the law, whatever that may be defined as. However, there must be a fear factor, in that people must believe the legislation will be implemented strictly. They must believe the Garda will be present at corners or on the roads at times such as bank holidays to implement the legislation by randomly breath- testing people. People must see that the legislation is being implemented. There are issues in respect of the effectiveness of drugs testing because of various factors and I ask the Minister to elaborate on that in his reply. My personal, family and community experience underline the importance of education in shaping people’s perspectives. Although many advertisements pertaining to smoking, drink- driving and speeding have been highly effective, a focus on tiredness would be welcome. While it may not appear to be as important, all Members have travelled on long journeys, have been absolutely exhausted and have seen the effects of tiredness. I have spoken to various people who have nodded off at the side of the road, which has caused accidents. Personally, while driving to and from Dublin, I have pulled in many times, having felt the impact of lack of sleep as it is very important to take a rest. This issue will become important. I wish to touch on another “E”, that is, the key factor of enforcement. Although people seek real enforcement of this Bill, personal responsibility is critical. I originally am from Monaster- boice, County Louth, through which the N1 used to run before the construction of the M1. As a child, I can recall seeing some horrific accidents as I passed by. Once, as a secondary school student getting off a bus, I saw a young chap with whom I went to school being knocked down. That was one of the most horrific experiences and visions one might ever see. Luckily, he survived but sadly, many people who were knocked down along that route died. Some people with whom I went to primary school were killed and a number of fatalities took place all along that route. At the time it was considered, especially along the Border, that drivers came down from the North and flew right down through the spine of County Louth without paying any heed to the road traffic legislation in the Republic and did what they wished. In addition, however, some people were driving faster than the speed limit. In addition, others were drink- ing and then either walking on the road or driving on it and the consequences are evident. Nevertheless, it is heartening to note the Minister received an award last week. As for the 242 fatalities, that constitutes 242 different families, 242 different communities and still is 242 too many. Although I do not believe we ever will get to a place or time where we have zero fatalities, hopefully we will get as close to that as is humanly possible. I certainly am heartened when I contrast the position in the early 1970s with 640 deaths to the present position. I congratulate the Minister on this legislation. Across all his briefs, he has been very idealistic and always has brought idealism and zeal to them. Sometimes, that has got him into trouble in respect of different factors but although he has been in Leinster House for a long time, he retains an idealism and drive that together with many young people, I respect. He should keep up the good work and I commend him on this legislation. While he has been given some grief internally and externally in respect of the reduction of the blood alcohol concentration limit, I wish to see the day when it is set to zero.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I compliment Senator Donohoe on his reasonable and good contribution and on his approach to this Bill. This Bill has been awaited keenly and while many vested interest groups have lobbied on it, the Bill will never replace the lives of those who have been lost in road traffic accidents. At the back of their minds, 686 Road Traffic Bill 29 June 2010. 2009: Second Stage

Members should remember those who have died for whatever reason, as well as their families, those injured in car crashes and so on. As Senator Carroll rightly said, we can never replace a human life. We should always remem- ber this. Various vested interest groups have lobbied hard on the Bill. They include the vintners associations, people living in rural areas, the families of victims of road traffic accidents and the media. It is beholden on all of us to enact the legislation as a matter of urgency. It is extremely important that we do so. Many colleagues would expect me to introduce a note of political reality to the discussion on the Bill. We should have arrived at this point a long time ago. The Bill should be law and we should be talking about the lack of speed cameras, the reduction of Garda overtime, the lack of enforcement and the measures not being taken by the Government which 7o’clock in many ways has cut back services to rural communities and failed to put in place a structure, whereby one can sustain life in rural areas. I am disappointed that we have not yet had that debate. I accept these issues do not form part of the debate on the Bill, but there is a need for a rural transport strategy to combat the loneliness and isolation which are part of rural life. I very much welcome the fact that the blood alcohol limit is being reduced. Like Senator Carroll, I would not have a difficulty if it was being reduced to zero. We live in a society that is both rural and urban. Deputy Paddy Sheehan made a valid point in the other House, namely, that we do not have Luas and bus services in rural areas. I would never condone the actions of or compliment anyone who drinks and drives. The opposite is the case. One should not drink and drive. We must introduce measures to help people, not just those living in rural areas but also vintners. The debate could also be about the fact that as a society we have failed to build sustainable communities. I agree with Senator O’Toole in what he said about one-off housing, but we have not planned for a community social life without alcohol. A number of years ago President McAleese spoke about the need to have a debate on the use of alcohol in society. We should have that debate. We should also have a debate on having a life that is not predi- cated upon the use of alcohol. In conscience we should support the Bill in its entirety and without reservation. As both of my parents were non-drinkers, I could never comprehend how people could drink and drive. I had an experience with an American cousin who came home every summer. As we grew older and became more mature, we realised why one should not do so. One evening he was under the influence of alcohol and frightened us in the car. Many friends of mine of varying ages who live in rural areas have one or two pints and drive at 20 mph——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Leader of the House wishes to propose a suspension of the sitting.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I propose that we suspend the sitting until 7.20 p.m., as the Minister is needed in the Dáil Chamber.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am reluctant to agree. On what grounds are we suspending the sitting? This is the third interruption of the debate on the Bill. I thought it was the custom when a Minister was in the Seanad that he or she would not be required to attend the other House. I accept the Leader has a difficulty with some members of his party in the other House. He might be poked by a stag. 687 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Senator Donie Cassidy: The Senator knows what it is like on his side of the House.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Not really, no.

Senator Donie Cassidy: When his party was on this side, it was difficult too.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I look forward to being on the other side.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the suspension agreed to?

John Paul Phelan: Will the debate be extended to 8 p.m?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, it will. I am prepared to allow whatever time is necessary to enable all colleagues to make a submission.

Sitting suspended at 7.05 p.m. and resumed at 7.20 p.m.

Business of Seanad Senator Donie Cassidy: I propose the suspension of the House until 7.40 p.m.

Acting Chairman (Jerry Buttimer): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I thank the House for its co-operation.

Sitting suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.40 p.m.

Business of Seanad. Senator Donie Cassidy: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that Second Stage of the Road Traffic Bill 2009 be extended to 8.30 p.m. and that the Minister will be called on no later than 8.20 p.m. to reply.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Road Traffic Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Senator Jerry Buttimer: I hope the Leader will remember that we should not be adjourning the debate for votes in the Dáil. I hope the Leader will get his act together for tomorrow and for the rest of the debates of the week. As I was saying before I was interrupted by the vote, it is important that we tackle the issue of rural isolation and transport. I pose the following question to the Government Members. Is there a commitment on behalf of Government to have a rural transport strategy? I hope the Minister replies to that. The café bar licence debate we had a number of years ago was a lost opportunity. Recently, I happened to be in Barcelona where I was impressed, not only by the city itself but by the fact that people could gather, socialise and mingle in an al fresco type atmosphere and in a nice ambiance with no impression of alcohol. As I stated before the suspension, we have an issue with our attitude to alcohol and I would like to have a wider debate. I support President McAleese’s assertion that we need a national discourse on that. Many Senators spoke about the issue of speed limits. It is important we have a debate on this. Recently, there was a furore in Dublin about the 30 km/h enforcement, and other Senators spoke about the lack of uniformity and about who determines speed limits. We missed a glori- 688 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) ous opportunity here in the case of speed limits and I hope Deputy Dempsey, as Minister for Transport, with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, grasp this. I cannot comprehend how on the main Cork-Dublin motorway the speed limit is 120 km/h, or it branches into 100 km/h, and with the best will in the world there are gardaí with speed cameras on that road. I set my cruise control and away I go, and I do not break the speed limit.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Senator Buttimer is lucky to have cruise control.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I accept that. It is like a goldfish bowl mentality. I would like to see the statistics for accidents on the motorways between Cork and Dublin and Dublin and Belfast. I appeal to the Minister that we should go back to enforcing the speed limits where we have the majority of road traffic accidents and fatalities, on the non-national roads of rural Ireland. I ask the Minister what is the major cause of road accidents. Is it speed? Is it alcohol? Is it bad engineering? The three Es we were always told about, were engineering, education and enforcement. Our engineering, perhaps, in some cases with the camber of the roads, has left much to be desired and now we see with the decline of the quality of road surfaces that many of the roads are a contributory factor to accidents and to fatalities. There is also a issue regard- ing speed and education. I very much welcome the significant decrease in the number of deaths on the roads. I pay tribute to Deputy Dempsey, the Road Safety Authority, Mr. Gay Byrne and whoever else because every one of us collectively wants to see a reduction in fatalities on roads. We may disagree on the methodology of how we get to that point but there is a uniformity of acceptance that we must never allow our roads to become a carnage zone. PARC Road Safety Group has campaigned for many years for mandatory testing of all drivers. That is a good suggestion which I very much support. We need to go after the motorists who are under the influence of drugs as well, and there is a growing preponderance of that. Anecdotally, a number of people have come to me, rightly or wrongly, regarding non-Irish licensees who drive on our roads being able to abscond from getting penalty points or being prosecuted. I do not say that in any racist way whatever. It must be made clear to all road users, be they Irish or non-Irish, that they are subject to the laws of the land and the law must apply to them. As I stated at the beginning, Fine Gael is in favour of this Bill. The Minister and the Govern- ment have been late in coming forward with this Bill, which should have been here a long time ago. I would like to hear the Minister’s reply regarding enforcement and the lack of enforce- ment on speed cameras. This Bill must be a testimony and a legacy to the people who have died and to their families because we can never allow our roads to become a haven for carnage. The Minister will have our support. He will have my personal support. I have reservations about some of it, but the thrust of the Bill is to be welcomed and the principle is good. The Minister is correct to stand up to some of the vested interests which, perhaps, have been dominant for too long. The passage of this Bill is important. I look forward to fewer people dying on our roads.

Senator Mary M. White: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I remember speaking approximately two years ago on the previous Bill on the issue of mandatory testing. The PARC Road Safety Group submission to Senators called for an amendment to the Bill on mandatory testing at injury collision scenes. Research published in 2009 carried out by Dr. Declan Bedford showed that 92% of surviving drivers involved in fatal collisions on Irish roads evaded detection for 689 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Mary M. White.] alcohol. This was due to a failure of the Road Traffic Act to make testing mandatory in such circumstances. I remember calling at the time for testing to be mandatory. The section of the Bill dealing with mandatory testing as a result of injury collisions, although much improved on the ambiguous laws we have had up to now, leaves much to be desired. The problem is one whereby a member of the Garda Síochána on arrival at the scene of a collision where there is an injury has a mandatory power to test but if a roadside breathalyser is not available at the scene and the garda or a colleague goes in search of one, on the garda’s return the mandatory power is reduced to a discretionary one, which seems ridiculous. I am calling for an amendment to the Bill, to have the word “may” replaced by the word “shall”, which is all that is required to retain the mandatory nature of the requirement to test, to read:

where the member of the Garda does not have such an apparatus with him or her, to remain at that place in his or her presence or in the presence of another member of the Garda Síochána until such an apparatus becomes available to him or her (for a period that does not exceed one hour) and the member shall then require the person to provide, by exhaling into the apparatus, a specimen of his or her breath in the manner indicated by the member.

I seek the Minister’s support in this important matter, which is of grave concern to many people all over the country.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I welcome the Minister. I want to make a couple of points on this legislation. I do not find myself in agreement with large parts of it. I realise I may be in a solitary minority in this House, but I have significant reservations. I do not represent any lobby group other than the people in Kilkenny and in Carlow who are part of my constituency, but I feel I must voice their concerns at what is being proposed. I am not really a drinker. I have an odd social drink now and again. I rarely drink. I confirm what Senator Carroll stated about people of our generation and that the attitude to drinking and driving has changed. The Minister, the Government, Mr. Byrne and everyone concerned have succeeded in changing people’s attitudes to drinking and driving. It is not only younger people. Among older people, now it is socially unacceptable — correctly — for people to drive after they have been in the pub, and I concur with that. I also refute the notion voiced by many speakers tonight that this Bill will save people’s lives. What will save people’s lives is implementation. Earlier, one of the Green Party Senators spoke about the party of law and order. We have much law in this area already. We do not have enough implementation of the law that already exists, despite the statistics in the Minister’s speech. That will be further affected by reductions in funding for the Garda, for example, in overtime for gardaí. The view is that, if these Houses pass legislation, results will miraculously occur on the ground, but we will not see any unless the changes are implemented. The Mini- ster’s proposals on the reduction in blood alcohol levels cannot be implemented until the machines that test those levels are in place with the Garda around the country. Anything we do today will have no impact until those machines are updated and in place. It is vital that we nail the fallacy that passing a law will suddenly result in a panacea. It will depend on implemen- tation at local level and, despite the improvements, this has not been occurring to a sufficient degree. With further cutbacks in funding to the Garda, it will happen to a lesser extent in the years ahead. I wanted to put that particular point on the record. I listened to Senators discussing rural Ireland. I represent a very rural part of it. That a Government would propose this legislation while slashing funding for rural transport initiatives is shocking. 690 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

Senator : Hear, hear.

Senator John Paul Phelan: In my area, a number of groups that provide rural transport have had their funding cut dramatically. They are unable to provide a service for people. We are discussing issues of social isolation. For many in rural Ireland, the postman is as much as they see in the day. If they go to their local pub for a drink once per week, it might be the extent of their social interaction. I completely refute Senator Ó Brolcháin’s argument that the Green Party is looking after rural Ireland. Rural Ireland is pretty much dead. Most pubs are closed, shops, post offices and creameries are gone and people’s focal points for meeting one another are disappearing off the landscape, be it in County Kilkenny or elsewhere. When the Government introduces legislation such as this Bill, it indicates a serious lack of acceptance of this problem. The reduction in the number of road deaths is to be welcomed and there has been a consider- able change in people’s attitudes, but Senator Ryan was right, in that the greatest killer on our roads, particularly substandard county roads, is speed. It is a question of existing laws not being implemented to a satisfactory degree. Making some of these points is not easy, as people in my family have been killed in road accidents. I am sure other Senators can say the same about their families or friends. The only way to have no deaths on the roads is to have nothing on the roads or if we close them. Some Green Party Members have flippantly proposed the notion that we are aiming for zero. Of course we are, but people are killed on the roads because they travel on the roads. Recently, I found a shocking statistic that 92% of all pedestrians killed between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. are intoxicated, yet I do not see the Minister or anyone else in the Government rushing to save those people’s lives. I am not suggesting there is an easy solution, but many pedestrians and cyclists are killed on our roads and there does not seem to be the same level of interest. I have spoken out in support of President McAleese’s comments. I am not particularly a pub goer, but the pub is the centre of the community in a rural area like the one from which I come. I wish it was otherwise, but there is little by way of public buildings in rural areas other than the public house. Most family events and so on end up in the pub, which is bad. Senator Buttimer’s statements on a cafe culture and so on were right, but the public house is the only place in many parts of rural Ireland where people can congregate. Sufficient cognisance is not taken of this reality by the Government. Certainly, sufficient effort is not made to provide alternative meeting places. A number of times, Senator Mary White has spoken strongly on the issue of suicide. My colleague, Deputy Neville, published statistics today that showed a 24% increase in the number of suicides in 2009 on the previous year’s level. Some 527 people committed suicide, up from 424 the previous year. For some reason and Senator Mary White might agree, the Government has not made a concerted effort to reduce the number of deaths and the trauma caused to families every year. I urge the Government to concentrate on this area. In the context of road deaths, Senator Carroll was right to mention the impact of tiredness and driving under the influence of prescription or illegal drugs. Government media campaigns have highlighted these issues, but there has been no other effort by the Government or anyone else to tackle them. The time of year during which most road accidents occur is the dead of winter. December is notorious, with the highest number of road accidents every year. A considered case has been proposed by others that this country might consider adopting European time so we would have an extra hour of daylight during the evening peak time when people are travelling home from work, as this would have a positive impact on the number of road accidents. I agree we should 691 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator John Paul Phelan.] consider introducing European time as a means of protecting people travelling during rush hours, particularly in the evening. I am not criticising the great deal of work the Minister has done on this matter, but too much lip-service is paid to what legislation will do when it is passed in this or the Lower House as opposed to what could be implemented on the ground were we to enforce the law as it stands. However, the law is not enforced satisfactorily.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: How much time do I have?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Ten minutes.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Will my colleagues have time to speak?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): The Minister will be called at 8.20 p.m., so the Senators will have approximately 20 minutes. Are three Senators offering?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: They will need to share time.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Could I take seven minutes?

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Could each of the three of us have seven minutes?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I cannot guarantee anything, as someone on the other side of the House or from the Labour Party or the Independent group could indicate. The Senators need to make their decision.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Could we each have six minutes?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): That would be fine.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: How about three minutes each?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: No, not three minutes. I could not do it.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Could the Chair silence Senator Wilson?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Would Senator Healy Eames like to be told when she is approaching six minutes?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Yes. I thank the Acting Chairman for listening while we worked this out. I welcome the Minister. In principle, I welcome the Bill, the aim of which is good, namely, to make our roads safer so that more lives are saved. However, it is important that I make a few points in support of other Senators’ comments. For example, I support Senator Phelan’s comments on the importance of implementation. Many claim the current role of 8o’clock the Garda is not about making our roads safer. Were that the case, gardaí would be more visible. In rural and urban areas of the west, I am regularly told that the Garda’s enforcement is a revenue raising exercise as opposed to an effort to make roads safer. This matter needs to be considered. The Bill will reduce the legal blood alcohol concentration level to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. 692 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

There is considerable evidence to support this. Studies taken by the British Medical Journal concur as 50 milligrammes is generally seen as the stage when impairment becomes noticeable. One of the studies I looked at also saw signs of impairment in driving at 70 milligrammes. However, in the case of 20% of the people studied impairment was reported at between 10 milligrammes and 40 milligrammes. In particular young men under 20 and men over 55 have an increased risk at lower concentration. It is thought they have a 30-fold increased risk at 80 milligrammes, so there is a good reason for reducing blood-alcohol levels, and on that I compli- ment the Minister. I support the notion of safety first and the fact we must consider that of the 281 road fatalities in 2008, some 120 involved those in the age group 16 to 30, and 204 of those who died were males. I temper those remarks, however, by asking that the incidences of sleep and tiredness be considered as well as distances. We now have the new M6 from Galway to Dublin. Compared to when people drove the poorer roadway, there is now greater likelihood of falling asleep while driving because the road is so boring, as was pointed out to me at a meeting last night. In this regard we need to look at the Australian model, with people driving very long dis- tances, but with considerably more signage and warnings as regards the dangers of falling asleep at the wheel. Considerations such as body weight, food and nutrition are also relevant issues, as regards the effects of alcohol in the body, and whether someone will have eaten adequately etc. In principle I accept there is a good argument for reducing the blood-alcohol level, but we need to temper everything the Minister is doing with the realities in different areas of the country, particularly rural Ireland, as others have mentioned. According to Irish Rural Link’s CEO, Seamus Boland, enforcing higher limits will not save a single Irish pub from closure and most importantly, neither will it free people from rural isolation. People need rural transport in rural communities and this is an opportunity for publicans and communities to come together to provide an adequate support system for their locality, he says. However, under current economic constraints supports are needed before pubs close down. What happened to the pilot proposal around rural transport of the former Minister for Com- munity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív? Has the Minister any suggestions as regards how he might assist in this area? This would be responsible legislation if he could reduce blood-alcohol levels while matching this with measures that ensure people still have access to public houses. More than 40% of the population lives in rural areas. Rural dwellers have a higher poverty rate to urban dwellers according to recent CSO figures, which means they have less disposable income for taxis etc. More than half the households in rural Ireland reported difficulty in accessing public transport as compared to 11% in urban areas. It just is not there. On one occasion a few years ago when I wanted somebody to mind my children, nobody would take the job because there was no way of getting there without a car. One third of rural dwellers have difficulty accessing banking services and local GP services as compared to 15% of urban dwellers, again showing the heightened sense of isolation in rural Ireland. The HSE farm and rural stress helpline found that 50% of callers were living alone, 41% cited depression and suicidal thoughts as their main mental problems and 43% cited loneliness and no support as the main reasons for calling the helpline. Making it more difficult for people in rural Ireland to access pubs will exacerbate these figures. In a few years we shall have enormous difficulties, as regards the increasing rates of suicide, as Senator Phelan has indicated, with new figures out today. There has been an increase of 26% since last year. We shall have to look for new measures to counteract rural isolation. If the pub is serving a function at the moment, why not find a way? Pub means public house, and not necessarily a place in which to get sloshed and drunk out of one’s mind. It provides 693 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.] an opportunity for people to meet. By reducing the blood-alcohol levels we are increasing fear, enhancing rural isolation and effectively promoting excessive drinking in the home. I have seen this in my locality, unfortunately, with two older families falling into the habit of excessive drinking in the home since they are so fearful of going out because of the tighter drink driving limits. I call on the Minister to match the reduction in blood-alcohol limits responsibly with rural transport supports, to make the continuation of life in rural Ireland possible. This would be good for the economy and indeed for Fianna Fáil. That party has depended on rural Ireland for many years, so do not let it down now.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: At the outset I acknowledge the reduction in road deaths in recent years, and express my pleasure in that regard. I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment and contribution to that as well as the input from the breathalyser legislation. There is a remarkable change in our culture and in our attitude to drinking and driving which I also acknowledge and welcome. Second Stage is an appropriate time to introduce some cautionary remarks in relation to this legislation, however, to put matters in perspective, lest we get carried away. Looking at the study cited in the Library digest by Beirness and Simpson in Canada, and from personal obser- vation, very few people are involved in serious road accidents with an alcohol limit below 80 milligrammes. In so far as they might be, the likelihood is that the other driver was significantly over the limit. All objective and empirical studies suggest the majority of people involved in fatalities and serious road accidents are over 150 milligrammes. Those are the facts and the legislation needs to be framed in that context. We do not have a saliva testing process along the roadside for drugs such as cocaine, speed, cannabis etc. as they do in Australia. From anecdotal evidence and practical observation, I believe that many current accidents in Ireland have their origins there. I acknowledge the Minister’s personal commitment to road safety, but I say to him that therein lies a major lacuna in our approach. The issue of speed is critical, and the statistics show that the majority of accidents occur late at night and involve young people, as well as speed and driving in excess of the alcohol limit and possibly drug limits. Those points are worthy of note in the context of the legislation. Perhaps if we implement existing law there might not be the same compelling case to be made for this legislation. It will not be helpful to the process if in this House we display reactions to the proposed legislation that are not well thought out. We should not adopt a knee-jerk reaction to lowering limits, when there are far more complex issues to be considered. To sound another note of caution, every Member from a rural constituency will point to the rural way of life and the problems experienced by single persons who do not have a social life, many of whom are prisoners in their own homes. While the reduction in the drink driving limit is meritorious, isolation in rural areas, with the decay of the pub as the focal social centre for so many who have no alternative, must be taken into consideration. The Minister must keep in mind those counties in which there is no rail service or adequate bus network. Where I live in County Cavan many work in the chicken processing plant in Shercock or the engineering firm Pauwels. There is no public transport service available for the workers in these plants to get to work. They are dependent on the car. While people are opting not to drink and drive and use designated drivers, which all public representatives and professional publicans encourage, many who may have had a few drinks the night before are concerned that they will still be over the limit when driving the following morning. It is an 694 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) issue that needs to be addressed. I know it is not politically correct to raise this issue but somebody must. There must be some advocate for the people concerned who are voiceless. I hope the Minister will take these matters into consideration. They need a holistic approach rather than just taking one piece of the jigsaw in isolation. If we opt for the latter, it will only lead to human misery. I could spend an hour with narratives about individuals who live in isolated rural areas and have no social contact. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, as does the issue of road fatalities. A balance needs to be struck in this debate. I hope I have served my constituents properly by striking that balance.

Senator : While I largely welcome the Road Traffic Bill 2009, I am disappointed, like Senators O’Reilly and Healy Eames, that the Government has not taken an initiative to help rural areas in which there is no access to public transport which may be affected by this legislation. Will the Minister examine some ways of assisting them? The introduction of various measures such as reductions in VRT and tax breaks to assist publicans to provide transport in their localities has been suggested. I hope the Minister will examine these suggestions favour- ably, as they would greatly relieve the problems experienced in these areas so eloquently described by Senator O’Reilly. I participated in the visit of the Joint Committee on Transport to Australia, the world leader when it comes to road safety. The recommendations made in our report have been implemented by both the Minister for Transport and the Road Safety Authority. I have an issue, however, with unmarked Garda cars on transport duties. Having more marked cars would be a much better approach. When drivers see Garda cars on the road, they tend automatically to slow down or check their driving behaviour. In Australia the authorities did away with the unmarked police car approach and instead there is a visible police presence on the road net- work. This has led to Australian drivers checking their driving behaviour and patterns. Another option the Minister should consider is having reduced speed limits in bad weather conditions, similar to the system in place in France where the maximum road speed is 130 km/h in dry weather which is reduced to 110 km/h in wet weather. Ireland should adopt a similar system. On some roadways one will encounter strong lights on pillars outside houses. In approaching them from a distance a driver will find it difficult to determine from which side of the road the light is coming. Homeowners with such lights outside their homes should be required to place a shield around them to prevent them disorienting oncoming drivers. In New Zealand street-parking against the flow of traffic is prohibited. Adopting such a rule would help traffic flow in many towns and prevent cars driving out into oncoming traffic. Section 42 provides for the appointment of traffic wardens and commissioners. Is this going down the road of privatising tests as regards alcohol consumption and the issuing of speeding fines? Section 42(1)(c) states, “Neither the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 nor the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956 apply to the position of traffic warden”. Who are their superiors? Do they report to their local Garda superintendent? Will they need specialised training in the college in Templemore or provided by private companies? Will the Minister allay some of these concerns, as I believe this is an attempt to privatise some of these services? I am not in favour of outsourcing or privatising alcohol consumption testing or the issuing of speeding fines.

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis na Seanadóirí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo. I thank Members for their support for the measures contained in the Bill. I accept some may have tempered their support in some respects. I welcome the fact the Opposition has agreed to support the Bill on Second Stage. I thank Members for the kind comments on the award received by Ireland for our work on road 695 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.] safety, which I accepted last week. It is a recognition of the importance the Government attaches to the problem of road deaths and injuries. As I stated in my opening remarks, it is a tribute not only to the Minister, the RSA, the Road Safety Authority, the Garda, the Depart- ment of Transport or any one individual group, but to everyone, including drivers, those who use our roads and all those who campaign on road safety issues. I will try to deal with several of the points raised by Senators in the short time available. We can deal with the other points on Committee Stage because I am sure amendments will be tabled. Senator Donohoe raised the issue of graduated driving licences and the possibility of rehabilitation schemes and so on. This relates to action No. 119 of the road safety strategy and it is a task for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Part of its remit under the Road Safety Act is to research and evaluate the effectiveness of alternative correction rehabilitation programmes for a range of road traffic offences and this is currently being pur- sued by the Department. I refer to the question of the new EBT, evidential breath testing, instruments. I have made my view on this matter very clear from the beginning and I recall exchanging views with Deputy Broughan on this matter over the airwaves. Anyone who knows anything about this subject is aware there must be a lead-in time before EBT instruments can be put in place. Normally, this period is anything from 24 to 30 months. In an effort to shorten this time, once the Bill was published I instructed the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to start the process. I indicated the schedule was to have the Bill passed for the summer and, hopefully, we will do that. I indicated quite clearly that the bureau should start the purchase or tender for the equipment. The bureau has done this and it has cut at least six or eight months off the timescale. The instruments will be in place. Obviously, they must be bought and tested and the Garda must be trained. All of this takes time but they will be in operation by the end of summer next year. Several Senators raised the issue of rural transport. The Government is committed to a rural transport scheme which was introduced in 2001. We provided €2 million or €3 million at that stage. We continued the scheme and the provision increased to €6 million. When I came to the Department, the allocation was €9 million and it is now €11 million. In addition, a further €5 million or €6 million is paid over by the Department of Social Protection. The programme was heavily criticised by several people when it was first introduced by the then Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy Mary O’Rourke. We remain committed to the scheme and several pilot initiatives have been introduced to determine whether we can expand it. We are working with the HSE and several other bodies, including Bus Éireann with its networking expertise and school buses, to establish whether we can put in place a more extensive rural transport scheme. I refer to the question of the graduated driving licence. The RSA undertook to put in place a consultation process which it has now completed and it has reported to me on the matter. Several measures have been put forward and I have approved the proposals in principle. Some require refining, some will require primary legislation and some can be put in place through pilot schemes which the RSA will carry out with full support. Some of the other measures related to graduated driving licences must wait for the next Road Traffic Bill which will be during the course of next year. Several Senators raised the question of drugs and drug testing, including Senators Ó Brol- cháin, Ryan, Carroll and Buttimer. The Garda can test for drugs; this is not a problem. Often, when gardaí test for drink and find no evidence, blood tests are carried out for drugs and other intoxicants. Offences are prosecuted in this regard. However, I accept it is an increasing prob- lem. The difficulty lies with the fact that there is no roadside test for drug driving and this is because such testing is unreliable. There is no point going off half-cocked and including a measure in the legislation which we cannot stand over. The methods we use to decipher 696 Road Traffic Bill 2009: 29 June 2010. Second Stage (Resumed) whether a person has drugs in his or her system must be sound. We have no wish for the whole Road Traffic Bill to be thrown out because we included something unproven or untested. That is the situation but I am as impatient as Members on all sides of the House to try to introduce a test as quickly as possible. However, we must ensure we do not jeopardise everything else in the legislation in the process. The Bill replaces impairment test measures, which were provided for previously. When a garda stops a person on the side of the road in the knowledge that such a person is driving erratically and suspects the person is drunk but the breathalyser does not show this up, that garda will be able carry out impairment tests on the roadside to allow him or her to form the opinion that the person has an intoxicant in his or her system. That person can then be taken to the Garda station and proper tests can be carried out on foot of which a prosecution may follow. Senator Ellis raised the question about mutual recognition of penalty points and whether it was in breach of or illegal under European law. My legal advice is that it certainly is. There is an agreed EU convention on disqualifications and we must secure a convention on the penalty points system. In the meantime, we must consider the recognition of penalty points and we wish to ensure the UK and ourselves can come to some mutual agreement on the matter. I do not believe this will cause a problem from a European law point of view. Senator O’Toole raised the question of a credit card style driving licence. I have already indicated that I intend to introduce such a card and I am no longer waiting for the EU. We have started the process in train and, hopefully, by the end of next year we should have it in place. I have asked for the matter to be expedited as quickly as possible. I refer to section 9 which deals with mandatory testing at the scene of an accident and in other cases. We amended the section in the Dáil to strengthen and clarify it. Senators O’Toole and Mary White referred to this in their contributions. I will re-examine the matter before Thursday to establish if it is possible to tighten it further and to make it somewhat clearer. We will introduce mandatory testing, a significant step forward, and we will refine it as much as possible. I will inform Senators of progress in this regard on Thursday. Senator Carroll asked about introducing a zero blood alcohol limit. The issue has often been raised and reference is made to the position in many European states. However, the records in these countries tend to be way behind ours. I would not be comfortable in reducing the blood alcohol level to zero when I hear so much about how alcohol can be in the system when one is undergoing tests. I would be concerned, if we were to go down this route, that the legislation would be thrown out of court because of the imponderables. In some cases, reducing the blood alcohol level to 20 milligrams is as positive as reducing the level generally, but I do not want to jeopardise the legislation by reducing it to a level that we could not stand over scientifically. A number of Opposition Senators raised the question of the Garda not enforcing the pro- visions of traffic legislation owing to overtime bans and so on. There is a dedicated traffic corps. If most road traffic accidents occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 3 a.m., particularly at weekends, that is time the Garda traffic corps should be on duty. Under the Croke Park agreement which will transform public services, there is a need for flexibility such that a ban on or reduction in Garda overtime will not affect road safety and that the figure of 75,000 hours will still be met. Senators opposite say that because Garda overtime is being reduced we are putting lives at risk. While it is a matter for the Garda Commissioner, if there is a dedicated Garda traffic corps, this is the job it should be doing 24 hours a day, particularly at times of greatest danger. In saying this I do not want anybody to imply that I am criticising the work of the Garda in this regard. If what Senators opposite say is a problem, the answer is not the 697 Respite 29 June 2010. Care

[Deputy Noel Dempsey.] provision of more money or overtime but the proper organisation of the way gardaí work in order that they will be on duty at the times they are needed most. Some members raised the issue of the condition of roads. Some 40% of accidents are attribu- table to speeding, while in 33% to 37% of cases, alcohol is a factor. The condition of roads and vehicle safety are minor factors. The three major factors are not wearing a seat belt, drink driving and speed. Senators raised the issue of suicides. I do not wish to add to the grief or pain of anybody who has had somebody in their family commit suicide. I know a number of families who have been bereaved in this way. It is not something any of us like to hear about, but blaming this legislation which has not yet been passed or previous legislation for an increase in the number of suicides, when there is no scientific evidence to back up such a claim, is not acceptable. I do not wish to finish my contribution on a negative note. I thank Senators for their positive contributions and their support for the Bill on Second Stage. I look forward to taking Commit- tee and Report Stages on Thursday.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Next Thursday.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 1 July 2010.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Tomorrow, at 10.30 a.m.

Adjournment Matters

————

Respite Care Services Senator Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Chathaoirleach for selecting this matter and Senator Keaveney for allowing me to take her place. I refer to the reduction in funding made available to organisations providing respite care, particularly for children with intellectual disabilities. I became involved in this issue last Thurs- day in my constituency in which the Sisters of Charity which is based on the Navan Road and which provides respite care for almost 80 families organised a public meeting, at which we were informed that two weeks’ notice had been given for the closure of a centre in which these services were provided. The families I met on Thursday and again today are not getting much help from the State, nor are they asking for much. These are their children, their brothers and sisters, whom they love and care for, at times in very difficult circumstances. The centre in question allows them to have a break, perhaps once a week or once a month, but it allows them space to look after their own mental and physical well-being. This enables them to look after their children or their brothers and sisters with whom they are blessed. The families concerned are hanging on in difficult circumstances. I am concerned, therefore, that the cancellation of respite care services would have a detrimental effect not only on the young people with disabilities in question but also on those who look after them. I appeal to the Minister of State to use his good offices to ask the Department of Health and Children to arrange a meeting with the HSE which is seeking to make savings and the Sisters of Charity 698 Respite 29 June 2010. Care to find a compromise. We are being told continually that if there are cutbacks in funding, everything possible will be done to ensure front-line services will not be affected. Front-line services are being romoved. The school is closing tomorrow for the summer. In one week the respite care services enjoyed by the 80 families concerned will be removed, the staff who provide them will move elsewhere and the building will lie vacant. This is unacceptable. The reason I am raising the matter is to obtain the Department’s perspective and urge it to use its good offices to facilitate a meeting between the HSE and the Sisters of Charity to find a compromise to keep the service open. I again thank Senator Keaveney for allowing me to speak first.

Minister of State at the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Education and Skills and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): I reply on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children. I thank Senator Donohoe for raising this matter and I am pleased to take this opportunity to outline the position relating to the 2010 funding for the Daughters of Charity services at St. Vincent’s Centre, Navan Road, Dublin 7. The Government is very much aware of the valuable contribution the voluntary sector, including the Daughters of Charity, makes to the provision of services to people with intellec- tual disabilities. By way of illustration, funding of €900 million was provided to 281 intellectual disability service providers in 2009. With regard to the Daughters of Charity services, the HSE provided more than €110 million to the Daughters of Charity in 2009. This is an increase of €25 million since 2005. This sustained level of additional investment reflects the significant growth and development in the Daughters of Charity services in the recent past. The HSE is aware of the challenges service providers, including the Daughters of Charity, are experiencing and the particular diffi- culties facing all health services in 2010. In this context, it is vital that all service providers, including the voluntary sector, work creatively and co-operatively to ensure that the maximum level of services are maintained for service users within the funding resources available. The HSE is aware of the challenges the reduction in allocations will present to organisations in ensuring they meet the needs of service users and in planning for emergencies that arise throughout the year. It is recognised that maintaining service levels within available resources will require significant levels of co-operation, change, flexibility and creativity. The HSE will continue to work in partnership with the voluntary service providers in dealing with issues that arise from funding allocations, to ensure the needs of service users are prioritised and addressed. Disability service providers were asked to submit their plans for the maintenance of service levels within available resources taking the following into consideration: items of expenditure which do not immediately and directly impact on front-line services; where rationalisation can be effected; the manner in which services are delivered; opportunities to reduce costs by sharing services and/or activities with other agencies; the cost of back office administration, all other unnecessary costs and rationalisation of general management structures. The HSE will continue to work with the voluntary service providers to streamline costs and identify areas where efficiencies can be achieved without impacting on front-line services. This Government remains committed to the long-term goals and objectives of the national disability strategy. Our commitment in the area of disability has been consistent. Overall approximately €1.6 billion is spent annually by the health service on specialist health and per- sonal social services and supports for people with a disability. Despite the current economic 699 Mobile 29 June 2010. Telephony

[Deputy Conor Lenihan.] climate, the HSE’s national service plan for 2010 makes provision for additional funding of €19.5 million to meet the anticipated growth in demand for disability services in 2010. There has been continued expansion in the availability of respite support services. These services have grown significantly in recent years. More than 4,599 people avail of respite services funded by the HSE. This service has supported people to continue living with their families and in their communities. The Government is very much aware of the importance of respite service provision for the families of children and adults with disabilities, and is con- cerned to ensure that front-line services are protected as far as possible.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I ask the Minister to pass on my desperate request to the HSE that it meet the Daughters of Charity on the Navan Road and do all it can to ensure that services are not withdrawn in a week and a half. The Minister said the Government is doing all that is possible to maintain front-line services. These services will go and, to the best of my knowledge, the HSE and the Daughters of Charity have not met since this announcement was made. I ask the Minister to convey that to the HSE so we can try to avoid a desperate situation.

Mobile Telephony Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I raise the issue of mobile telephone coverage and the need for all-Ireland packages. If the Minister does much travelling around Ireland, he will be familiar with this issue. If not, he has a level of responsibility for places such as the Foyle so he might have some understanding of it. The last time I spoke about roaming charges, mobile telephone coverage and telephone packages, the issue was the fact that when one crossed the Border one of the telephone com- panies put a text message on the system stating that one was now entering Ireland. Many people were very offended by that message so I had a great deal of interaction with the tele- phone company concerned. That message has now been removed and replaced with a message to point out that the person is roaming and the cost is such and such. I hope I will achieve the same level of success by raising this issue tonight. I can buy a telephone package comprising anything from 200 minutes and 200 texts up to 600 minutes and 600 texts. The problem arises when I travel from Dublin through the North to my home or when I am at home and leave my telephone on automatic mode. The telephone will automatically pick up the UK Vodafone signal, for example. While I will not be charged roaming charges, the text message I receive or send or the telephone call I make will not be included in my package. Therefore, although I buy a package, I must pay for these other calls. I am no longer paying an international roaming charge but I am paying separately for the calls. Whether I travel through the North, which I must do to go home, or seek the stronger signal in my area, I am caught in that situation. I do not have a choice. I am not speaking specifically on my own behalf but on behalf of all those on the Border. In many locations the stronger signal is the UK signal, be it Orange, O2 or Vodafone. We are caught by the reality of needing to have both facilities to provide an overall service, yet there are two different charging regimes. Many people from the Republic travel to the North as tourists while many Northerners come to the Republic for social, business and tourism reasons. There is no reason we should not consider forcing the issue of an all-Ireland common package whereby when I buy my 200 minutes, it does not matter where I use them or whether it is a UK or Irish company. While I acknowledge there has been a reduction in prices generally and particularly across Europe and that there is a general move towards lower tariffs, the fact that there are separate tariffs is the issue in this case. 700 Mobile 29 June 2010. Telephony

When I raised the issue about the text message one received when one went from one jurisdiction into the other, I also raised this issue. Originally, I was told it was not technically possible to amalgamate the two schemes. I told the company concerned that I was a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and that we could take this on as an issue in the sub-committee. When the lady on the other end of the telephone heard that, she said: “So you have friends in high places.” I said I had colleagues in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, including baronesses and so forth, who are members of the same committee. She reversed very quickly and said it is not a technical problem but a commercial decision. I do not know if this is the Minister’s direct responsibility. If this is a technical impossibility, we can examine the technical end of it but I am told it is a commercial decision. I ask that the Minister with responsibility for the issue here work with the Minister with the same responsi- bility in the Northern Ireland Assembly to push change and to drive the provision of a single package for mobile telephone coverage, which will work North and South and even north of the North, where I live.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: The Government is committed to promoting partnership on the island through the North/South Ministerial Council and the other North/South institutions to deepen economic, social and cultural relations between both parts of the island. In the communications sector, we have jointly promoted Project Kelvin, which I will describe in more detail presently. EU rules regulating the telecommunications sector have evolved over the past decade and more. Significant regulatory tasks are now transferred to independent market regulators, Com- Reg in Ireland and Ofcom in the North. The market regulators continue to co-operate to ensure the smooth operation of telecommunications services for all. The EU telecommunications rules permit co-operation across member states but limit the authority of member states and market regulators to regulate retail tariffs in markets which are competitive. Currently, the majority of retail communications products and services available on the island are subject to competition. I turn now to the important matter of affordable cross-Border telecommunications packages and services which are so important to communities, North and South. Project Kelvin is a joint project between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which is particularly beneficial to the Border regions, providing high capacity fibre North and South serving Letterkenny, Monaghan, Castleblaney, Dundalk and Drogheda and routing onwards to Dublin to provide greater resilience. For the areas directly involved, the benefits are manifold. With international connectivity, towns such as Letterkenny, Monaghan, Drogheda and the others already mentioned, as well as the surrounding areas, are now very attractive bases for businesses. High-tech multinational firms that trade digitally will find the north west of the country particularly attractive as a location to serve international markets. Companies can set up in this region confident that they can operate successfully in the global market. There are other arrangements in place which are beneficial to residential customers and business users. The “048” service allows customers in Ireland to dial numbers in Northern Ireland at national rates and in some cases local rates. It is also the case that many Irish fixed line operators offer packages with inclusive minutes to UK land lines, including Northern Ireland. The mobile telephony market is less harmonised. In 2006, all four mobile service providers introduced special roaming tariffs. EU regulations have since placed a ceiling on roaming prices. The prices set in the EU roaming regulation are not fixed. Some mobile service pro- viders continue to offer discounts for calls to Northern Ireland and the wider UK market. It is 701 Schools 29 June 2010. Building Projects

[Deputy Conor Lenihan.] important to realise that customers can opt for individual roaming packages offered by their operator. It is also important that consumers shop around by comparing products and services of alternative service providers which may be more suited to their usage pattern. ComReg has been proactive in this area. The market regulator introduced rules to facilitate switching between service providers while retaining the same contact number. Since its intro- duction in 2003, approximately 1.9 million accounts have switched of which approximately 360,000 occurred in the 12 month period to the end of March 2010. Continued consumer choice using the switching option will maintain pressure on mobile service providers to offer best value and tailored products to identified customer profiles. ComReg also provides a comparison service on its website that allows residential and commercial users to compare phone and broadband costs based on their usage patterns. We will continue to explore joint North-South initiatives to improve the communications market in Ireland. Such initiatives are likely to concentrate on the upstream infrastructure market benefiting wholesale service providers directly and retail customers indirectly. EU rules restrict the ability of my Department and the market regulator, ComReg, to regu- late prices and packages. Similar rules apply to our colleagues in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland. Continued vigilance by customers in comparing the different packages offered by competing service providers periodically will maintain downward pressure on retail prices and services. Customers can access the ComReg comparison service at its website to identify the choices most beneficial to their individual needs, and I urge citizens in the Border towns to avail of this service.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I take it from the Minister’s reply that the hands of the two Governments are tied but that the citizens should revolt by doing their own market research. I am not asking either side to regulate the prices and packages. All I ask is that they would encourage the companies involved to examine all-island packages because if someone is not pushing that, the individual citizen cannot leverage them. I ask that the operators be encour- aged to come before a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council with a particular item on the agenda as to what they can do to provide an all-island package or outline their intention to have an all-island package, in co-operation with the other very good work going on with Project Kelvin and so on.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: If the Senator writes to me on that I will make that case to the regulators and to the Minister responsible in this area.

Schools Building Projects Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I seek an updated report on the purchase of a site for Gael- scoil de hÍde in Oranmore, followed by the construction of the school. This is an incredible story, and it is difficult to believe it is still going on. In 1994, 16 years ago, this gaelscoil was started in prefabs. It is still operating in prefabs. That is a significant date for me as my son was born in 1994. I considered sending him to this school. Last week he completed his junior certificate examination and there is still no permanent construction in Gaelscoil de hÍde in Oranmore. I wish to quote from an e-mail I got from a mother on 24 February of this year. It states:

Hi Fidelma, Just wondering if you knew anything about the “New” Gaelscoil de hÍde? Will it ever happen? I have such little faith in a new school being built during my children’s term. As it is, my son gets only 10 min play outside (on a dry day) due to space. 702 Schools 29 June 2010. Building Projects

The population of the school is dense on a half acre. There are 250 children — 209 in the primary school and 40 in the naíonra, and they all share that same half acre space, including all of the prefabs. I will give the Minister an interesting statistic. It is widely known that Manilla, in the Philippines, has the highest density of population per square kilometre, with 44,000 people per square kilometre, but Gaelscoil de hÍde in Oranmore has the highest density of population. It has 0.17 of a hectare for 250 children — a density of 180,000 persons per square kilometre. Most of us live on a half acre, including the house. This school is operating with 250 children and 20 adults on that half acre. There is a timetable for children to go out to play for ten minutes at a time. It is ridiculous. I cannot tell the Minister of State the number of Ministers and TDs who have visited this school and made promises with regard to the building. The education in the school is second to none. It is an extremely popular school, and all of the parents in the area are choosing to educate their children through Irish. The parish of Oranmore-Maree is bulging at its seams due to the construction growth and the population growth from early in 2000. If the children were not educated in this school they would have to be educated somewhere else, and there is no space elsewhere in terms of primary school places in the area. In 2006-2007 I achieved a band rating one for this school with Galway County Council because it was an area of pressing priority and extreme population growth. This is a school that has fallen between many stools and has been the subject of Celtic tiger promises around developer led projects and sites. As the mother in the e-mail stated:

Will [the school] ever happen? I have heard that another prefab is going in for September [I can confirm that] which will leave us with no play area and a very big health hazard waiting to happen. 250 children on a half acre site with no play area or hall....notgood enough. Any info would be grateful regarding this matter.

In addition to the current population there will be an extra 31 children come September. First, what is the hold up with regard to this project? I held off submitting this Adjournment matter until now because I was told that a decision was imminent. It has not happened. Second, what can the Minister do subsequent to sorting the issue of the site to fast-track the construction of Gaelscoil de hÍde? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Mary Coughlan, Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills. I thank the Senator for raising the matter as it affords me the opportunity to outline to the House the process being utilised to ensure there will be adequate accommodation in schools at primary and post-primary level in all parts of the country. The forward planning section of the Department of Education and Skills utilises the latest in geographical information system, GIS, technology to assist in planning school requirements into the future. The GIS contains information on all schools in the country, primary and post- primary level, geo-coded to their location. Growth projection figures are also applied to the existing population with a view to assessing future requirements and identifying the areas experiencing highest growth at primary and post- primary level. In addition, as a matter of course, there is ongoing liaison between the Depart- 703 The 29 June 2010. Adjournment

[Deputy Conor Lenihan.] ment and local authorities to establish the location, scale and pace of any major developments and their possible implications for school provision. The forward planning section of the Department is in the process of carrying out detailed analysis of more than 40 identified locations of highest population growth to identify the school accommodation requirements up to and including the school year 2014 to 2015. Given the increase in the birth rate in recent years the initial focus of this analysis is on primary school accommodation requirements, and this will be followed by a more detailed analysis of post- primary accommodation requirements. Turning to the specific primary school referred to by the Senator — Gaelscoil de hÍde, Oranmore, County Galway — the Department has been involved in discussions with Galway County Council in relation to acquiring a suitable site. I am advised the local authority is actively engaged in negotiations for a suitable site. Due to the commercial sensitivities per- taining to the acquisition of school sites generally, it is not possible for me to comment further on the acquisition process at this time. That said, the House can be assured the Department is fully aware of the requirements for school provision in the Oranmore area and the associated demand for school places and is working closely with the county council on the matter. I thank the Senator again for affording me the opportunity to outline to the House the current position.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is really a non-answer with no specific information. The Minister of State refers to commercial sensitivities pertaining to the acquisition of school sites and that it is not possible for him to comment further. Is there a deadline for completion of negotiations, when there might be a decision?

Deputy Conor Lenihan: As indicated in my reply, this is a commercially sensitive matter. If negotiations are at an advanced stage and clearly sites are being looked at and hopefully being identified in that process, one has to be careful. The Senator will know that some people are more than willing to make hay.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I have no difficulty with that point.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames, there is no provision for questions.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: If I could finish with this point, please. I would have liked a little more final information as to when those negotiations will be concluded. I am not looking to know the price, the seller or anything like that. I just want some facts that could give some solace to this school community.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: It might be as well for the Senator to write directly to the Tánaiste on that matter. I suggest she might also write to the local authority which is deeply involved in the discussions.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I will certainly write to the Tánaiste.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 June 2010.

704