COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 2004

2003 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts.

Chapter 7 — Garda Síochána

Chapter 7.1 — Fixed Charge Notices and Penalty Points

Mr. Seán Aylward, (Secretary General, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform) and Ms Julie O’Neill(Secretary General, Department of Transport) called and examined.

Chairman

I welcome everyone here today. Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege and should be apprised as follows. As and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include: the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any person identified in the course of proceedings who is not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 156 that the committee should refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

Chapter 7.1, Fixed Charge Notices and Penalty Points is under discussion today. I ask the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce his officials.

Mr. Seán Aylward

To my immediate right is Mr. Michael Kirrane, principal officer in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. To his right is Mr. Brendan Callaghan, who is also a principal officer in the Department. To my left is the assistant secretary of the Department, Mr. Ken O'Leary and to his left is Chief Superintendent John Farrelly, who has recently been promoted within the Garda Síochána to be in charge of traffic law enforcement in the State. Accompanying him to his left is the assistant commissioner, Mr. Pat Crummey. With the Chairman's indulgence, I call on Ms Julie O'Neill, Secretary General of the Department of Transport to introduce herself.

Ms Julie O’Neill

I would like to introduce my two officials, Mr. John Weafer who is principal officer with responsibility for road safety in the Department and Mr. Liam Dolan who is principal officer with responsibility for driver testing and licensing in the Department.

Chairman

I call on the Department of Finance officials to introduce themselves.

Mr. Fred Foster

I am a principal officer in the public expenditure division and my colleague is Mr. Patsy Purtill from the administrative budget side of the Department.

Chairman

I think it is Chief Superintendent Farrelly's first time before us since promotion. I would like to congratulate him and wish him well.

Chief Superintendent John Farrelly

Thank you.

Chairman

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce the Chapter.

Paragraph 7.1 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Description of the system

Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 2002, An Garda Síochána operates and maintains a system for the issuing of Fixed Charge Notices and the acceptance of payments for two penalty point offences, namely speeding (from 31 October 2002) and the non-wearing of seat-belts (from 25 August 2003). The offences of driving with no insurance (from 1 June 2003) and careless driving (from 4 June 2004) are also penalty point offences but do not come within the scope of the Fixed Charge system as they can only be prosecuted by summonsing the driver to Court.

The penalty points system is operated jointly by the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Since the introduction of the penalty points system, information relating to the payment of fixed charges in respect of the two offences has been transferred manually from the Garda Síochána to an outsourced data processor for the recording of penalty points as appropriate on the National Driver File operated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on behalf of the Department of Transport. Information on offences which proceed to a court conviction is transmitted to the data processor in manual format or to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government directly by the Courts Service where its criminal case tracking system has been rolled out to the relevant court.

Detection of speeding offences takes place by means of fixed camera installations, mobile GATSO Mobile speed detection equipment comprising on-board radar, computer and camera systems devices installed in unmarked vans and mobile LASTEC Mobile laser speed detection equipment devices (non intercept detections) or alternatively by means of laser devices operated by members of An Garda Síochána (intercept detections). Offences other than speeding, such as no insurance, seat-belt offences and careless driving currently may be detected only by means of direct Garda intervention (intercept detections).

Offences carry a monetary penalty and the gardaí are responsible for issuing notices of offence detections to drivers and the collection of the relevant charge.

The penalty for speeding offences is a fixed charge of €80 (€60 in the case of seat-belt offences), payable within 28 days from the issue of a fixed charge notice by the gardaí together with two penalty points on the driver's licence record in the NDF.

The fixed charge is increased to €120 if the driver fails to pay within this 28-day period (€90 in the case of seat-belt offences). The driver is allowed a further 28 days to pay the increased amount. If, after the total time (56 days) has elapsed, the fixed charge remains unpaid, the gardaí notify the Courts Service so that the driver concerned may be summonsed to Court. On conviction in Court, drivers are subject to a mandatory four penalty points and a maximum fine of €800 in the case of a first offence.

Operation of the System

The penalty points system provided for in the Road Traffic Act 2002 was designed around a set of complex processes involving An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and the D/EHLG. Development of the Garda Fixed Charges Processing System IT project, which provides for this inter-operability, commenced prior to the enactment of the 2002 Act. The consultancy contract was put in place in September 2002. Intensive work, involving a team headed by the Assistant Garda Commissioner for National Support Services, and comprising the consultants, gardaí from Garda IT, National Traffic Bureau, Change Management, Garda College together with civil servants from the relevant Departments, has been ongoing since then. A live pilot commenced on 30 June 2004.

A decision was made to introduce the penalty points system on an interim basis in October 2002. The old Fines on the Spot computer processing systems in the Dublin Metropolitan Region and Cork City were antiquated and could not be upgraded to cater for the fixed charge system. Consequently, they were terminated in respect of speeding offences. While the penalty points system was never intended to be operated manually, the absence of a suitable computer system in October 2002 meant that a manual system was the only way of implementing the decision to go ahead. With only limited additional resources (three temporary clerical officers) to support the manual system, processing delays arose at both locations. An Garda Síochána developed a new interim computer system to cope with fixed charge speeding offences during the first quarter of 2003.

Audit Review

In the course of a review of the Fixed Charge Notice/Penalty Points system by my staff it was noted that of 87,004 Fixed Charge Notices issued from 31 October 2002 to 31 December 2003, payments were received in respect of 48,553 notices (€6,147,450).

A total of 7,059 summonses (for non-payment of fixed charges) were applied for in the period 31 October 2002 to 31 December 2003, of which 1,523 were not proceeded with on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The following sections set out the circumstances in which a detected speeding offence may not be pursued by the authorities.

Static and Video Camera Detections

The Garda Fixed Penalty Office Status Report for the week ending 12 December 2003 shows that it had received 107,636 films or videos from static cameras or video recordings since the system commenced. Of these, 50,567 (some 47%) were described in the report as ‘spoiled'.

I asked what factors give rise to these spoiled recordings, whether and to what extent these would represent genuine infringements of the Road Traffic Acts (Penalty Point provisions) and what measures can be, or have been, taken to reduce the level of such spoiled images.

The Accounting Officer informed me that spoils occur for the following reasons, mainly relating to difficulties with number plates:

Dirty, obscure or damaged number plates

Tampered number plates

Non-conforming number plates

Foreign registered vehicles

Motor cycles.

In addition, the following technical problems were encountered with cameras and films:

Dirty lens

Poor weather conditions

Obstruction of lens

Problems with chemical developing solution

Computer related problems.

Other reasons for spoils include:

Emergency vehicles (which are exempt)

Temporary lack of access to National Vehicle File.

He added that the spoilt rate is a matter of concern to the Garda authorities and to his Department but pointed out that making an accusation of the commission of an offence under the Road Traffic Acts is a serious matter with potentially serious consequences for an offender. Therefore, the gardaí can only issue a Fixed Charge Notice where they are in a position to stand over the accusation.

The issues relating to camera and film deficiencies have since been addressed with the company supplying the cameras and the Garda Technical Bureau has addressed the chemical solution problems. This has led to a reduction in the number of spoils recorded in the first five months of 2004:

31 October to 31 December 2002 3,903

Full year 2003 51,944

1 January to 31 May 2004 13,535.

Issues relating to number plates are fed back through the Garda National Traffic Bureau to operational gardaí attached to Traffic Units with a view to enhancing the enforcement of the law in relation to number plates. It is understood that the issue of foreign registered vehicles is being addressed by the Department of Transport at EU level and in discussions with their Northern Ireland colleagues.

Detections involving company cars

The gardaí reported that there had been 235 cases where vehicles intercepted were in company ownership and where the penalty points accruing to the drivers of these vehicles could not be allocated to specific driver files as nomination forms had not been received from companies in respect of the detected offences.

I enquired as to how this situation has arisen with regard to drivers of company cars.

The Accounting Officer stated that under the penalty point system as set out in the Road Traffic Act 2002, payments can only be accepted where the payment is accompanied by the original Fixed Charge Notice (the format of which is prescribed in Regulations) duly completed, including the driver's licence number. This is to ensure that penalty points are recorded on the driver licence record. The issue of company vehicles was referred to the Office of the DPP by the gardaí and his Office directed that companies could not be prosecuted for a speeding offence, as it was a driver offence. Therefore, in circumstances where a company, as the registered owner of a vehicle, ignores a nomination notice, a summons is not issued by the Garda Fixed Penalty Office.

He went on to inform me that the question of dealing with vehicles registered to companies has been discussed on many occasions and has long been identified as a deficiency in the law. One possible solution is that a suitable amendment would be brought forward in a Finance Bill, in the context of treatment of company vehicles and benefit in kind. It has been brought to the attention of the Department of Transport, which is the sponsoring Department for road traffic legislation, by Garda management.

Foreign registered vehicles

In the course of audit, the audit team was informed that film footage viewed by the gardaí included recording of foreign registered vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit. The team was informed that the gardaí do not process offences by the drivers of such vehicles and no attempt is made to establish the identity of the drivers concerned. There is no record maintained of the number of such offences.

In response to my enquiries the Accounting Officer confirmed that the gardaí have no means of identifying the registered owners of foreign registered vehicles which are detected speeding by means of a non intercept device, i.e. cameras or GATSO devices. In order to identify registered owners, An Garda Síochána has access only to the D/EHLG's National Vehicle File (NVF). This does not include a facility to identify registered owners of vehicles registered outside the jurisdiction. Section 11(2) (b) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 provides that a notice shall be issued to a registered owner of a vehicle. In the event of non-payment, part of the proofs required for court is a certificate of ownership issued by an Authorised Officer of the relevant local authority. Therefore, the gardaí have no means of identifying foreign vehicles committing speeding offences detected by means of tape or films and they are recorded under the category of spoils. However, the gardaí do have the facility to detect foreign registered vehicles by means of direct interception devices, i.e. laser guns. In these cases, the drivers are required to identify themselves to the detecting Garda and are issued with Fixed Charge Notices on the spot.

Drivers holding Foreign Driving Licences

I asked the Accounting Officer for details of the number of offences noted by the gardaí as committed by drivers holding foreign driving licences or where holders of foreign driving licences have been nominated by the person to whom the notice was first sent.

The Accounting Officer stated that the IT system at the Garda Fixed Penalty Office does not currently distinguish between foreign drivers, Irish drivers, foreign addresses or Irish addresses. Consequently no data is available on the number of drivers holding foreign drivers licences who have paid their fixed charge.

However, after the payment of a fixed charge when the driver information is passed on to the data processor for recording of penalty points on the National Driver File (NDF), records with an invalid (including non-Irish) driver number are noted. In addition, drivers with foreign addresses who choose not to pay the fixed charge are identified during the process of summons application. Again, the matter of issuing summonses to these drivers was referred to the DPP by the Garda Fixed Penalty Office. The DPP advised that the prosecution of such offenders should not proceed as service of summons was unlikely.

The Accounting Officer informed me that it was difficult to estimate the potential loss of revenue to the State as the prosecution for penalty points offences would be dealt with in the District Courts where the potential fine is at the discretion of the Judge but may be up to a maximum of €800. There were 1,093 summonses for such drivers which had not been activated since the inception of the penalty point system to 31 December 2003.

Other Driver Nominations

The Garda computer file indicates that some 22,881 registered owners initially contacted in relation to a driving offence have indicated to the gardaí that he/she was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The nominal fixed charges in respect of these cases was €1,830,480.

I asked the Accounting Officer what steps the Garda Síochána take generally to ensure that the appropriate drivers are located and served with the fixed charge notices where nominations have occurred. I also asked what steps have been taken to deal with the large number of such cases.

In his reply, the Accounting Officer informed me that the procedure in operation was that when a registered owner receives a nomination notice for speeding and the registered owner indicates that they were not driving at the time, the registered owner must then complete the notice nominating a driver. A fixed charge notice is then issued to the nominated driver and the life cycle runs its course (28/56 days) resulting in either payment or prosecution.

The payments system in the Garda Fixed Penalty Office cannot differentiate betweenpayments received from nominated drivers and normal payments. The gardaí are not in a position to state what the monetary value of these nominations might be as the nominated drivers have the option of paying a Fixed Charge of €80 within 28 days, or €120 within 56 days or allowing the allegation proceed to summons to court where the maximum fine is up to €800.

Cancelled Notices

Drivers sometimes write to the Garda Fixed Penalty Office in response to receipt of a Fixed Charge Notice, for example to offer reasons why he/she was speeding on the occasion, or to explain the reason for the delay in paying the monetary penalty. The decision as to whether to proceed with the process of applying penalty points to the driver's record is apparently a matter for the Garda management at the Fixed Penalty Office.

The examination of the computer records show over 2,600 cancellations in the period examined. Of these, 1,500 are classified as "Error on ticket". A further 780 were classified "Details Unavailable".

I asked the Accounting Officer for information regarding the cancellation policy employed by the gardaí in respect of fixed charge notices and, in respect of the cancellations on the Garda file, why there appears to be a relatively high rate of error on tickets. I also sought his observations in relation to the cancellations for which no apparent details were available.

The Accounting Officer informed me that notices could only be cancelled at the discretion of the District Officer and generally cancellations only result from errors by the issuing Garda such as:

Incorrect particulars on notice

Incomplete notices

Defectively issued notices, e.g. where the National Vehicle File has not been updated

Legal exemptions both with regard to speeding and the non-wearing of seat belts

Poor picture on screen resulting in wrong owner getting notice

Incorrect information on National Vehicle File

Incorrect reading by Garda members viewing film/video and incorrect data entry.

The reference to "errors on ticket" refers to mismatch on National Vehicle File or human error on intercept Fixed Charge Notices and is an IT recognition code to flag that the notice should be cancelled on the interim IT system. The references to "details unavailable" relate to older manually processed cases where the details of the cancellations are recorded in summary form only; and, other instances wherethe request for cancellation is made and acceded to before the details are processed by the Garda Fixed Penalty Office. An examination of the number of cancellations shows that the number has reduced substantially to a total of 771 in the first six months of 2004.

Statute barred offences

If the Fixed Charge payable on foot of a penalty point offence is not paid and an application for summons to Court is not made within six months of the date of the offence, the prosecution of the driver in question is statute barred.

My examination of the computer file recording penalty point information noted that there were over 5,500 such cases flagged as being statute barred. Table 29 sets out an analysis of these cases and shows the potential revenue loss which results from the inability to recover the amounts involved.

Table 29 Statute Barred Offences

	Cases	€
Foreign Vehicle	12	1,000
Exempt Vehicle*	130	—
Notified Owner	231	15,960
Owner Untraced	641	40,760
No reason stated in computer file	4,561	304,400
Total	5,575	362,120

*130 Exempt Vehicle cases are recorded as being statute barred, even though no penalty or prosecution is contemplated

I asked why these cases could not be processed in time to allow the application of the Fixed Charges and Penalty Points.

The Accounting Officer stated that the introduction, in October 2002, of the interim penalty points system meant that the gardaí were required to move from a fully automated computerised Fines-on-the-Spot system to a paper-based system based around manual receipts, registers, issuing of notices, issuing of nomination forms, postal enquiries and preparation of court cases. These manual processes were quite cumbersome and resulted in the accumulation of a four-month backlog of films and tapes relating to non-intercept offences. As a result substantial delays arose in the issuing of fixed charge notices which resulted in a large number of cases, referred to in Table 29 as ‘No reason stated' becoming statute barred. However, since the introduction of the interim IT system in May 2003, the backlog has been cleared and this situation should not arise again.

No driver number

The Garda Fixed Penalty Office produced statistics showing the distribution of penalty points issued by County to 31 December 2003. However, the statistics show a considerable number (12,900) of the total issued (99,000) to be classified without reference to a specific County, being titled ‘No Driver Number'.

Information was requested as to how this category of driver arises, what efforts have been made to ascertain driver numbers in the cases concerned, and what procedures are envisaged to ensure that the drivers concerned will eventually be allotted the appropriate number of penalty points.

The Accounting Officer informed me that the data referred to is compiled and released by the Department of Transport periodically on the basis of material on the National Driver File (NDF). Neither his Department nor An Garda Síochána is in a position to supply statistical information on penalty points.

He noted that in relation to the heading of ‘no driver number', the current position is that an Garda Síochána does not have access to the NDF in order to authenticate driver licence numbers at the time of payment. If an incorrect number is included on the notice for payment, under the current system it will not be detected until the data is being entered on the NDF. This problem was anticipated in the design of the interim system and is addressed in the Fixed Charges Penalty Office computer system where the gardaí's outsourced payment provider (currently under negotiation) will have a link to the NDF in order to authenticate the number at the time of payment. An additional problem is that where the gardaí are made aware that the number stated is incorrect, they do not have power to retrospectively demand production of the driver's licence for verification purposes. This has been brought to the attention of the Department of Transport in the context of the Road Traffic Bill 2004.

Conclusions

While the fixed charge and penalty points measures have been in place for a relatively short period, my examination reveals operational, administrative and legal impediments to its smooth and effective use.

These impediments include:

Low payment rate of fixed charges: 56% of notices issued in the first 14 months of operation

Low summons rate for unpaid notices: 18%

High rate of spoiled images/recordings: 47%

Enforcement difficulties for foreign registered vehicles

Inability to take appropriate action against drivers of company cars

Inability to take appropriate action against certain drivers with foreign issued driving licences or foreign addresses

Difficulties in assigning penalty points when inaccurate details are provided on returned fixed charge notices

Level of inaccuracy in completing fixed charge notices giving rise to cancellations.

Some progress is being made in tackling the impediments by

Remedying camera and film defects

Addressing the problems relating to the drivers of company cars, number plate issues and foreign registered vehicles with the appropriate authorities

Clearing the backlog of films and tapes to be viewed

Moving to verification of driver licence numbers when fixed charges are paid.

Mr. John Purcell

Chapter 7.1 sets down the results of an examination of the fixed charge and penalty points system during the first 14 months of its operation. The decision to introduce the fixed charge penalty points system for speeding was made with effect from 31 October 2002. It was extended to cover the non-wearing of seat-belts from 25 August 2003. Other penalty point offences were introduced but are not subject to the fixed charge system as they must be heard through the courts.

The decision to introduce the scheme was taken at a time when the development of a dedicated computer system was only starting. While it was intended that the penalty points system should be computer based, the early introduction of penalty points for speeding meant that a manual system had to be employed initially. This was supplemented about six months later by the Garda, using an interim IT solution based on the old on-the-spot fines computer system. The main computer system designed to underpin the fixed charges and penalty points provisions is not yet complete. As I understand it, pilot running of the system began around June 2004 and no doubt the Accounting Officer will be able to bring the committee up to date on a time frame for its full implementation.

Bearing in mind the circumstances in which the provisions were introduced, it was only to be expected that there would be problems and that it would take time for the arrangements to bed down satisfactorily. I was surprised at the extent and nature of the problems, in particular, those that could have been reasonably foreseen and addressed beforehand. In this category we have operational difficulties with speed cameras and films, the avoidance of statute barred offences due to delays in processing and the handling of incorrect driving licence numbers. While acknowledging that the introduction of the penalty points system had a very favourable initial impact on road accident fatalities and has the potential to be a valuable tool in improving road safety, it is nevertheless unsatisfactory that over half of the speeding infringements recorded on film or video resulted in the issue of a fixed charge notice. If a fixed charge notice could not be issued, then penalty points clearly could not be allocated. There is a significant fundamental problem at the very beginning of the process.

We also found that only 56% of the notices that did issue resulted in payment being made by the end of 2003. This figure would increase as payment deadlines in individual cases were reached. However, complicating factors in pursuing cases to court include difficulties associated with summonsing drivers of company cars, foreign licence holders and the drivers of foreign registered vehicles. There may also be some delay in dealing with nominated drivers.

Apart from the loss of potential fines revenue, the less than optimum operation of the system has implications for driver behaviour and may inhibit the achievement of the objectives of the scheme. While some improvements have been made, to which the Accounting Officer's opening statement will refer, there are still major problems associated with the number of so-called spoils and the high incidence of statute barred cases. There are also some obstacles that require a legislative solution.

In conclusion, even when the new IT and related arrangements are implemented, it seems that there will still be a lot of work to be done before we have an effective system in place.

Chairman

Mr. Aylward's opening statement has been circulated. He can read it as drafted or he can precis it.

Mr. Aylward

I will try to precis it.

Chairman

If that is the case, only the precis will be on the record.

Mr. Aylward

I am happy to proceed on that basis because it is probably better from the point of view of public accountability that we elucidate information beyond what is in the statement. I will try to compress it if that is acceptable. I will live with the fact that it may be a bit more patchy in the Official Report.

Chairman

It is at the Secretary General's discretion.

Mr. Aylward

I would prefer to facilitate the committee with an exchange of information, although I hope the committee will understand that it may take me a moment or two to respond to some specific questions. In the instance of a very technical question, I may ask the Chairman's indulgence that we send on a further detailed statement to the clerk to the committee, so that we are factual in what we say in response.

Chairman

We will welcome some preliminary remarks.

Mr. Aylward

I would like to do that if I may. This is very much a report on a work in progress. It is a snapshot of what we are doing. No country with this system in place has produced a 100% effective system based on cameras and computers. We are talking about something that has to operate in variable road conditions with all the human error and huge volume of work involved. This country is an early adopter of this penalty points system. I have been advised that no more than six or seven members of the EU have gone down this road. We have also paid a price in proceeding very quickly to bring in this system and basing it on manual effort. The slippage has been well tracked and recorded by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report.

I would like to balance that relative level of failure in nailing every offending motorist with the fact that that there are people alive driving around today who, but for the quick introduction of this points system, would not be with us. They would be dead. There have been quite a number of lives saved because of the impact of this new road safety strategy. It has a human dimension to it that we should not ignore. There is also a financial dimension. In 1999, a report furnished by the National Safety Council, prepared by Peter Bacon and Associates, demonstrated that the cost of a single road traffic fatality was almost €1 million. That puts what has happened in context.

The reduction in road deaths was very dramatic in the initial period. Reports of our slippage rate, or of people who have evaded paying fines or accumulating penalty points, should not emphasise too much that there has been some drift upwards in the number of road deaths. When penalty points come in for the first time, such as in Northern Ireland which is a good analogue, there is an immediate "shock and awe" impact. People talk about and it, therefore, it has a tremendous initial impact. Some downward effect kicks in after a while. As our focus tightens and as we roll out the fully automated system and perfect the law, we will work more effectively towards our very ambitious targets of capping road deaths at a much lower figure than that which prevailed before. Fewer people died in 2003 on Irish roads than had died in any year since 1964, which is a stunning fact. It arose because we did a rush job and we did not go for counsels of perfection.

There are a series of well made and appropriate criticisms and comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report, but I prefer not to delay the meeting by going through all of them seriatim. It might be better if I stopped now and took questions on the specific points that strike members of the committee as worth pursuing.

Chairman

Can we publish the Secretary General's statement?

Mr. Aylward

By all means.

Chairman

Everyone in the committee acknowledges the tragedy and the sorrow that road accidents bring into many families in the country. Any measure that could be taken to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the road is a strategy that has the support of all Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the general public. It is also true that penalty points systems have been introduced in a number of other countries and they are a very effective mechanism towards reducing fatalities. We welcome what has been done. We know that certain difficulties have arisen which members will explore with the witnesses. We will also look for assurances that the difficulties are from the introductory phase of the administration of the penalty points system and that the new system which is piloted during the summer will have fewer discrepancies and will have more effective results.

The policy is straightforward. If people exceed the speed limit and are caught, they will have financial penalties imposed on them. More importantly, they will have penalty points imposed on them and if they reach 12 points, they will lose their licence. On the way to reaching 12 points, there are insurance implications, especially when one passes four penalty points. So the penalties are indeed very severe. It is also constructed in a manner where the penalties escalate as one proceeds. For example, one gets a notice in the post that one exceeded the speed limit, an €80 fine is paid and two penalty points accrue, provided the €80 is remitted within 28 days. The fine increases if it is not paid within 28 days, but the two penalty points remain the same. If it is ignored completely, the maximum fine is €800 and four penalty points accrue on conviction. The jumps get higher and it is constructed in a way to encourage compliance on receipt of the first notice.

This brings me to the first difficulty I have in the report. It seems to me that in practice, the penalties do not escalate and that people who ignore the notice from the Garda often get away scot free. That is the biggest breakdown that I can identify in it. What percentage of those who do not pay their charge on receipt of notice from the Garda are taken to court? What is the rate of conviction for those taken to court?

Mr. Aylward

I will defer to my Garda colleagues on statistics for that issue. As pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a number of factors militated against the issuing of summonses in particular cases. However, the Garda authorities have made arrangements to enable the interim system to operate more efficiently and with more success in regard to summonses and bringing people to court. As we reported in response to a query, our follow-up rate was improving. The prospect of a driver ignoring a notice and not getting a summons was receding and the success rate of drivers in evading the consequences was declining and will continue to decline. I do not have data on the impact of this on the decisions of individual judges. Superintendent Farrelly might have the figures. If he does not, I undertake to provide the best possible snapshot for the committee.

Chairman

Can the chief superintendent provide the figures?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

For the period under discussion, from 31 October 2002 to 31 December 2003, the number of fixed charge notices issued was 87,004. This figure relates to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the time the notices were issued. Payments were received in 48,553 cases, accounting for 56% of the notices issued. Payment was not made in 38,451 cases while summonses were issued in 7,059 cases or 18% of cases. There were different reasons for the number of summonses, including many spoiled notices. Moreover, when the Comptroller and Auditor General carried out his study, 23,217 cases were still in the system, with the process of sending out notices continuing in some cases.

There was an improvement for the period 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2004 with payments being received in 66% of cases, although this statistic is not comparable with the others as it relates to a nine month period. Of 57,000 notices issued in that period, 37,476 payments were received. The summons rate at the time was 18%.

On the question of court convictions, in some cases district justices in Dublin city are not convicting due to certain issues regarding proof that notices have been received. However, this is isolated. Most of the cases brought before the courts result in convictions. However, certain judges interpret the situation on the receipt of notices in their own way and look for absolute proof. This has caused problems.

Chairman

I have a concern. Those who are caught, receive a notice and pay a fine are law abiding, compliant persons who went over the limit. They pay the fine, take their medicine and get two penalty points. It was intended that the system would work this way and all the incentives were in favour of the early payer. However, the figure for court convictions is just 18%. The Director of Public Prosecutions issued a tranche of summonses — approximately 1,500 — but only 14% or one in seven of those who brazened it out and did not pay ultimately paid a fine or had four penalty points attached to his or her licence. If there is a six out of seven chance of not paying a fine or receiving a penalty point one would be a desperate fool to pay up front. Unless this issue can be addressed, the system falls down and will continue to do so.

I am glad to hear the situation is improving. However, I note Mr. Aylward's circulated statement suggests that, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the number of summonses that were statute barred was about 5,500 for the 14 months in question. If one takes the period to which the chief superintendent referred, from 1 January to 30 September, the number of statute barred summonses has increased to 7,500. It seems there is a culture that if one can get away with it, why not do so? The penalty points system has operated in such a manner that the compliant who pay the charges take their penalty points while those who refuse to pay do not pay any penalty and, more importantly, do not receive any penalty points except in one in seven cases.

This is a snapshot of a particular period and I realise cases are still in the system which could change the figures. However, even by bringing the figure of 18% up to 30% and allowing for the cases disqualified by the Director of Public Prosecutions, we are still dealing with a figure of one in four. Three out of four offenders are getting away with it, even taking the best case scenario. Can Mr. Aylward give the committee any comfort or indicate that the system is changing in order that this problem will not be built into the system?

Mr. Aylward

In our comments on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, we explained there was a backlog which was leading to cases becoming statute barred because of the manual system in place. With the enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, summons applications from the Garda Síochána can now be made centrally to the Courts Service rather than having separate applications made to each District Court clerk. With the automation of this process, the application process for summonses will be streamlined and become more efficient. The chances of evasion through cases becoming statute barred should decline dramatically. While the assistant commissioner may have a further comment to make on this, that is the advice I have received.

Assistant Commissioner Pat Crummey

There has been an increase in the number of statute barred cases since last year, despite the fact that we thought we had seen the end of this. We have identified two reasons for the increase. The first issue arises from the difficulty in having the notices accepted in court. A decision was made not to issue summonses until this issue was clarified and discussions were held with the Director of Public Prosecutions who advised that if we were not in a position to prove service of the notice, it would be as well not to issue summonses or take cases to court. During this process, a number of the offences in question became statute barred because the six month period was exceeded. Recently, an operational decision has been taken to enter summonses, although the issue of service of the notice has not been fully resolved. In itself, this will ensure there will be no more statute barred cases. We will let the courts decide their attitude towards service of the notice.

The second issue arose when the interim system developed for Dublin was being extended to Cork in November 2003. A bug got into the computer system but was not immediately noticed. This led to the system not recognising a nominated person. In other words, if a notice was issued to the registered owner of a vehicle and he or she nominated a particular person as being the driver at the time, the person to be prosecuted in the case of non-payment was obviously the named driver. Due to the bug, the system did not recognise the nominated drivers and overlooked them. While this happened in November, unfortunately, it was not discovered until the following April. As soon as it was discovered, the problem was rectified. We hope something like this will not happen again.

Chairman

Was it a bug in the system or a software deficiency?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

It was a bug in the system which impacted on operations in Cork and Dublin.

Deputy Curran

I recognise that the penalty points system has made dramatic changes to driving behaviour. As Mr. Aylward correctly observes, there are people alive today who would be dead if the system had not been introduced. From an administrative point of view, he is probably correct in his assertion that there was a degree of unpreparedness in that the system was implemented quicker than originally expected.

Part of the function of today's meeting is to ascertain how we can move forward and the improvements that might be made. It is interesting that 2003 had the lowest rate of fatalities since the early 1960s, some 100 fewer than the previous year. Unfortunately, the same statistics have not been seen this year, probably because the change in driver behaviour as a result of the introduction of penalty points has worn off. People are no longer as focused on the dangers of attracting penalty points. The reason for this may be explained by some of the comments in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

The Chairman has raised the matter of following through on court decisions and so on. I understand there is a variety of cameras and other detection machinery in use. For the 14 month period in question, 107,000 images were taken, of which almost half, 50,000, were spoiled. I was under the impression the position was improving but the improvement is only marginal, with a current rate of spoilage of 43%. How do these figures compare from a technical point of view to those in other jurisdictions? Is it an industry standard or is there room for significant improvement? Are we using the same equipment and achieving similar results? The Chairman spoke about the small number of offenders being tried in court. Similarly, one has little more than a one in two chance of being recorded when driving past a speed camera.

Mr. Aylward

I do not have data for other jurisdictions but it is clear that those who are ahead of us in the game and have addressed the same problems have better success rates. I am advised that some of the issues which came up at an early date have been dealt with by the company providing the cameras. It is understandable that a camera in a fixed position by a roadway, subject to inclement weather in which it may be splashed or obscured, is not foolproof. There was also a problem with the film in the cameras. This is being addressed by the Garda technical bureau. I can obtain the comparable data from other jurisdictions and I am sure it will indicate we have the worst performance. An early adopter will always have an higher error rate but this is being addressed. I am confident the action taken by the company supplying the cameras and by the technical bureau will reduce the default rate significantly.

Deputy Curran

I appreciate that fully and take the point that the spoilage rate is down to 43% from 47% in the first 14 month period, indicating that there has been some improvement. However, a rate of 43% still seems very high. I presume the company which supplies the cameras and technology has access to an international database. There must be comparative studies which indicate how we are performing and the spoilage rate for which we should be aiming. There will always be bad weather, illegible number plates and so on but there must be a target figure towards which we can strive.

Mr. Aylward

I am happy to accept the principle of benchmarking our operation against those of other jurisdictions. I do not have the data but I will seek to access and share it with the committee through its clerk. The principle of benchmarking law enforcement here in any sphere, including traffic law enforcement, against parallel jurisdictions is one I support and which will be implemented more in the future.

Deputy Curran

This is not merely a matter of benchmarking. Mine is more a technical question as to the efficiency of the equipment and whether modifications need to be made to allow us to attain optimum results. I will be happy to receive an answer from Mr. Aylward in this regard in due course. He mentioned that a consultant had been appointed in September 2002 to design the IT to handle this project. A live pilot study started in June 2004. Some 21 months seems a long interval before the study started. It is now two years since the consultant began his or her work.

Mr. Aylward

It is a complex task. The development of the system required an interface with the PULSE system in order that summonses could be generated automatically. It also had to provide a link to the national driver file and national vehicle file for validation purposes. It involved developing electronic links with other agencies such as the Courts Service and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The software must be robust in order to cope with the scale of activity and, ultimately, it took that length of time to achieve this. The information I have suggests that the setting up of software for a large and complex system which involves interactions with other databases is incredibly time consuming. At the other end, if one attains a satisfactory software outcome, which I hope we have, the saving in time henceforth through the elimination of the manual system should be tremendous.

Deputy Curran

When the consultancy contract was signed in September 2002, was there a timescale for the project to reach pilot stage and then full implementation?

Mr. Aylward

I was not personally involved in the process at the time but I will check with colleagues and may be able to give an answer in the course of dialogue with the committee. Part of the software envisaged as part of this project was designed for the purpose of enabling the deployment not just of the fixed equipment but also of hand-held equipment which gardaí engaged in traffic duty could use at the roadside to capture details of offences. It is a detailed process which was put in place to record a series of offences. A colleague has confirmed that an 18 month timeframe was given for the course of the contract.

Deputy Curran

Is that 18 months to implementation of the pilot study or to delivery of the project in full?

Mr. Aylward

The timeframe specified a period of 18 months for delivery of the pilot.

Deputy Curran

What was the timeframe for completion of the project?

Mr. Aylward

I shall check on that point. If we, the Garda Síochána and our colleagues in the relevant Departments had gone for counsels of perfection and demanded that no start could be made on the project until everything was perfect, every machine in place and the system entirely automated, we probably would not have made the start, yet and more people would be dead. We are all paying the price for rushing this but I carefully submit to the committee that the glitches we have had and the mistakes that have been made, in all the circumstances, were and are a reasonable price to pay for the outcome that has been achieved. I am certain we will see this through. It is a priority for us. We benefit from the Comptroller and Auditor General highlighting the point. However, we paid a price by not getting everything perfect straightaway.

Deputy Curran

I am not suggesting the Department should not have proceeded in the way it did. It is a case of trying to see how we should move forward with the system.

During the period under review, up until the end of December 2003, 57,000 fixed charge notices were issued through automatic camera processes. An additional 30,000 notices were generated by gardaí on patrol, at checkpoints and speed traps. Is this information correct?

Mr. Aylward

I will ask the representatives of the Garda Síochána to confirm those figures.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

: Some 87,004 fixed charge notices were issued. Some 107,636 notices arising from static video detection were issued for the period 31 October 2002 to 31 December 2003, 47% of which were spoiled. These are the figures I have and they were examined at the time.

Deputy Curran

Some 87,000 fixed charge notices were issued, of which approximately 57,000 arose from static camera or video recording. The balance, almost 30,000, were issued by gardaí on patrol. Am I correct in my understanding?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Within the figures mentioned, there were intercepts. I do not have the exact figure. I presume the Deputy is doing a mathematical——

Deputy Curran

They were issued by gardaí out and about. Returning to the figure of 107,000, how many units are out and about gathering this information?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

This would not relate to the country as a whole but to the greater Dublin area and parts of counties Louth and Meath. The fixed cameras to which we are referring are attached to posts throughout counties Louth and Meath and parts of north County Kildare. We are also using the GATSO camera, in a van at the side of the road, to video record speed as cars pass by. These are the two methodologies used with regard to fixed charge notices. There are 20 fixed cameras in this catchment area but there would not be film in each at any given time. It was never envisaged that there would. Films are rotated between cameras and taken back every three days for examination.

Deputy Curran

The motorist nevers know which camera is live.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

They are not supposed to know. It was never envisaged any other way. It was announced at the time that the cameras would flash if a motorist infringed the speed limit. However, he or she does not know whether his or her picture has actually been taken.

Deputy Curran

During the period in question, many of the images were taken by static or GATSO cameras. Equally, gardaí were out and about intercepting and carrying out speed checks. They produced 30,000 notices. One of the criticisms of the penalty points system is that the change in driver behaviour has not continued. We talk about enforcement. Is it proving more beneficial for gardaí to go out and about, rather than taking the technology route of using fixed cameras? Does Chief Superintendent Farrelly have a view on the matter?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

They are two parallel systems and different in every respect. People are made aware that we have GATSO cameras used in covert operations. They are not seen; they are in a van on the side of the road taking a speed reading. The only time one becomes aware of their existence is when one receives a notice to nominate the driver to incur penalty points.

The other systems can be seen. They have the halo effect in that motorists become aware of them and tend to slow down as they approach them but they speed up again as they leave. However, they do have a purpose and they do it well.

Interception is a different matter. It entails the use of unmarked cars with the necessary equipment inside to monitor the activity of drivers on video. This is a useful medium in court and has an impact on the judge. Ordinary laser guns mounted on a tripod are used in detecting speeding up to a quarter of a mile away. They are effective but human nature being what it is, there is a flashing of lights when motorists see gardaí. We also have Lastec cameras, a type of laser gun with camera attached, which can record many more images. However, every system has its own deficiencies and effects. Some are used in covert operations and others in overt operations.

Deputy Curran

The more overt methods of speed detection where gardaí are out and about with cameras on tripods are more effective. There are two or three places on Belgard Road which links Clondalkin and Tallaght where gardaí normally set up checkpoints. Even when they are not there, it has an effect on driver behaviour. Motorists drive up and down this road at no more than 40 miles per hour. When they know there is a speed camera in place, they slow down and then take off again.

If I am driving a company car and a ticket is issued but the company has not nominated a driver, there is no further pursuit of the matter and it dies. Is that correct?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Not exactly. If the company fails to nominate a driver, it can be dealt with under the legislation. We have had cases where a company has been brought before the courts for failing to do so. It is a question of resources in order to carry out an inquiry. However, there is a law in place. The company does not incur penalty points because the law relates to the user. However, it is obliged to nominate a drive and we will pursue it if it fails to do so. That is a separate offence.

Deputy Curran

How many companies have failed to nominate a driver? Have many actions been taken?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I received preliminary figures yesterday. There have been 11 instances this year where we have initiated proceedings. There have been one or two convictions. Normally it is the company secretary who is brought to court.

Deputy Curran

The Garda has taken 11 actions this year. In total, how many companies failed to nominate a driver?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

In the period to which we refer, the number was quite small. A figure of approximately 235 is mentioned in the report.

Deputy Curran

That refers to the first 14 month period.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

That does not correlate to the actions proceeding before the courts. There is a six month period. It is sometimes difficult to correlate the figures.

Deputy Curran

I appreciate the point. However, in respect of the 235 companies involved, there is a one in ten chance of ending up in court. This seems low.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Legislation is in place and in force. However, it is an issue of resources. There is no legislation under which penalty points can be imposed on the company concerned. However, there is legislation in place to deal with the failure to nominate a driver. We pursue companies in this way.

Mr. Aylward

I will add to the points made by the chief superintendent. Not all company cars are registered in the name of the company. I understand it is a minority; that is the first thing to say. I would not want the message to go forth from here that, if one is the driver of a company car, one has a one-in-ten chance of being nailed for regularly flouting the speed limit. It is not so. As someone who worked on this side of policy in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform earlier in my career, I can say that, where the gardaí spot that someone is trying to avail of a loophole or is persistently not answering summonses, they have their own way of chasing him or her down, and they will do so.

If we find, on advice from the Garda Síochána, that the system is simply proving too unwieldy, we have agreed with our colleagues in the Department of Transport that they should be willing, in the context of forthcoming road traffic legislation — either legislative vehicles already under way or subsequent ones — to tidy up the law to make it more convenient administratively for the Garda to go after the company that is failing to identify its driver. At the moment, it is slightly unwieldy, since the Garda Síochána has to identify the court area and, if resourced, the Garda investigation must get after the company, its secretary and so on. However, it will not be allowed to emerge as a significant loophole. The one-in-ten chance of being nailed is not true and will not be allowed to become true.

Deputy Curran

I have one or two more general questions on driver nominations. I am looking at it in layman's terms. If I get one of those fixed-charge notices, I can say that it was not me and that Deputy Boyle or my wife was driving, sending it back. I noted during the period in question that that was the case with nearly 23,000 notices. At the moment, the Department does not seem to have a method of distinguishing between payments received from nominated drivers and owner-drivers. Is that correct?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

Yes, that is correct. However, the new FCPS system will allow us to differentiate and say whether it was the registered owner or the nominated driver who made the payment. With the interim system we cannot do that.

Deputy Curran

In other words, we have no way of knowing how many of those 23,000 actually paid. Have I understood that correctly?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

No, they will find their way into the total number of payments received, but at present the interim computer system cannot distinguish between payments made by registered owners and nominated drivers.

Deputy Curran

Let us take it a step further. Suppose that I nominate Deputy Boyle as having driven the car on that occasion. If he has no licence, does the matter go no further? If one cannot attach the penalty points, does the fixed-charge notice drop?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

The fixed charge goes with the driver. We could not impose it on an owner if he or she was not the driver — the person who committed the offence.

Deputy Curran

If the nominated person does not have a licence, what happens?

Mr. Liam Dolan

Perhaps I might briefly run through the process in the 2002 Act. If a notice is sent to a registered owner, he or she is required, if not having been driving, to nominate a driver. If no nomination is received, there is a presumption under the Act that the registered owner was driving the car at the time. Clearly, if the registered owner is a company, that cannot be the case. However, the Act provides that the registered owner be pursued for failure to nominate. If it transpires that a person is nominated who does not have a licence, in the first instance, the case will proceed against that person. The Act provides that the points will be recorded against that person's name and that they will be activated when the person gets a licence.

Second, we now have evidence that a person was driving without a licence, which is a second offence. If the Garda wishes to pursue people for that offence, it may do so. There is no question of the case dying. It will be pursued against the person on the basis that points can be recorded when the person gets a licence. It is important to note that there would then be evidence available to the Garda that the person was driving without a licence. That would be his or her second offence.

Deputy Curran

The bottom line at this point is that we are unable to analyse the 23,000 who have nominated. In other words, we do not know who they have nominated and how many have paid.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly:

That is an operational matter for the Garda.

Deputy Curran

The software system that is in place does not record that.

Chairman

Before I go to Deputy Boyle, perhaps Mr. Dolan might remind me of the penalties for driving without a licence.

Mr. Dolan

The Road Traffic Act provides that the majority of offences are governed by what is called a "general penalty", which is €800 for a first offence and €1,500 for a second.

Chairman

Both are maximum fines.

Mr. Dolan

Yes, those are maximum fines. It is a matter for the courts to decide within those frameworks what fines to impose. It will attract a penalty point when we start the system for that offence, but the current penalty is a maximum of €800 for a first offence and €1,500 for a second, which may be replaced or complemented by six months in jail. It will eventually attract penalty points. It is open to a court in any road traffic offence to apply disqualification if it deems it appropriate. However, the normal penalty is €800 maximum.

Chairman

Does Mr. Dolan feel the legislation should be revisited to pick up the anomalies that are now emerging?

Ms O’Neill:

I will comment on the legal system in Ireland. Unlike some other countries in the European Union, including our nearest neighbours in the UK, we do not have a system of administrative fines in the area of road traffic. Every individual has the right to go to court; it is an important constitutional right in the Irish context. We must recognise that, in the introduction of penalty points, we have introduced into the road traffic legislation the power to remove someone's licence for his or her failure regarding certain road traffic offences. That inevitably means that any legislation introduced will be challenged in the District Court, and perhaps higher courts. It is very much part of our system that every change that we introduce in road traffic legislation will inevitably be challenged, and there will be an attempt to find loopholes. We are seeing substantial evidence of the fact that, where a person's licence is threatened, as opposed to his or her simply paying a fine, every possible loophole will be exploited.

From our point of view, in introducing the legislation, we consult very closely with the Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, also taking advice from the Office of the Attorney General in drafting the legislation to make it as watertight as possible. Inevitably, in operational terms, and because there will not always be the same interpretation of the legislation by different district justices around the country — everyone must bring an individual perspective — issues will arise. Apparent flaws will emerge in the legislation. The critical issue from our point of view is that we have a good feedback loop from the Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to learn quickly what kinds of issues are arising in the courts and what advice they may receive from the DPP on when to pursue prosecutions. In those circumstances, we move as speedily as possible to determine what problems there are and what remedy might be appropriate.

We do not apologise for having very frequent road traffic legislation. We have a very important Bill before the Dáil at present, which must be enacted before Christmas. In that context, if there are fixes that we must put in place to deal with issues that have arisen in the context of the Attorney General's report or before the courts, we will do that. We expect to have more legislation coming forward next year. Very often, our difficulty is that the issues that arise do so because of the interpretation of one or a number of judges. We then have to check that with the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel to see what response is appropriate.

Regarding the responsibilities of registered owners, perhaps I should make clear that the intention of penalty points is that the driver of the vehicle attracts them. We never intended the owner of the vehicle to do so. It is a great incentive to nominate people if owners know they will attract the points if they do not do so. It is clearly a somewhat different issue where companies are concerned. As Mr. Aylward has said, the numbers of company cars involved are relatively small in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, we want to facilitate the Garda in any way possible to pursue the company, and we are exploring the idea of going beyond simply making the company responsible for nominating the individual driving the car. A named person in the company, such as the company secretary might be assigned that responsibility specifically, making it easier for the Garda to pursue the matter to prosecution. Several other issues arise from time to time regarding the legislation. When they arise, we move speedily. They are not all easy to resolve, given the nature of individuals' constitutional rights here. There will always be a new angle or idea emerging. All we can do is move speedily to close that so as not to discredit the system.

The fine for driving without a licence is €2,500 for a first offence. That is a correction of fact.

Chairman

It strikes me that one of the major anomalies arising, having read the report, is that more than 20,000 vehicle owners claimed they were not the driver of the vehicle. There is an obligation on them to nominate a driver. However, if they nominate someone who is not in the jurisdiction, I understand it is not pursued. If a driver who fears penalty points says, truly or falsely, that it was not he but his aunt in Newry, friend home on holiday from New York or cousin from Birmingham, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the Garda does not proceed any further.

Mr. Aylward

Perhaps I might respond on that issue. This problem is experienced in all countries with such a system. Human nature being what it is, people invoke that type of defence. In many cases, it is true. It has an impact on us in two areas, the first being regarding people based or living in the North of Ireland. The other concerns people based elsewhere in the UK or outside Ireland. It is being examined at two levels. It is being pursued in the context of the British-Irish Council, which is responsible for east-west co-operation between the two Governments. The European Commission is also preparing a paper on this to see how we can address the enforcement issue right across Europe. The Department of Transport might like to expand on what we are examining — developing in the east-west, North-South context a system of mutual recognition when it comes to enforcing penalty points.

In an EU context, several options are being examined. An important thing to remember is that, if someone is a persistent offender in the area and persistently says that the guilty party is someone in another country, the message must go out that, if the owner of a car that has been detected falsely nominates someone, that is an offence in itself for which there are penalties, the details of which can be given to the committee.

A permanent, gaping loophole will not be allowed to persist. However, it is an automated system, and one of the penalties of introducing it is that, with the sheer volume, people will try to get through the cracks. Over time, in co-operation with our neighbours, we will fill those cracks. However, it must be made clear that, if a pattern with any individual comes to Garda notice, for example, the constant invoking of such ways out, the Garda will not falter in nailing that person.

Chairman

The problem as I understand it is that the camera takes a picture of the front of the car concentrating on the number plate for identification purposes. It does not photograph the driver. If that driver is not photographed, I cannot see what the Garda will do. One receives the notice and says that, although one is the owner, one was not the driver, who was a friend home from Manchester. How can one prove otherwise?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I stand to be corrected, but when the image is taken of the number plate, it is sent out as conclusive evidence to the person that it is his or her car. However, I understand that we have a secondary image. I have seen secondary images on file, and I do not believe that the image of the individual behind the wheel of the car is sent out in the first instance. This does not relate to that directly, but I understand that in France, where this occurred previously, there were issues with the divorce courts regarding images sent out. People were not supposed to be with certain people when the fine came. Whether that is relevant in this case I do not know. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that secondary images may also be taken. A unit in Capel Street investigates people who we believe are trying to get out of the system or are persistent offenders, as the Secretary General has said. The other day I set my eyes on one of them. That is something that I might be able to check up for the committee.

Deputy Ardagh

Would it not be a criminal offence to tell a lie and declare falsely that someone else was driving?

Chairman

I do not know whether it worked in France, but from what I know of France, it might be recommended to be seen with the wrong lady in the front of the car in the image.

Perhaps Mr. Farrelly might write to us and confirm that there are secondary images.

Deputy Boyle

That gives a whole new meaning to the term "French leave".

There seem to be two problems regarding the continuing flaws in the system of fixed-charge notices and penalty points. One is in the area of technology, and the second seems to be quite a high degree of human error. I would like to ask about both those areas. First, regarding technology, was the tendering that would have happened for the hardware for the installation of the cameras on a set system or using a variety of technologies that might have been involved in the area? For instance, video cameras would be bigger and time-limited. Digital technology, which must exist, would be smaller and would take a much larger number of images.

Mr. Brendan Callaghan

Is the Deputy asking about the fixed-charge processing system or the existing equipment?

Deputy Boyle

I am asking about the hardware, first of all, and in particular the cameras. Why is it that video and film are used rather than digital imaging?

Mr. Callaghan

It was the equipment available at the time. The thinking now is that we should move to digital equipment, but that raises questions of proof, since digital images can be manipulated. To make them secure enough to be available as proof in a court of law, the legal situation would have to be examined. However, the intention is certainly to move to state-of-the-art technology, that being digital equipment.

Deputy Boyle

Were the original tenders only for video-based systems? Were tenders sought for digital systems?

Mr. Callaghan

That is why I asked the Deputy if he was talking about the fixed-charge processing system. Perhaps I might ask Mr. Kirrane if the tender at the time specified the equipment.

Mr. Michael Kirrane

For the fixed-charge processing system, the tender involved the procurement of hardware, which effectively meant hand-held devices used to capture the information at the roadside. The tender did not encompass the provision of any camera equipment at that time.

Deputy Boyle

The second question I have on technology concerns the computer system and the software used on it. Was it prepared in advance, or was it a set package purchased on behalf of the State? I ask specifically about the bugs that seem to have appeared regarding nominated drivers, which were not identified for six months.

Mr. Aylward

We went initially with a manual system. Then, as an interim arrangement, the Garda IT people tweaked the existing fixed-fines system so that it was a temporary bespoke solution. That is my understanding.

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

Perhaps I can expand on that. Before fixed-penalty charges were introduced, we had an automated, on-the-spot system operating from Capel Street. When fixed-charge penalties were introduced, that system was not programmed to deal with such offences. That is why we went manual. That was proving very cumbersome and heavy on the organisation in resources and administratively. The internal Garda IT people therefore examined the original system of on-the-spot fines and updated it to accommodate the fixed-charge speeding offences. We call that "the interim system", to be used while we awaited the building and development of the fixed-charge processing system, or FCPS. That was introduced in Dublin initially, afterwards going into Cork, in November 2003. It was just to make Cork compatible with Dublin. Under the old system of on-the-spot fines, Cork was automated as well. It is that system that developed the computer bug when being installed in Cork. It was not the pilot FCPS but the interim system, that is, the updated on-the-spot fine system.

Deputy Boyle

Mr. Crummey does not mean a virus but that the software was badly written.

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

I do not know the technical reason, except to say that I know the effect that it had.

Deputy Boyle

Perhaps we might move on to the human error element of the failings in the system. It seems that a large number of fixed-charge notices have failed because of the level of inaccuracy in completing notices leading to cancellations and difficulties in assigning penalty points when inaccurate details are provided on returned fixed-charge notices. Those problems seem to be solely to do with administration. In the Garda Síochána, is there any system to try to improve the standard of administration? Is there any system of taking people to task for submitting badly administered work?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

It is disappointing when there are such human errors, though I suppose they are to be expected to some extent. We encourage and advocate as much accuracy as we can achieve. Under the FCPS, and certainly in the pilot system where we are using the hand-held technology and specially designed notepads, the opportunities for such errors will be diminished. We hope there will be fewer such faults.

Mr. Aylward

In retrospect, where a manually driven system was hurriedly imposed on the Garda Síochána, which is a very stretched force, errors crept in — and continue to do so. The important thing is that we move forward quickly to a system that drastically reduces the possibility of human error. The main benefits to come from the new system will be that data captured at the roadside will be automatically transferred to the central system for processing. The production of a notice will be automatic, and printing and posting of those notices will be outsourced and automated. New software has been installed in the national processing office to deal with the films and images. It will reduce Garda time spent on that area. Payment of notices will be outsourced and the administration element in the Garda Síochána where the human error creeps in will be reduced to a minimum.

Through the good offices of the Department of Finance, we have also been given sanction for additional clerical staff for the national processing office to free gardaí for operational duties, which is their obvious strength and the purpose for which they were recruited. Rather than taking a punitive attitude — I will leave it to the Garda Síochána to decide what is appropriate if someone is the persistent author of errors — the approach has been to automate to the greatest extent possible, to bring additional clerical staff to bear, and electronically to generate and transmit the system to all relevant parties. We believe that that will reduce the error rates significantly, and that is the track we are on.

Deputy Boyle

On the last point, I do not know whether there are statistics, but what percentage of Garda man-hours is taken up by traffic control?

Mr. Aylward

Some 520 gardaí are involved in traffic law enforcement daily. Their numbers are augmented fairly significantly at critical times, such as bank holiday weekends and periods where a great deal of socialising is going on, necessitating a visible presence. We would prefer those gardaí who do such work to be by the roadside — visible, for the most part — and as much as possible of the follow-up on what they detect to be either civilianised or automated. I may be departing slightly from the question, but it is the appropriate juncture to mention this. We also acknowledge that, like many other sections of law enforcement, gardaí are under pressure. The issue is being examined in the context of the recent announcement by the Minister of an expansion in recruitment to the force of 2,000 gardaí. The Garda Commissioner, who is conferring with his staff and us, is considering it. The issue must be addressed.

When we consider the scale and number of roads in the State and the sheer volume of traffic, we are clearly talking about a stretched group of men and women in uniform. We acknowledge that. It is more than a matter of law and technology. It is a matter of resources, and it is being seriously looked at.

Deputy Boyle

As a rule of thumb, given a force of 11,000 or 11,500, 5% of Garda time is spent on traffic control.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I shall expand on that. During the bank holiday weekends and areas of critical time coming up to Christmas and so on, we look for people all around the force. Everyone is involved in road safety, including district patrol cars. We ask them for operational plans and extra check points and commitments. It is a matter of prioritising the manpower that one has to deal with such situations, augmenting the 520 people who are in dedicated traffic units. It is not unusual in an organisation such as ours, where something needs to be done, to prioritise policing resources. We have 520 dedicated gardaí, but we bring in others to help us out at critical times to reduce road deaths. That is what it is all about.

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

I can also add that the Commissioner is totally committed to increasing Garda visibility on the street and contributing to the reduction in fatal accidents there through enforcement. He is committed to increasing significantly the number of traffic units around the country as resources become available.

Deputy Boyle

My final question concerns an inverse problem from that discussed in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. There are also complaints that people who receive penalty points are being notified late. It seems to be the same administrative problem. Is it a continuing problem? The criticism has been made of the system that people who think that they are receiving their first penalty points might be on four or six.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Again, moving forward, that is an issue that will not arise. However, I have heard people in the media on this theme. They should look to themselves concerning whether they were in breach of the law.

Deputy Boyle

Are you defending it?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

No, but it is a poor complaint to say they were caught and that, if they had been told, they would not have been caught speeding again. It is the wrong psyche. Once again, it is something FCPS will address.

Deputy Boyle

Even if the technology improves, do both the Department and the Garda accept that there might be communications elements that have to be examined regarding the future process? There seem to be unnecessary delays. The technology will give information but the communication of that to car owners or those who receive penalty points could be improved.

Mr. Aylward

We certainly concede that. We did this in a rush and some people have got away with it, but everybody would have got away with it had we not done it and we would not have the real benefits which have accrued. This will always be challenged. Classically, traffic law breaches, especially those that affect one's licence, are challenged remorselessly through the courts. The offenders bring in heavyweight legal representatives to pick apart the penalty or find some technical deficiency in what the Garda does. We simply have to keep drilling away at it. Equally, where, for example, a district justice has made a wrong call in a series of cases the DPP is consulted and may move to have the decisions reviewed by way of a case stated in the High Court, if required. We will keep drilling away at this because it is not just a matter of pride for the Garda Síochána but a matter of life and death on the roads. We will keep reviewing this collectively with our colleagues in the relevant Departments and with the Garda Síochána.

Urban folklore always grows up around any unpopular legislation. People will give out about clampers or about somebody who clocks up four or five speeding breaches. That might have happened in a weekend or even a day but urban folklore translates that into a few weeks and claims that the person never heard about it. One must allow for the vested interest at play in these matters. We will, however, take criticisms on the chin and deal with them. We are not complacent about embarrassments. We will fix these things. There is a collective will across the agencies and Departments concerned to work in the manner of joined-up government.

Deputy Fleming

Much of the talk has been about the fixed cameras in the greater Dublin region, Louth, Kildare and in Cork. Are they present in the rest of the country?

Mr. Aylward

We have concentrated on the areas where we had a fines-on-the-spot system but it will be extended throughout the country.

Deputy Fleming

As we speak are there static cameras in operation in 22 of the 26 counties?

Mr. Aylward

No. That is because we are in a pilot phase and are trying to get the kinks out of it. The Garda is very active in traffic law enforcement in the Deputy's constituency, as he is aware. We will extend the automated system as soon as possible throughout the State.

Deputy Fleming

The fixed cameras are only one aspect of the method for dealing with penalty points and fixed charges. The report lists the options as fixed cameras, mobile GATSO or vans, and Lastecs, mobile laser speed detection equipment. Are they in cars?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

They are the ones mounted on a tripod where there was the laser camera but Lastec adds a video roll-out of the images so we can take multiples.

Deputy Fleming

The Garda I presume operate laser devices, such as the handheld one with which they intercept the drivers.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

It is twofold. There are also the ones on the tripod without the Lastec added. Some people call them hairdryers. There are different types.

Deputy Fleming

The film on the fixed camera took 107,000 images of which 50,000 were spoiled and 57,000 were issued, to judge by these figures. According to the report, 87,000 fixed charge notices were issued between the end of October 2002 and 31 December 2003. That implies that if the fixed cameras issued 57,000 a further 30,000 were issued by the other methods, GATSO, Lastec and gardaí with the "hairdryers". In the year under review these fixed charge notices were issued by four methods, 60% from the static cameras and 40% by the other methods. Which method yields penalty points or if the penalties are not paid up, court convictions? It may be possible that GATSO or one of the other methods is more efficient and effective than the fixed camera in pursuing, for example, speeding offences.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

They all have their different efficiencies and deficiencies. An intercept refers to stopping the individual and an interaction on the side of the road. This removes the need to issue nomination notices, identify the driver, and so on. One deals with the individual while he or she is there. The driver is carrying his or her licence, as this is now a legal requirement, and the garda takes details of that. At that point one has most of the information necessary to proceed with a prosecution in the event of the driver not complying within the 28 or 56 days. However, an intercept takes minutes to stop the individual to engage, whereas a GATSO automated at the side of the road can detect speed every two seconds. That gives an idea of the volume of work it can do but it involves the additional administrative work of issuing nomination notices and all that flows from that. The visibility aspect is also an advantage.

Deputy Fleming

In how many counties does the Garda Síochána expect to have fixed cameras by the end of this year or next year? What is the time scale? Does it intend rolling them out to every county?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

GATSO is in——

Deputy Fleming

I am talking about the fixed cameras operating in the greater Dublin and Cork regions.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

The FCPS will go nationwide.

Deputy Fleming

What is the time scale?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

My understanding is that it will be in the new year but there are a few issues to be resolved. The pilot has been rolled out and is running very successfully. It is important that when it goes nationwide everything is right, operationally, technically and legislatively. We must face challenges in court or whatever happens after that, as we do daily. Correctness is the proper approach to speeding. Nobody is sitting on their hands in this respect. It is being dealt with actively.

Deputy Fleming

The fixed cameras operate in approximately four counties. The number is unlikely to jump from four to 26 in the new year. Has the equipment been purchased for that to happen in the new year?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

We are talking at cross-purposes.

Deputy Fleming

I am talking about the fixed cameras.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Is the Deputy talking about the poles one sees at the side of the road?

Deputy Fleming

The static cameras.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I do not have any information about plans to extend them throughout the country. I misunderstood the Deputy, I apologise. I was referring to the FCPS.

Deputy Fleming

For my benefit and that of everyone else, what is FCPS? Mr. Farrelly is losing us.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I beg the Deputy's pardon. That is the fixed charge penalty system. It refers to the hand held devices.

Deputy Fleming

They are everywhere at the moment.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

They are being piloted in the Dublin area and are set to roll out to the country in the new year. They capture the information automatically, it is computerised, and notices are distributed automatically and the next engagement the Garda would have from the time of the intercept on the road is if the individual failed to pay and was going to court.

Deputy Fleming

The Garda Síochána seems to lay greater emphasis on developing that system rather than the fixed camera system.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

The FCPS is being developed for national roll-out.

Deputy Fleming

In other words, there are no plans to extend the use of fixed cameras beyond the four counties in which they are operating.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

That is my understanding.

Deputy Fleming

I assumed that was happening nationwide. It is news to me that not only is it not happening in the remaining 22 counties but there are no plans for static cameras to be installed in those counties in the short term.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

The emphasis is on mobile camera devices rather than fixed sites and moving the cameras around on high risk stretches of road, black spots, dangerous minor roads and built up areas. Lest there be any confusion, handheld devices are being used all over the country but are not linked automatically to this system. That will come.

Deputy Fleming

I understand the static camera is only one of the methods used by the Garda. There are the mobile GATSO, mobile Lastec and handheld devices. There are at least four methods for detecting speeding, of which the fixed camera is just one.

Mr. Aylward

That is correct.

Deputy Fleming

If the Garda Síochána felt fixed cameras were such a good idea, would it be moving them out at a greater speed than it intends, or does the decision not to roll them out further indicate that it is not very happy with them?

Mr. Aylward

We are reviewing them. Whether there is a film in them, the location of fixed cameras becomes known very quickly. We are moving towards a more flexible response. It is not an either-or solution but a mixture of traffic law enforcement options. For example, some members of the insurance industry urged the Garda Síochána to put all its resources and energy into visible activity. That is all very fine but it has limited effect. If we wanted pure statistics, everything would be covert; we would use hidden cameras. All the advice suggests a mixture of approaches is required.

No matter how many extra gardaí we take on, it is a finite resource. Traffic moves 24 hours a day, seven days a week on a very large road network. We will need static technology, covert activity by gardaí in unmarked cars, GATSO equipment, and gardaí standing behind a tripod or at a checkpoint. We will never identify a single best stream of technology or approach. Countries that have experienced this problem on a greater scale for longer opt for a mixture of approaches. That is what we will try to do, too.

Deputy Fleming

We know that 50,000 of the 87,000 fixed charge notices issued arose from the use of fixed cameras. How many of the remaining 30,000 involved interceptions?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I have a difficulty with this because we tried to get that information but there was a problem with the manual system and the information being recorded. Therefore, we do not have the information. If it is of any use, we have it for the period from 1 January to 30 September 2004. Of the 57,041 fixed charge notices issued, 43,832 arose from non-intercept methods. There were 10,014 intercepts. There were also 3,195 intercepts about seatbelts.

Deputy Fleming

At least 20% were by way of intercepts. I do not expect Chief Superintendent Farrelly to go back to 2003. At least this gives us an indication of the figure.

In the section that deals with cases where there was no driver number the report states at the bottom of page 60 "the statistics show a considerable number (12,900) of the total issued (99,000)". Were 99,000 penalty points issued? This figure refers to the penalty points issued by county up to 31 December 2003. We have already referred to the 87,000 fixed charge notices issued. Am I right in assuming the figure of 12,000 relates to no insurance or seatbelt offences because they do not come under the fixed charge notice?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

: No. I am sorry I cannot help the Deputy. I can get that information but I do not have it now.

Deputy Fleming

Very well. The question concerns the 99,000 penalty points issued and the 87,000 fixed charge notices. Is it possible to reconcile the two figures or should they be reconciled? Chief Superintend Farrelly can furnish the answer later.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

If I examine it here, I may be able to reply to the Deputy before the close of business; otherwise I will contact him afterwards.

Deputy Fleming

Offences other than speeding, such as having no insurance and seatbelt offences, could be detected only by means of direct Garda interception.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

That is correct.

Deputy Fleming

We are all familiar with checkpoints whether during the day or at night, where gardaí look at the insurance disc, presumably to see whether it is valid. Is that the main check? Would it be the normal check?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

The garda looks at the windscreen when he or she stops a vehicle but that might not satisfy him or her. Therefore, he or she would give the driver the opportunity to produce either a certificate of insurance or an exemption at a named Garda station within a named period. When that period has expired, the garda examines the certificate. Sometimes the person driving may not be covered, even though an insurance certificate is in force for the car.

Deputy Fleming

That is precisely the point I want to pursue. The first line on page 59 of the report reads: "The Garda computer file indicates that some 22,881 registered owners initially contacted" said they were not the driver. We have already mentioned the 87,000 fixed charge notices. Clearly, one quarter of cars on the road, according to the drivers who made these returns, are not driven by the owners. In one quarter of cases when the garda looks only at the windscreen, the driver may not be the owner and may not be insured. That is the first definite figure I have been able to extrapolate for drivers. According to the owners, the nomination procedure reveals that they were not the driver in one quarter of cases. There is a high risk in that category that the driver does not have insurance. How does the Garda Síochána deal with this?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

In a non-intercept case, for example, speeding, the driver has 28 days within which to pay the fine of €80. We encounter a problem in retrospectively demanding the production of documents one month after the use of the vehicle. In other words, we cannot do this.

Deputy Fleming

I tabled a parliamentary question a couple of years ago about cancelled insurance policies and was stunned by the figure of 12,000. Insurance companies are entitled to cancel an insurance policy if they believe they have not been given proper information. They were to notify the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government which would notify the relevant Garda authorities which would notify the local Garda station that a particular car did not have a valid insurance policy, even though it had a disc on the windscreen. There has been an explosion in the number of valid insurance discs on windscreens where policies have been cancelled. Companies offer insurance policies direct for which the customer may get the insurance disc and pay the first month's standing order only. The insurance company then cancels the policy. There are thousands of motorists whose policies have been cancelled but who on meeting a garda at a checkpoint appear to have insurance. They probably have an insurance certificate which was issued but after receiving it cease to pay. Can Chief Superintendent Farrelly comment on the extent to which this is happening? Does the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Transport have information on the number of insurance policies issued and cancelled in respect of which insurance discs are still carried on windscreens?

Chairman

We are moving away from the chapter. Chief Superintendent Farrelly may give a brief answer.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

I would not have the figures, although we are aware of the problem. There are systems in place to deal with a situation where a garda does not accept what is on the windscreen if he or she becomes suspicious. There is also a system for communicating with an insurance company when a garda becomes suspicious. There is the production of documents, contact with the insurance company and finally the option of bringing the person to court. Gardaí can also seize the documents.

Deputy Deasy

I came with a list of specific questions after reading the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but after listening to the discussion for a couple of hours, I now have general questions. Who runs the show between the different Departments involved? The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance and the Garda Síochána are represented here. I understand the role each plays but who speaks first when they meet? What is the management process? How often do they meet? Mr. Aylward is a busy man. Does he take charge of the penalty points area?

Ms O'Neill spoke about feedback from the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which look at the legislation with regard to making changes. How does this work? It seems that when people ask questions here, someone refers or defers it to one Department. In some cases it is referred to the Garda Síochána. There is no fluidity.

Some of the answers given and the general presentation have been vague, unconvincing and given without great conviction. There is a level at which the answers have been indefinite. Ms O'Neill talked about company cars and considering legislation to target company secretaries. When the Chairman asked about nominating a driver, Mr. Aylward talked about North-South consultation and a possible framework within the European Union but he was not able to answer the question about someone nominated who may live in New York.

There has been vagueness throughout the presentation. Can the witnesses respond to this and tell me what are the management processes? I am totally unconvinced about what is going on. Ms O'Neill, in particular, made a valid point about a person's right to appeal but her answers were unconvincing. Mr. Aylward has said someone will always bring a legal challenge against traffic legislation. One does not need to be a jurist of the genius class to look at this report and see there are serious problems with the penalty points system.

Mr. Aylward

The Deputy raised a great many issues. I am not aware of any country where a single individual or agency has complete and absolute overlordship of traffic law enforcement because it raises so many issues. It is always a challenge for an administration to produce joined-up government where responsibility is divided.

Deputy Deasy

Who takes the lead?

Mr. Aylward

We try to operate on a collegiate basis. We deal with the various working groups on a functional basis. The lead agency or Department chairs the relevant group. For example, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform chairs a group dealing with the procurement and roll-out of the fixed charge processing system while we defer to the Department of Transport on legislation.

We are vulnerable to the criticism that we do not have a perfect system, that there are gaps, places where we do not have the answers. We are being honest about this. I said this is a work in progress. We did it in a hurry. We followed Lady Macbeth's advice that "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly". Therefore, we have done it quickly and left some gaps but we are moving on a collegiate basis to plug them and deal with the issues involved.

No country has solved the problem where the offender or nominated driver turns out to be on another continent. If we were to wait until every conceivable problem that could arise in this area was put to bed, we would have nothing for which to answer because there would be a blank page in terms of an automated system. We have carried the risk and taken hits for some of the mistakes but we can point to the outcome, that we have saved lives by this activity. We have brought a lot of people to book. People have lost their licences because of their behaviour and more will do so if they persist in breaching the law.

In as restrained and as brief a fashion as I could manage, that is my attempted response to Deputy Deasy.

Ms O’Neill

By introducing the penalty points system in the way we did we saved approximately 100 lives. The saving to the society is probably in the order of €200 million as a result. It is not just a financial saving. It is a significant saving in terms of the impact on people's lives and the lives of affected relatives. The collaborative work between the various agencies has been critical in that regard. The Department of Transport has overall responsibility for policy on road safety and for much of the underpinning legislation. My assistant secretary, John Murphy, chairs a high level group on road safety which includes representatives from the Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the National Safety Council, local authorities, the Department of Health and Children and others.

Tackling road safety is multi-dimensional. Having responsibility rest within the Department of Transport accords with best practice in all jurisdictions. I have spoken to my colleagues in many European countries and they share the view that responsibility should lie with that Department because effective enforcement of road safety is an integral part of the transport system.

As well as the high level group which meets at regular intervals, draws up strategy and the arrangements for implementing it at ministerial and official level, I meet Mr. Aylward. We also meet our colleagues in the Garda Síochána and others on the issue of implementation. Implementation at ministerial level is of course a matter for Ministers to decide. We agreed the policy with the Garda and drew up the legislative framework. It is an operational matter for the Garda to implement it. The Department does not seek to interfere with its implementation of it. Where issues are identified in the course of implementation, we deal with and respond to them as speedily as possible.

On the legal issues that emerged in the course of its implementation referred to by the Deputy, the best legal brains set themselves the task of finding a way of outwitting the road traffic legislation put in place to save people's lives. Our job becomes finding ways of remedying situations that arise and we do so speedily. If I am not giving straight or specific answers as the Deputy would like, it is because some of these issues are extremely difficult from a legal viewpoint and are being teased out in detail in the Attorney General's office. The proper way to introduce amendments to legislation — this will be done — is in the House by the Minister.

Deputy Deasy

For argument's sake, I accept that many lives have been saved by the introduction of the penalty points system. However, in the interim many have found ways around it, very easily in many cases. I do not like publicising them but they have been mentioned in the newspapers. The Garda also knows the many ways individuals get around the system. The Comptroller and Auditor General has issued a report on the system and the committee must ask if it will work. I am unconvinced by the answers given so far. Are we moving in the right direction and will these problems ever be solved?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey talked about the original system and the problems created when the new one was introduced. Superintendents to whom I have spoken have indicated the same. They are wary of moving to a system where on-the-spot fines cannot be issued on the roadside. Instead another layer of bureaucracy has been created. Many superintendents have informed me that 60% of registered mail in respect of the penalty points system is unanswered and that ordinary post is useless because someone can claim he or she never received notification.

I am asking each of the witnesses, considering the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, if we are moving in the right direction. They should be very careful before answering this question. Will the penalty points system work in the long term? For years I publicly claimed that it would be of great benefit and reduce the number of road deaths. However, looking at the figures and the legal and technical issues involved, I am becoming unconvinced about the benefits of the system, particularly given some of the answers from the witnesses. Some of the questions have not been answered.

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

We are happy with the direction of the fixed charge processing system. Our priority is to reduce the administrative burden as much as possible on operational gardaí in order that they can spend more time on the street and away from the station. The system's provisions will help in achieving this. It provides for central payment, central processing, notepads and handheld electronic devices. The significance of handheld devices is that when a garda records the details, he or she goes back to the station where it is docked in a device and all the information is relayed electronically to the central processing office in Dublin. He or she is then finished in the processing of the information leaving him or her free for operational outdoor duty. It is our aim to increase the time available for operational duty.

There is also provision for interfacing with various Departments, the courts and the vehicle and national driver files. This will support the Garda in allowing members remain on the street for a longer period. For that reason, we believe the fixed charge processing system is the way to go. We are happy with the pilot stage and the feedback on its operation is positive. We hope to expand its operation to the rest of the Dublin metropolitan region before the end of November. This will give greater experience of using the electronic equipment involved.

Deputy Deasy

On the pilot stage, the feedback I have received from senior gardaí is that although it has worked successfully, their concern is that there might be a glut once it is introduced nationwide. Does this concern Assistant Commissioner Crummey?

Assistant Commissioner Crummey

The chiefs in charge of the Dublin metropolitan traffic unit and the Louth-Meath division operating the pilot system have told me that it has contributed to keeping gardaí on the street for longer periods.

Mr. Aylward

Deputy Deasy has claimed that many questions have not been answered. I must explain that many of the unanswered questions are statistical. Officials must be careful before they throw out a guesstimate when asked a statistical question. Given our training, we are prone to being careful and not misleading the committee or anyone else. When asked a statistical question of which we have had no prior notice, we try in the most courteous way possible to signal one. If one of us can give a proximate answer, it will be given. If we cannot, in the spirit of the committee's inquiry, we will come back as promptly as possible through the secretariat to give an accurate answer, ensuring the final report of the Committee of Public Accounts is accurate. We are not being vague to dodge questions. Instead we are anxious to serve the committee and the Oireachtas correctly by giving the right answer as promptly as we can.

Chairman

That is standard procedure and fully acceptable to the committee.

Ms O’Neill

In fairness to my Garda colleagues, the Department of Transport was aware when the Garda was asked to roll out the penalty points system on an interim basis that there would be limitations, not least in the system's capacity to generate statistical and analytical information. That was not the main objective in introducing the scheme on an interim basis but to get it up and running.

On some of the issues raised, particularly the number of registered owners nominating other drivers, we do not have the hard information we would like. The fixed charge processing system will provide us with this detailed analytical information. It will also provide us with good feedback on how the system is operating, for the Garda from an operational viewpoint and the Department of Transport from a future policy direction viewpoint.

Deputy Ardagh

I welcome Mr. Aylward for the first time before the Committee of Public Accounts in his capacity as Secretary General. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope to see him more often before this committee. The Secretary General's job in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the most challenging in the Civil Service.

Both the Department and the Garda Síochána have deficiencies in their management techniques and competencies. This does not reflect on the excellent ability of gardaí to do the job they are asked to do. However, I agree with Deputy Deasy's sentiments about the management of the penalty points system. The Morris tribunal showed a lack of management capability at an operational level while the Comptroller and Auditor General's report indicts management of administrative matters in the Garda Síochána and the Department.

The approach to management is more akin to that of the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon than to the modern techniques of Bill Gates or Michael Dell. I accept there are particular systems in place such as collegiality and joined up government. However, there should be a chief executive officer to report on matters such as this. The scheme's raison d’être is to reduce the number of road deaths. I accept this cannot be diminished as the scheme has been effective with 100 more people alive today, as stated by Ms O’Neill, but who is responsible for ensuring the system is effective and the number of road deaths is reduced? Is the effectiveness of the system measured by the number of speeding tickets issued and the amount of money collected in fines? Are the speed cameras located at the most effective spots to achieve the primary objective of reducing the number of road deaths rather than maximising revenue or making a particular Garda station look good statistically? A composite reply can be given to these questions.

Has a geostatistical model been developed to identify the most effective locations and time allocation in the deployment of the 525 traffic gardaí? I am disappointed that a benchmarking system has not been sought. Mr. Alyward has said he will seek information and pass it to the committee. However, while the computing software consultancy was taking place, a benchmarking investigation into international best practice should have been completed.

Mr. Aylward

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is unusually structured in that the Secretary General is Accounting Officer not just for the 2,000 direct employees of the Department but the 20,000 indirect employees in the Garda Síochána, the Prison Service and 23 other agencies. That is some spread. Since my appointment in August I have taken a keen interest in rationalising this accounting role and I am the first to acknowledge it is too wide a spread. I welcome the provisions of the Garda Bill to make the Garda Commissioner the Accounting Officer for the force. I also welcome its transparency, accountability and sheer logic. It is no longer sustainable to pretend that a civil servant sitting at a desk in St. Stephen's Green can give a full explanation to the committee on law enforcement and its financial implications.

While other reports have been referred to, I do not wish to stray too far on the issue of accountability. However, it is important that the operation of policing, in any of its facets, is subject to civilian oversight and parliamentary accountability. This will be retained in legislative or other proposals. Enhancing communications between the Department and the Garda Commissioner is a matter of concern for both the Minister and the Garda Commissioner. We are working all the time to tighten and sharpen our communications in order that we can deal quickly with important issues.

I have a personal interest in benchmarking. It is a good development for all aspects of policing; hence the Minister's recent announcement of a Garda inspectorate which will emphasise best practice and make valid comparisons between similar sized police divisions in other states achieving more success with the same resources.

On the deployment of the 520 gardaí attached to various traffic departments, I note the Garda Commissioner's approach does not focus on pure statistics in respect of how many are caught in the net and the number of fines issued. He is not driven — neither is the Department — by generating income. This initiative is not about generating income but saving lives. The ultimate benchmark is the number of fatalities.

We are conscious of the slippage. Experience in Northern Ireland showed that when the scheme was introduced, people tended to slam on the brakes. The challenge now is to sustain the lower figures to those in the 1970s and 1980s but in a context where the volume of traffic is rising exponentially. Much more has to be done but the approach will be one of clearer lines of accountability and better communication between the law enforcement side, the administration and political leadership and the Minister of the day. This is the subject of continuing communication between the Garda Commissioner and the Minister. In the last three months I have seen a tightening of the focus in this regard, mindful of the criticisms of this committee and others who review our activities.

We have admitted the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is correct. There have been flaws in what we have done. We have paid a price in terms of efficiency in introducing this scheme in a rush but we will fix it as soon as we can. Some measures that require fixing will involve legislation and policy input from the Department of Transport. This will be done as quickly as resources and the Oireachtas permit. If I am asked if we could have done better in the past, I would say we could have. Will we do better in the future? We will. We will be judged, not by the revenues raised under the scheme but by the cold statistic of road traffic fatalities.

Ms O’Neill

The primary target of the Government's recently published road safety strategy is a reduction in the number of road deaths. Within this, a series of measures to be taken by agencies and Departments have been identified. We know which agency is responsible for what measure under the strategy as its responsibilities are clearly articulated.

The measure of the Garda speed limit enforcement programme is the number of vehicles checked per year, not the number of fines collected. A combination of covert and overt operations can be a much more powerful deterrent. We are not interested in increasing the numbers of fines or motorists receiving penalty points. Ideally, we would like to see them going down because it would be a sign of greater compliance. It is getting the correct measures that is important. It is clear which agency is responsible for each measure under the strategy.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

On the deployment of those involved in traffic units, 1,200 collision prone locations have been identified. I accept the locations as circumstances change. They are identified with the National Roads Authority and local authorities. Our enforcement efforts are focused on these areas. There is much talk about fish in fish bowls but we concentrate on those areas where collisions occur.

Deputy Ardagh

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Aylward

Recently, when the Minister secured Government approval to recruit an extra 2,000 gardaí, he asked the Garda Commissioner to examine those areas where the shoe was pinching in resource allocation. Among the areas being examined by the Garda Commissioner is the number of gardaí deployed in traffic units. Within the next 90 days, having consulted his officers, he will nail down how many more gardaí he will need for road traffic enforcement.

Deputy J. Higgins

The delay in notifying those who have accrued penalty points is an important issue, yet both Chief Superintendent Farrelly and Mr. Aylward dismiss its importance. Mr. Aylward referred to urban myths and chose the issue of clamping as an example. For Dubliners, clamping is not a myth. The widespread and gratuitous use of clamping in Dublin is cynical in the extreme. Motorists not obstructing traffic but overstaying their time in a legal parking space or leaving their cars behind when over the alcohol limit are mainly affected. It is not a good example to use in referring to delayed penalty points notification as a myth. The purpose of the system is to have a psychological effect on drivers, making them more aware of their driving, particularly as the more points accrued, the more severe the consequences for insurance costs and the right to drive. Is it not an important part of the system to ensure the notification system is quick and instant to ensure sharper awareness?

Mr. Aylward

When I suggested there might be an element of urban myth in some complaints against the system, I also acknowledged the human driven system which deals with tens of thousands of cases does not stand up anymore. From a customer viewpoint, the new system will ensure notice of offences will be issued in a shorter period. The notice which will issue will include a cropped image of the vehicle registration number in the case of non-intercept offences. The additional information on the notice and its timely issue are expected to increase the payment rate, reduce the number of queries and put motorists on notice that their driving behaviour can have severe consequences.

It will also possible for motorists detected by the system to make payments at over 900 locations as distinct from 130 Garda district offices. Those promptly notified of these offences will be able to make payments by a host of methods such as over the telephone, by post and on the Internet. When payment is made and received, notification will be sent electronically to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government allowing the penalty points to be added quickly to the national driver file. Therefore, penalty points will be added quicker to drivers' licences. As they will be retained for two years, the sooner they are added, the sooner the liability will be discharged. This will have implications for insurance costs for the drivers concerned.

We cannot rely on a manual or intervention based system due to the sheer flow of traffic. If every one of the new 2,000 gardaí to be recruited over the next two years was deployed in traffic law enforcement, the problem would still not be addressed in a systemic way, leaving driver behaviour unaffected.

Deputy J. Higgins

What is the target time for notification?

Mr. Aylward

I do not have a figure as it is still being refined. However, notification should occur within days. Electronic technology will permit this. While it will be generated electronically, it will still be posted, despite the vagaries of the postal system. The objective should be that the data are turned around within two days and delivered as quickly as the mail system will permit. The use of technology will ensure it will be much quicker than the experience to date.

Deputy J. Higgins

The overall purpose of the penalty points system is a reduction in the number of traffic accidents causing death and horrific injuries. It is amazing that in the last ten years no comprehensive scientific analysis has been undertaken of serious road traffic accidents between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Transport and the Garda. There must be recurring patterns. A comprehensive scientific analysis of patterns and the cause of crashes would allow the issue of enforcement to be addressed in a more focused fashion. I accept that it would involve a Statewide analysis but it must be done to target certain areas of enforcement such as speed reduction, thereby dramatically reducing the number of accidents.

Mr. Aylward

The Garda compiles collision reports on all accidents resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. This considerable data is provided for the National Roads Authority from which it produces reports and analysis on which traffic strategy is based. I have a great deal of provisional data generated by the Garda. I have one particular sample which I can have copied and given to the committee secretariat. It breaks down to some extent the nature of the road users involved and the pattern. Breakdowns are also given by day of week, time of night etc. The road traffic strategy 2004-06 is based on the analysis of this data by the NRA. Another element has been the collision history at the 109 traffic accident locations identified in the NRA high accident location report which recommended appropriate treatment at each location where the road had been a factor in the collisions.

I am sure there is scope for further analysis. I do not claim further inquiries are necessary — nothing of the kind — but this issue has been tracked comprehensively during the years and the data have fed into policy. They have also fed into decisions made at a policy and investment level by my colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Transport and, in its time, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

That is my initial response to the Deputy's question. My colleague, Ms O'Neill, might like to augment what I have said.

Ms O’Neill

To echo what Mr. Aylward said on the importance of the analysis carried out by the NRA, certainly it is an area at which we have been looking to see where we could benefit from having further and more detailed information available to us to confirm what very often are perceptions of the issues involved. For instance, one matter that is important is the extent to which alcohol and drugs are factors in the collisions that take place late at night or in the early hours of the morning. Very often they are single vehicle accidents.

One of the problems is that when the Garda detects people for drink-driving, the samples are usually sent to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. Therefore, we have a good analysis but when deaths occur, it is the coroner who carries out the post mortem. Therefore, the information is not available to us. A pilot study is under way with the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and one coroner's district to see if we can obtain an analysis of the cause of death in road traffic accidents. We think this will be a further helpful contribution and if it proves useful in terms of the information it yields, it is something we could consider extending more broadly but that would require changes in legislation because the information available to the coroner is not available to us.

One of the difficulties for the Garda is that very often one can speculate as to the cause of accidents at particular locations but it can be difficult, even for the Garda, to form a view on the cause, given that it will very often be the subject of a future court case. Certainly, we think hard information on the precise cause of death would be useful and add value to the detailed information we already receive from the NRA.

Deputy J. Higgins

In essence, that bears out my point. On reading daily newspapers I am struck by the number of fatal single vehicle accidents in the early hours of the morning. We do not know whether alcohol, drugs or exhaustion was a factor. Obviously, when a single vehicle accident occurs, probably one cannot say at what speed the vehicle was travelling but we must try to discover the cause of such horrific accidents to see if a warning system can be put in place to avoid similar tragedies.

Ms O’Neill

I agree with the Deputy. There is no doubt that the more quality information we have the better. I understand the Medical Bureau of Road Safety will probably publish the results of the analysis undertaken in one coroner's district before the end of the year of the causes of death over a period of time. These will be very useful.

Deputy Rabbitte

At this stage all questions have been asked. I join my colleagues in wishing Mr. Aylward well in his onerous appointment. I want to ask him briefly and quickly about the progress of civilianisation. In respect of the matter we are addressing, surely it is not necessary that Garda manpower should be tied up to the extent that it is?

Mr. Aylward

I agree. To be brief, it is inappropriate for gardaí to be shuffling paper. Our citizenry and those who live here want to see the Garda delivering the product that is quality law enforcement. I acknowledge our colleagues in the Department of Finance have been helpful to us in sanctioning additional civilian appointments specifically for the national centre which will distribute the notices in question. We are unusual as a State at this stage in European terms for the very low level of civilianisation in the policing function. It is the case, however, that the embargoes on recruitment to the public service have tended to coincide with the moment departmental officials and the Garda Commissioner and his staff agreed on civilianisation measures. We tend to be in a situation where a certain number of posts are identified at just the point in the economic cycle where we cannot afford to increase the number of public service employees.

Generally, what we would like to achieve is not fewer gardaí and more civilians but more gardaí, more civilians and more technology as this would allow the multi-transactional element of law enforcement to be completed as much as possible by machinery rather than people. I acknowledge that even now when there are restrictions on recruitment, the Department of Finance has been helpful to us in bringing in more people to do this work. I certainly do not want to pull gardaí off the beat or the roadside where we all want them to be.

Deputy Rabbitte

I also congratulate Chief Superintendent Farrelly on his elevation. I do not know how the force will manage without him in his previous role. Did I hear him deny with a straight face the existence of the shooting fish in a barrel syndrome?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

Yes, that is probably what the Deputy heard. This has been doing the rounds for some time in regard to detections. It is said we are detecting many in the easy target areas. To give an idea of how we operate, we maintain high visibility on motorways in the high ramp areas created. We have an operation in place for some time called High Visibility where motorists can see us on these high ramps and slow down. That is the desired effect. It is presumed many detections take place in areas where the targets are easy or on motorways where the level of crashes is not high. Only 2% of speeding detections take place in those areas.

The other issue that comes up frequently is that of 30 mph and 40 mph speed limits in urban areas. The implication is that we are catching motorists driving four or five miles above the limit. I debated this issue on numerous occasions in my previous life but the fact remains, whether we like it, that last year in excess of 100 people of the 336 killed in road accidents died in those areas. I am frank about this and make no apology for enforcing the law within them. On what people say about the shooting fish syndrome, I make no apology for enforcing the law in regard to speeding at any location. Gardaí are not entitled to cherry-pick locations.

Deputy Rabbitte

Does Chief Superintendent Farrelly not think they take the soft option from time to time?

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

No, I do not agree with the Deputy. One has to remember we are not in the business of revenue collecting. Any moneys collected do not go to the Garda Síochána but to central coffers. What we do is save lives. We have moved on to examine consistently and put gardaí in collision prone areas.

I do not agree with what was said, although it may be a perception people have. In one way I am glad people see gardaí out and about, whether they accuse them of shooting fish in a bowl. As long as they see them, they are enforcing the law. As I said, I do not agree with the Deputy and do not make any apology.

Deputy Rabbitte

Superintendent Farrelly is a loss to his previous job. Can Ms O'Neill tell me why it is proving so difficult to rationalise speed limits? If Superintendent Farrelly is right — he is entitled to enforce the law wherever it should be enforced——

Chairman

It is Chief Superintendent Farrelly.

Deputy Rabbitte

I beg your pardon. I apologise to Chief Superintendent Farrelly. There are inconsistencies and completely random speed limits on different quality roads. Is there any relief in prospect on that front?

Ms O’Neill

There is a road traffic Bill before the House which we hope enacted before the end of this year to provide for the metrication of speed limits from 20 January next. In that context, there is a general streamlining and rationalisation of speed limits and an examination of the basis on which speed limits are to be applied. The speed limit to apply a particular location is a matter for the elected members of county and city councils. This principle was established in the Road Traffic Act 1994 and is reinforced in the provisions in the Bill before the House. We would take back to central government at our peril the right to determine speed limits at specific locations. Very often the issues at these locations are about safety and can only be known to the members of the county or city council involved.

A number of well known locations were identified by the AA and the SIMI. People have come forward to say they cannot believe there is a need for a 30 mph or 40 mph speed limit at some locations. Very often these happen to be stretches of national road in built up urban or suburban areas. The former Minister for Transport approached all the local authorities concerned about these specific lists and in most cases they came back to say they were satisfied the speed limits were appropriate. It is a little like the issue Chief Superintendent Farrelly raised, that people say it is daft to have a 40 mph speed limit on a certain stretch of the Stillorgan dual carriageway but those who know the safety issues in that area would argue trenchantly that it is appropriate to have such a limit.

A number of local authorities have indicated they are prepared to review speed limits but other have reaffirmed they are correct. We hope the introduction of the new speed limit structure provided for in the Bill will allow local authorities to pursue a full review of all speed limits within their area. From a policy point of view, we agree it is important there is consistency in the application of speed limits because that helps with the credibility of the systems in place, especially the penalty points system.

Chairman

I have one question for both Secretaries General. I do not want to ask about the merits of policy because that is not our business but at what point in its formulation did they inform their respective Minister about some of the statistics emerging when the Comptroller and Auditor General was drawing up his report?

Mr. Aylward

In my case, as it was my predecessor who dealt with it, I do not have direct knowledge but I do know that when I took over the mantle, the Minister was on to me quickly about the report. He seemed to be fully apprised of the gaps thrown up.

Chairman

That is not actually what I asked. Both Ministers expressed amazement when the information in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report was published. Why were they were not informed at an earlier stage, for example, that the failure rate on imaging was 47%? From the Minister's perspective, does Mr. Aylward think that would be relevant information in the formulation of policy?

Mr. Aylward

If we lapsed in apprising the Minister promptly, I accept the Chairman's construction on the Minister's response. That would have been a failure on our part. It is my impression the Minister would have been apprised of the fact that we were doing a rushed job on a pilot basis and that we were expecting to have error rates and teething problems but these would be addressed on a continual basis. It is important to go back to one point made at the outset of today's deliberations, that as agencies and Departments, we consciously set out to do this quickly and to carry the risk that there would be error rates in the broader context of achieving results in reducing the number of road fatalities. We also have recorded that the picture is getting a little better and we are absolutely committed to making it better still through the use of more refined technology, more robust agreements with service providers and quicker action where we detect slippage.

Ms O’Neill

The report by the Comptroller and Auditor General was focused on the Votes of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána. In that sense we would not have become aware of its detailed contents until the day it was published. At that stage I would have informed the Minister of its contents immediately. In a more general sense, clearly, our concern, apart from an over-arching responsibility for policy, is to identify where and in what respects there might be legal issues impeding the Garda in proper and effective enforcement. We are well aware of issues arising from the interim nature of operation of the scheme. In that context, we would have had, both before and immediately following publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, detailed dialogue with the Garda about issues that might need to be pursued and areas where amendments might need to be introduced in forthcoming legislation.

Deputy Fleming

I wish to clarify one minor point with Ms O'Neill. When speaking of road fatalities, she said the coroner conducted the report and that the cause of death did not necessarily feed back into the system. Did she also say the blood alcohol level was not fed back into the system?

Ms O’Neill

It is my understanding — I will check this afterwards — that unlike a situation where the Garda actually detects somebody with excess alcohol in his or her blood, in the case of a fatal road accident the results of analysis remain with the coroner's office. They do not automatically feed back into the system. As matters stand, in legal terms, they are the property of the coroner. The information does not automatically come back to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety which undertakes a detailed analysis of samples from people detected in other respects.

While we have a great deal of information on where accidents take place, the time of day, locations etc., the precise medical cause of death is not available to us. This is an issue we identified in preparing the road safety strategy and have taken up with the MBRS. As I said, a pilot project is taking place in one coroner's jurisdiction to see if it will provide, as I expect it will, genuinely useful information to feed back into policy. On that basis we will then have to look at what further legislative changes will be needed to facilitate the gathering and collating of that information. Again, one is talking about manual systems rather than a database into which the information will feed. It is very useful information.

Deputy Fleming

I am disappointed to hear the medical cause of death is not notified to those responsible for road safety. Are blood alcohol and drug levels not notified either?

Ms O’Neill

The Garda might want to comment on what it has available in specific accident cases.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

In regard to fatalities, there is a stage before an inquest is held at which we find out for our records the level of alcohol in the system. It is not published ahead of what the coroner may decide as he or she has ultimate responsibility under the Coroners Act 1961 to infer the cause of death. We may have this information but I am not sure of the basis on which it is held, whether it is information gathered by the investigating officer and then given back to us for analysis of the actual cause of the fatality.

Deputy Fleming

Does it feed back into road safety policy?

Ms O’Neill

No, clearly from our contact and discussions with the Garda there is a great deal of information available at a practical level on the causes of accidents. Obviously, in informal dialogue with it we can talk about a particular accident that happened late at night on a particular stretch of road. It will usually be well known locally what the cause of death was. The connection between late night single vehicle accidents and alcohol, drugs, tiredness and speeding is well known. Very often the difficulty for the Garda is that the information is part of an evidence trail and that ultimately under the Coroners Act the information is the property of the coroner. What we do not have is a nice statistical method for collecting the data on a coherent basis and feeding it back into policy. That is a matter we would be interested in exploring.

Deputy Fleming

Can anyone tell me what percentage of the 309 people killed this year, up to 29 October, were over the blood alcohol limit or had taken drugs? Is this information known officially? I am stunned. This process is about road safety and avoiding deaths but now we find that information on whether any of the 336 people who died last year and the 309 who died this year on the roads had alcohol in their system does not feed back officially into the system because it is the property of the coroner. We are told information is available in the system but it appears to be anecdotal. I would have thought precise information on blood alcohol levels and so on would be available to help form road safety policy.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

The information about which the Deputy is talking would form part of the overall investigation into a fatal crash. Of course, it would be supplied but it could not be adjudicated upon because it may be just one element as to the cause of a particular crash. Another element which we consider in all cases is the possibility of suicide. All of our investigations move in that direction, even to the point of looking for a note. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the conclusion of the coroner would be death by suicide. In recording data one cannot pre-empt what the coroner may decide.

Deputy Fleming

I am more interested in blood alcohol levels. Is there statistical information available on the blood alcohol or drug content, regardless of why the crash happened? I understand what Chief Superintendent Farrelly is saying but I wish to know if this bald information is available in the system. I accept court cases may take years to complete but at least information on blood alcohol levels could stand alone.

Chief Superintendent Farrelly

That information will be given at the inquest.

Deputy Fleming

Therefore, it is feeding in. Am I missing something?

Mr. Aylward

The Deputy has put his finger on a gap in the system but, as indicated in an intervention by Ms O'Neill, in an effort to get around the difficulty we have to take into account the legislation relating to coroners and the fact that the data gathered in individual cases are held by them and not centrally collated. We do not have a central coroners service. In an effort to address this, as mentioned by Ms O'Neill, a pilot scheme has been initiated in one coroner's area — Kildare — where the coroner happens to be one of the most erudite medical and legal experts in the country. He also has an association with the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. From this pilot study will come an acceptable methodology and perhaps indications of the necessary legal frameworks in order that data can be collated on a rolling basis to enable us to split and break down the factors underpinning road traffic fatalities.

One of the matters being focused on is whether the driver had alcohol in his or her system, but we also need to know the blood alcohol and drug level in cases where a pedestrian victim is involved. This will be embraced in the study as it may be a contributory factor. We should not ignore, although no scientific study will totally and satisfactorily answer this question, the possibility of suicide.

The Deputy is correct in saying there is a gap in the data; this is not something of which we are completely unaware. We just want to get right the arrangements for data capture in the future. There are big timelags in regard to when coroners' inquests are held and no homogenous data capture as in the case of prosecutions under the drink-driving code. Something that is efficient and gives us real information is required. We are going about it in the right way with the co-operation of the coroner's service in Kildare. It will be a product on which we will be able to report to this and other committees in the near future.

Ms O’Neill

I endorse what Mr. Aylward said. We are conscious of the highly sensitive nature of coroners' information. Therefore, in asking the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to look at the legislation relating to coroners, we have to take account of the whole purpose of such legislation in the first instance. This is a difficult issue. I would not like the impression to be given that we have nothing to go on. There is a great deal of evidence available, both at national and international level, on the extent to which drink-driving is a major contributory factor in road accidents.

Direct access to coroners' information I understand presents a problem in a number of jurisdictions. I am not sure any country is capable of easily providing the information suggested in order that one could immediately say drink was a factor in X% of cases. What we are looking for, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is a mechanism to collate general information. Part of the problem is that the overall numbers involved are relatively small. If broken down by coroner district, there would be a risk that personal information on individuals would be revealed. One of the matters at which we will have to look is the basis on which the information could be gathered and collated so as to protect its sensitivity while giving us the useful statistical analysis we require.

Mr. Purcell

In the light of this discussion it might be useful to briefly give provenance to the report before the committee. Towards the end of the examination we carried out I was presented with a choice. A great deal of the information we had was disjointed for the reasons we have heard this morning. We were dealing with an interim manual system and it was difficult to collate and verify information. I had a certain nervousness about this in presenting it in my annual report. The other option was to wait and prepare a much more comprehensive report which considered benchmarking issues and made comparisons with other countries.

I decided to go ahead somewhat tentatively, and not without getting a few more grey hairs, to give impetus to the changes which were already being made. As well as providing a vehicle for public accountability as exercised by this committee, I like to think my reports help to promote some form of change. Statistics such as those mentioned earlier are not produced for their own sake, but to better inform the way in which we operate and to provide an early indication of emerging issues. Like Deputies Curran and Fleming and the Chairman, I prefer matters to be tidy and circumstances to be such that I can use an accountant's mind to reconcile all of the figures. It was not possible to do that in the timeframe to support a decision to put the important information we had into the public domain. Hopefully this explanation clarifies matters from my angle, which may be one accounting officers and sometimes the members of the committee do not always appreciate.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Purcell, the members, Ms O'Neill, Mr. Aylward, the assistant commissioner, the chief superintendent, the assistant secretary, Mr. O'Leary, and Mr. Foster who was ignored today.

Mr. Foster

I raise no objections.

Chairman

Tiochaigh do lá. I also thank all the officials who attended. Witnesses have been very forthright in what they have said. We share a common purpose and support the policy to reduce road deaths. We believe the penalty points system will accomplish that goal and want to see it applied as effectively as possible. All Members of the Oireachtas support the implementation of the penalty points scheme and we wish the Garda well in its useful work.

We have had a very positive session and can dispose of the chapter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

At our next meeting we will discuss chapter 7.4 on the national educational psychological service with the Department of Education and Science.

The committee adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until11 a.m. on Thursday, 4 November 2004.