Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 2000

Vol. 515 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - National Car Test: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on Tuesday, 22 February 2000:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the extra burden placed on pensioners by the national car test system and the restriction on mobility and independence which this will entail for a great many elderly people, and therefore calls on the Government immediately to:
–provide that all testing and re-testing of cars owned by persons aged 65 years or more be carried out without charge;
–provide a subsidy for the acquisition of a compliant car not over three years old in any case where the cost of ensuring compliance of a car owned by a person over the age of 65 years is greater than £250;
–provide that the cost of medical certificates required by drivers aged over 70 be refunded to such drivers by the Department of Health and Children, and
–provide that three-year licences issued to persons aged over 70 who are certified as fit to continue driving be made available at the same cost per annum as a normal ten-year licence.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1 :
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann endorses the arrangements now in place for the national car test which ensure an efficient and affordable quality service to all customers and provide benefits to road safety and the environment; and notes the commitment already made by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to introduce legislation, as soon as practicable, to permit more equitable driver licence fee arrangements for persons over 70 years of age.".
–(Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government).

I am delighted to support the motion. I support the general concept of car testing. Too many people lose their lives annually on Irish roads. Every effort should be made to make road safety a priority in all our lives. Regular car testing is but a small part of the programme to ensure we are safe on the roads. A comprehensive road safety programme should comprise a wide range of measures, including greater emphasis on seat belt wearing, a year round clampdown on drink-driving and, most importantly, measures to end speeding on our roads.

The last annual report of the National Safety Council shows that 82% of road fatalities were the result of speeding. That statistic alone points to the fact that it is not the quality of cars on our roads that causes the majority of accidents but the way we use our cars. Over the past two years the Government indicated it intends to introduce penalty points for dangerous driving but as of yet efforts have not been made to allow for the implementation of such legislation. A penalty points system would go some way towards reducing the incidence of road accidents and dangerous driving which has reached a frightening level. Under such a system an errant driver is deducted points for each minor breach of the law. Points are deducted for such offences as not wearing a seat belt, breaches of traffic signals and driving without caution. Will the Minister indicate when the Government intends to introduce legislation on penalty points?

The national car test will ensure there will be better cars on our roads but it will also place major financial pressures on those who cannot afford to buy a new car every four or five years. It is generally the least well off in our society who drive older cars and among that group are the elderly. Their old car is often their lifeline to the outside world. For them their car is of paramount importance in getting to the shop, the post office, the doctor, the hospital and to visit a relative or a neighbour. Those people are not in the business of speeding and putting lives at risk and they should not be put in a position where they must fork out money for car testing when they cannot afford it.

I would not make a case for free car testing for the elderly if we had a decent public transport system, particularly in rural areas. That would ensure the elderly had constant access to services, but we all know the reality. Public transport services in rural Ireland are appalling and people are forced to find alternative transport. The inadequate public transport system is only in the ha'penny place when it is set against the state of some of the roads in rural areas. In my constituency of Kerry South the condition of some of the roads has caused premature depreciation of cars; cars are old in six months. If the Minister does not take my word for it, I invite him to speak to road users in the Dingle area who were forced to storm our county council meeting last Monday because they can no longer tolerate the outrageous conditions of the roads there. The Minister was in the constituency last week and was taken around by the officials and shown the condition of the roads. I hope he will not let the people of Kerry South down. It would be very unfair if the elderly had to pay for their car test.

The introduction of the car test should have been accompanied by a package of measures that would have ensured better driving standards and better driving conditions. In addition, it should have recognised the financial burden it imposes on the elderly in particular. Since the car test was introduced I am aware of cases where garages cannot sell perfectly good cars until the due date of the test. For example, if a car was brought in by a garage owner today and the tax on it is not due until next July, he must hold on to that car until next July when it will be certified. Perfectly good cars are now parked in garages and it is often the people who are on a low income who can only afford a second-hand car who are affected by this. I ask the Minister to address this problem by putting in place a fast-tracking system to ensure garages are not forced to hold such cars.

The Government's amendment to the motion does not address the financial burden that has been imposed on those who can least afford it. That is the message in this motion. While the amendment underlines the Government's commitment to introduce a more equitable driving licence fee for persons over the age of 70, there is no time scale for its introduction. When does the Minister intend to implement this measure?

I call on local authorities to introduce a notification procedure to inform people of the due date for the renewal of their driving licences. Such a notification procedure exists for car tax and insurance and it should be a simple matter to extend it to driving licences. Licences are issued generally for five years or ten years and given that time span it is easy for people to forget to resubmit their applications for renewal on time. Where motorists forget to do that, they have to resit their driving test and given the current waiting list for the driving test, they would have to wait a long time to resit their test.

I would like to address the impact motor vehicles have on our environment. Motor cars are a necessity in modern day life, particularly where there is not access to any means of public transport, which, in effect, is the situation outside of Dublin. I accept the emissions they produce contribute to environmental damage, but I do not accept that the national car test will reduce this damaging effect. The motor vehicle manufacturing industry must take greater responsibility in ensuring the cars they produce cause minimum damage to our environment.

More new cars on our roads are not necessarily better for the environment because for every new car that is put on the road, an old one must be disposed of. As of yet, we do not have any appropriate recycling facilities to deal with used cars and the Government must take action on this, particularly in view of the national car test scheme. I ask the Minister to address this matter immediately, otherwise our roadsides will be strewn with old cars. I support the motion.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Kitt and John Browne.

Acting Chairman:

That is agreed.

At a time when a multitude of issues need to be addressed, it shows the state of the Fine Gael Party when it has to resort to a motion such as this in Private Members' time. There are other issues in relation to car use, the environment, car safety and so on that could have been addressed, but this is what they have resorted to.

The national car test was introduced by the Government in January. The previous Government decided the framework for the car test. The plans involving the operation of the test on a public private partnership and self-funding basis were accordingly followed by this Government. The previous Government at no time made provisions for the elderly or for social welfare recipients. Granting a subsidy to older people would almost certainly lead to similar claims from other sections of society. That would erode the self-financing principle behind the service that was decided on by the previous Government.

Unlike other areas of private expenditure, the cost of motoring has not been subject to social subsidies except for drivers with disabilities. The Government is not aware of any subsidisation scheme for old age pensioners or social welfare recipients in any other EU member state in relation to vehicle testing. Neither am I aware of any request for concessions for older people from organisations that represent them. It is hardly a people-driven demand. I would say it is part of the bluff and bluster of the Opposition to try to get publicity.

It is estimated that the cost of granting free tests and re-tests to people over 65, if we follow the principle of a self-funding test as envisaged by the previous Government, could raise the non-concessionary test fee from £35 to £51, an increase of almost 46%. On the question of driving licences for people over 70, I was delighted by the Minister's decision to introduce revised licence fee arrangements which will be structured more favourably towards persons aged over 70 years. That is a welcome trend.

I draw attention to an issue that has been adverted to by the previous speaker. That is the issue of recycling used cars. The Dublin area, and particularly parts of it, has a very serious problem with what are called "company cars". For example, the abandoned vehicle section of Dublin Corporation recovered 500 such cars in January, 166 in one week alone, which is an all-time record. Roughly 200 were found to be burned. One hundred and fifty of those were removed with the owners' consent. Twenty or thirty of them were recovered from the pound – I presume people did not bother to claim them after they were clamped. The rest were old wrecks. Scrappage schemes are currently being advertised on radio and on television by main car dealers, inviting car owners to trade in their cars. Wittingly or otherwise, many of these cars end up back on the streets and this is causing havoc in areas such as Ballyfermot, Finglas, Darndale and elsewhere because it is now possible for a group of young people to buy a "company car" for as little as £50. We came across a case recently where a car was bona fide traded in to a reputable garage. Without going into the boring details, it ended up in one of these roadside dumps which are being used as a recycling centre by members of the travelling community. Local youths bought that car, filled it with petrol and drove it around housing estates in the north side of Dublin until such time as it would not go any further. They then abandoned it. The Garda, to their credit, collected the car the next day and towed it back to its previous owner and left it there.

I would like the Minister to look at the issue of tracking cars from owner to owner, which is not satisfactory. Some method must be devised for filling in the forms so that cars can be tracked. At the moment in Dublin, cars manufactured from 1988 to 1991 are coming back on to the roads. They are dangerous and would have failed the vehicle test. Will the Minister consider the possibility of tightening the regulations to some extent?

Another issue that needs to be looked at is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is something fundamentally very wrong when youngsters as young as 12, 13 and 14 can buy a car and drive it around. It is an offence to drive a car without tax, insurance or licence, but one has ten days to produce them. These young people are a danger to themselves and to the public and this is something that needs to be addressed. Again this week, Dublin Corporation had to hire machinery to recover cars from places such as Cherry Orchard where between 60 and 100 such cars were abandoned in fields and drains, Scribblestown Lane in Finglas and Belcamp Lane in Coolock. That is what we are confronted with as a result of not implementing regulations in relation to the scrappage scheme. We must ensure that the last registered owner of a car is held fully responsible for it until it is passed on to the next owner, and the garage where the car is traded in should be made fill in the forms in the presence of the person who is trading it in. I am sure that very few people in Dublin know that if one has a car one wants to get rid of, one can drive it to Hammond Lane in Pigeonhouse Road and they will crush it into three by three and one does not have to pay anything for it. That is something that might be broadcast a bit more widely.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in the context of this motion relates to a report on wearing seat belts. It is scandalous that so many people do not abide by their obligation and place passengers and children in danger. I compliment the Government on bringing in regulations. However, the public seems blissfully willing to ignore them.

The positioning of speed cameras is another measure on which I compliment the Government. I have a bee in my bonnet about speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles. I drive the Dublin to Derry road morning and evening and the speed at which heavy goods vehicles travel along that road is frightening. There should be far more rigorous enforcement of the regulations relating to speeding generally but particularly by heavy goods vehicles.

At a time when the Government is putting an unprecedented amount of the State's resources into measures to improve the lot of the elderly, it is a pity that this is the only motion the Opposition parties can come up with, and I support the Government amendment.

I am somewhat amazed that it took the Opposition so long to put down a motion on this issue because the question of the national car test has been on the agenda for some time – it goes back to October 1996. I am amazed that the emphasis of the Fine Gael motion is on pensioners and the elderly. It has been highlighted by other speakers in the House, particularly by members of the Labour Party who have mentioned the question of low-income families, the unemployed and people who live in rural areas where there is little if any public transport.

It was people from the farming community who brought this issue to my attention some months ago. One farmer told me that he has a diesel car with which he tows a small trailer that he used to bring home the odd bag of feedstuffs. He feels he is not a danger to himself or to anyone else. He would not be travelling very quickly and would not be putting lives at risk. I can see his point of view, but that is to overlook the effects on the environment, and it is not always easy to explain that aspect in the context of a rural area where there is no public transport. However, in order to comply with an EU directive on this issue, the Government decided in October 1996 to introduce car testing. Such directives may not be popular, but they have to be put into Irish law. I have a similar reaction to the EU directive on turf cutting, or peat extraction as it is properly termed. Whether one agrees with that directive, there is also a concern for the environment involved in its operation. Cars are widely used for business, social and personal reasons and they are certainly a necessity in rural areas. On the other hand there are the disadvantages of traffic congestion and the pressure on the environment.

The Opposition motion contains an interesting proposal for a subsidy on motoring. Subsidies have not been provided for motoring apart from in the case of disabled drivers. Older people do not receive concessions on motor or fuel taxes. Would subsidies for car use amount to discrimination against those who are not wealthy enough to own a car?

In October 1996, when the Government announced the national car test, the question was not raised of subsidising the cost of the test for those on low incomes, including those on social welfare and old age pensioners. The test fee is £35 and retests cost £19.80, but what will the test fee be if subsidies are introduced? When the test was announced the Government said the matter would be self-financing. To my knowledge, other EU member states do not operate any subsidy scheme for old age pensioners or social welfare recipients. No other member state has motor car subsidies for people in rural areas where public transport is not widely available. We should have a subsidy but I do not believe it is possible.

Vote for it.

In 1996 the Government stressed the principle of a self-financing service and a very strong case was made for that. Granting a subsidy for older persons would almost certainly generate claims for similar concessions to other categories such as, for example, those in receipt of social welfare payments.

Another part of the motion refers to subsidising private car repair costs which would involve a major policy change and would run counter to the principle of private responsibility for such costs. How much would that subsidy amount to? Yesterday, the Minister said one could be talking about subsidies of up to £10,000 for individual car repairs. The scheme as proposed by the Opposition would be unfair to people who cannot afford to run a car. As the Minister said, car ownership and use has always involved significant private costs. The Automobile Association estimates £5,000 to £6,000 as the total annual cost of running a small to medium sized car. Some 15% of that figure, in the region of £800 to £900, relates to servicing and parts replacement to ensure that the vehicle remains in good condition and safe running order.

There have been justified complaints about the fact that some people have to travel long distances to test centres. Perhaps the Government will look at this issue in future as more and more cars will be tested. The emphasis should be on lights, brakes, steering, tyres and seat belts about which there has been some comment in today's newspapers. Surveys show that only 50% of drivers use seat belts. It is interesting to note, however, that where drivers give an example by using their seat belt, the other occupants of the car are likely to follow suit.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government should introduce legislation as soon as possible to permit more equitable driver licence fee arrangements for persons aged 70 or over. This point is referred to in the Opposition motion and I welcome it. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, answered the issue in a positive way recently at Question Time.

The Minister exempted the national car test for car owners living on most of our islands and that is a welcome development. We usually help those who live on small islands, whether it concerns house building or, in this case, car testing. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has exempted vintage cars from the test. I have tried and failed to answer the case made by some undertakers who want hearses included as vintage cars. According to the undertakers, hearses are often vintage vehicles with low mileage. Their owners are usually involved in small businesses and cannot compete with the big undertakers in larger towns and cities. Some undertakers have told me that they must take a car apart to convert it into a hearse and they feel this is a good example of a vintage car. Perhaps the Minister could re-examine that situation.

As we improve our roads and dual carriageways, and new motorways are introduced, speed will be a major issue. Measures must be taken to reduce speed and in particular I welcome the installation of fixed cameras to record speeding vehicles. Gardaí cannot be on duty all the time and such cameras have proved to be successful. They should be introduced more widely as the road network is further developed. In addition to these cameras, I hope we will continue the campaigns against drink driving. Failure to use seat belts should be dealt with by on-the-spot fines, and penalty points should also be employed to disqualify drivers who repeatedly break the law.

I welcome what the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, said in the debate yesterday and I support the Government's amendment.

As a person who is involved in the transport business, I welcomed the introduction of the car testing scheme. In my years in the business I saw that the introduction of tests on heavy goods vehicles raised the standards of such vehicles, thus ensuring the safety of commercial vehicles currently in operation. There are issues concerning that kind of commercial activity that need to be looked at, including the gearing and proper fitting of tachographs to ensure they are not cut off during the day and so comply with the legal requirements. While that law is in place there are ways and means of getting over it. Given the poor safety levels on our roads it is high time we ensured that manufacturers of commercial vehicles maintain the standards dictated to them by the Department and are not allowed to interfere with the mechanisms. We must insist that manufacturers ensure there is a sealed mechanism that cannot be interfered with. The testing of cars is a natural follow on from that. I commend the last Government for deciding to introduce it and this Government for introducing this system. In time, car testing will improve the safety levels of cars in use and will ensure that in future, the number of poor quality cars is lowered until they are gone from the road.

However, an indication of the public's view of motor safety is given in figures published today which show, in a random check, that only half of drivers use safety belts. That tells us something about the public and it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that legislation is enforced to the letter of the law by the Garda or any other body charged with enforcing it. I support the Government, but there is no doubt that the car testing scheme has created difficulties for people, particularly people in rural Ireland who may have been using an old vehicle safely until now. The machines that test these cars are so accurate that to pass the test, old cars must reach an almost impossible standard. Also, some garages repairing cars do not have equipment that can ensure the standard required by the test for car emissions is reached. Garages will have to ensure their equipment is up to speed so that they are in synchronisation with the equipment in the test centres, otherwise some cars which have failed the test will find it hard to meet the standards required to pass, as is happening. We must look at this matter while retaining the existing standards.

I believe pensioners and those on social welfare would bear with the cost of the test, but there is also the cost of repairing the car if it is far below the standard required. There is a great deal of talk now about public private partnerships and we should consult the motor industry about this. That industry is very quick to contact us about its budget requirements and it would not be any harm to consult it on this matter. There will have to be innovative schemes put in place by people in this business to accommodate pensioners and others who will have to have their cars improved.

No matter what we do, we should always factor in the possibility easing costs for pensioners; that should be the norm. All too often legislation is passed which increases costs for old age pensioners and the increase is almost always taken away from them with Government assistance. As a result of this scheme, motor parts factories and motor dealers and agents are experiencing an increase in sales. Extra parts are being bought and cars have to be brought up to a higher standard. The least they could do in terms of a public private partnership, to put it loosely, is to come up with a scheme to deal with the cost of trading in a car that does not come up to scratch. They should have some form of innovative scheme to deal with this. Some dealers advertise such schemes, but they have not gone into the matter in much detail. These people are doing very well out of an economy built by today's old age pensioners and they should contribute significantly by coming up with an imaginative scheme, perhaps in partnership with the Government, to enable people's cars to pass this test. If it was done as a once-off, as the car test becomes part of the norm, car standards will rise and there will not be the same amount of difficulty in coming years. That is a challenge for all of us and particularly those making the most out of the economy. I challenge that sector to come up with a scheme such as the one I have outlined.

Regarding road speed, it is essential that every authority involved, particularly the Garda, takes notice of the horrendous accidents on the roads due to nothing other than speed or carelessness. If we take action in this regard, coupled with the testing of cars, we will make our roads much safer than they are now.

I understand Deputy Ring is sharing time with Deputies Boylan, McGinley, Connaughton, Durkan, Ulick Burke, Crawford, Flanagan, Gerry Reynolds and Stanton.

There is no shortage of speakers. I am totally opposed to car testing. We would be much better off making the roads car worthy. I have constituents in north Mayo who must travel to Ballina and Westport to get their cars tested. If their cars are perfect leaving Belmullet, by the time they reach Castlebar they will fail because the road from Castlebar to Belmullet is so bad.

Councillor Gerry Coyle has contacted me on many occasions as to why the people of Erris have to travel to Ballina or Castlebar when Erris is as big as County Louth. The Government obliged Deputy Healy-Rae by setting up sub-stations. I want a sub-station for the people of north Mayo. We are great in this country for EU regulations, but the first job should be to get the roads in good working order. Then we can have car testing.

We do not have the DART or Luas in rural Ireland; some areas do not have a train service. Rural people depend on their cars. I know a man in Porturlin who has not been in Castlebar or Westport for 35 years and who does not know the road to these places. He uses his car every Friday to go to Belmullet for his pension and his groceries and then he goes home. That man will not kill anyone. His car is approximately 12 years old and he cannot afford a new one because the Celtic tiger has not reached north Mayo yet.

This test should not have been introduced. Why do we always have to be first to implement European regulations? France, Germany and other countries push them aside and pretend to bring in a scheme. We are great for implementing regulations. When the Government was trying to get us into Europe, we were promised one thing: we were promised that if we joined the European Union, we would be able to buy a car in France, Germany, Dublin or Cork for the same price and that additional taxes would not be levied. I challenge the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government to tell us whether that is happening. They got around that EU regulation and introduced their own taxes. This is an attack on rural Ireland. I heard the Minister of State defending rural Ireland on many occasions. However, he let rural Ireland down on this and the people of rural Ireland will not forget it.

I draw attention to a point raised by Deputy Carey which I support and urge the Minister to take on board. It is criminal that young people can buy cars from reputable car dealers in this city and use them for joy riding. Lives have been lost through that.

Which comes first, the car or the road? Is there any point in people spending substantial amounts of money on their cars only to find they are not any better off when they return home from the garage? I am aware of one instance in which a car was found to be out of line in spite of the fact that the car had been properly aligned and rendered road worthy by a reputable and registered mechanic. The person returned home from the car test and brought his car back to the mechanic who tested it again and found that it was out of line. It was out of line because of the condition of the roads on which the person had to travel between the time he got his car aligned by the mechanic and the time it was tested. The man succeeded in getting his car to pass the test by having it realigned by the mechanic and only driving on the main road until it was due to be re-tested. That is an outrageous situation.

I am aware of a second case in which a car was failed because its brakes were found to be faulty in spite of the fact that its owner spent £500 prior to the test to ensure the car was road worthy I wrote to the Minister outlining the name of the car owner and the registration number of the car. The car failed the test because the man had to drive through deep craters along the road on his way to the car testing centre from which water got into the lining of his brakes.

The Minister and the Government have failed to provide sufficient money to make road conditions adequate for cars and are blaming and penalising motorists. I regret to say that Cavan has the highest rate of car test failures in the country with some 75% of cars failing the test. Seventy five per cent of cars in Cavan are failing not because they are unworthy – they are excellent and safe cars – but because of road conditions.

In spite of the so-called Celtic tiger, roads funding has decreased from a 14% annual increase level when Fine Gael was in Government to the current 7% level of increase which, at a 4% inflation rate, is less than 3% in real terms. That is not sufficient. The Government should leave the old people of this country alone. They built this country for us and created the happy situation in which we find ourselves today. The very least to which they are entitled are their cars to take them to town or to church at weekends.

I join my colleagues in deploring the excessive burden placed on pensioners by the national car test. The extra costs involved will severely restrict the mobility and independence of many pensioners and elderly people. For many pensioners, a car is not a luxury but a necessity which allows them to complete some very simple but essential tasks, which many people take for granted but which are vital to everyday existence. By not allowing pensioners to complete these tasks, the national car test is limiting their independence and putting them in shackles.

The majority of pensioners use their cars to perform some very basic, everyday tasks. They use them to go to the grocery shop, attend church and to visit the doctor or families and friends. This new charge will make it extremely difficult for pensioners to complete these simple, yet vital, tasks. It will force the elderly to seek assistance which would simply not be needed if the charge were not imposed. In other words, it will undermine elderly people's independence. Very few people do not value their independence. People enjoy taking care of themselves and do not like to seek assistance or burden people when it is not necessary. The new costs associated with the national car test will severely limit the independence of pensioners who will be forced to swallow their pride and seek assistance which would be completely unnecessary if they were exempted from the charge.

The new fee will have a particularly disastrous effect in rural Ireland in which a car is vital for many people's day to day survival. The public transport, if any, in rural areas is often inadequate. The new fee will deprive pensioners of a link to the outside world. They will be cut off from their families and friends and it will be impossible for them to engage in their customary daily activities.

Many elderly people survive on a very limited income. They are retired and survive on their pensions. These people have invested years of hard work in this country and should now be enjoying the fruits of their labour without being unduly burdened by an unfair charge on their vehicles.

Some elderly people have difficulty getting around even with a car. Many are limited physically due to periods of hospitalisation or illness. It is disgraceful to further shackle these people and further limit their mobility. We owe something to the people who helped Ireland become what it is today. It would be a very humane gesture to follow the proposals outlined in this motion and exempt old age pensioners from this charge. Such a gesture would not go unnoticed by many pensioners and elderly people in rural Ireland.

The national car test would be acceptable if our roads were better and if it were carried out in conjunction with other necessary road safety measures. Two major factors contribute to fatal accidents and serious injuries. I refer to speed and drink driving. The number of old age pensioners convicted of either speeding or drink driving could be counted on the fingers of one hand. It is vital that old age pensioners are allowed to maintain mobility for as long as possible. They should be able to manage their own affairs in a dignified way without having to depend on others for help. The trip to town, to church, to visit grandchildren or for a drive country is sheer bliss for elderly people. One could say that their cars are their guardian angels without which they are condemned to limbo. Many older cars are in good general shape and can be driven safely at low speeds.

I will cite the example of a couple in north Galway who are in receipt of the old age non-contributory pension and who own a 1989 registered car which is in reasonably good condition. The couple use the car to drive the three miles to mass every morning. They drive to the post office every Friday to collect their pensions and they visit their married son, who lives eight miles away, a few times a week. As their son is often out of the country, they would not be able to see their grandchildren at all if they did not have a car.

The couple brought the car to a local mechanic last week in preparation for the test and were told that it would cost £650 to carry out the work necessary for the car to pass. These people do not have £650 and are unlikely to get it soon. Consequently, they will be off the road in a couple of weeks' time. Trips to the hospital will have to be paid for and the cost to the State of servicing people like this couple will rise quickly. Some financial assistance should be available to such people. We managed to provide a £1,000 scrappage fee to every Tom, Dick and Harry in recent years so why can we not do something for pensioners who depend on their cars for their remaining years?

I am amazed that the Government, having off-loaded money to various organisations and interest groups in the past six months, has turned on the elderly. Other speakers have highlighted the impact of this test on the elderly. Many elderly people living in rural areas do not have access to free travel which is readily available to their urban peers and use the free transport system once or twice a year. It is a sad reflection on the Government that at a time when the Celtic tiger is roaring, the Government should impose this fee on the elderly so they will not be able to use their cars. Other speakers have referred to the elderly who go to town to do their shopping or collect their pensions. In those circumstances, it would be a humane gesture if the Government reconsidered this fee and accepted this motion.

The Minister lives in a rural area and travels across the country weekly. He must have seen elderly people travelling to do their shopping and surely he knows their plight. As regards the pollution caused by people whose cars do not pass the test, they probably do not drive more than 3,000 or 4,000 miles per year and the threat they represent to the environment is minimal. I appeal to the Minister to accept the motion.

I support the motion tabled by Deputy O'Keeffe. I have no problem with car testing for safety purposes. However, if one goes out to the gates of this House, one can see the Government subsidised buses of Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann driving past. If they were put through the same rigorous test, how many of them would be on the road? The school bus fleet is a shambles. The elderly would bear the cost of car testing more easily if we showed by example that we were serious about road safety. Nobody would complain about people, old or young, being in charge of a vehicle with good brakes, steering, tyres, lights and so on. However, that is where it should end.

Some of the media went over the top when this test was introduced. They gave every reason under the sun, some of which I believe were fictitious, for failing the test. This led to terror among senior citizens with old cars who were called for this test. They did not only have to pay for the test, but also a pre-test service, without knowing if the car would fail and they would have to be tested again. I saw a 1984 car being tested, and a 1993 car was immediately before it. It failed the test because smoke emanated from it. The owner was told that if he had revved the car in third gear he would have passed the test. The owner asked if he could try again but was told to come back and pay another fee. This indicates how unsound the concept is. It is important that the fee is readjusted in favour of the elderly living in isolated areas.

I support the motion tabled by Deputy O'Keeffe. The disabled as well as pensioners should be relieved of this fee. Many disabled people are entitled to tax relief on new cars to enable them to travel in comfort but this is difficult to obtain because of the technicalities involved. The cost of repairs to cars is huge. As previous speakers said, this is scaring those who cannot afford them. While pensioners received an increase of £18 in the past three budgets, the disabled received £10.

Many of these people are living in rural areas, such as Cavan and Monaghan which I represent. They have bus passes but they cannot use them because there is no bus service. They must use a car to collect their pensions, go to mass and shop or else pay for a taxi. This cost of a taxi can be too much if they live far away from a taxi base. Has any research been conducted on the cause of accidents? I suggest that the majority of accidents which we have unfortunately heard of in the past week, month or six months, involved newer and brand new cars travelling long distances. Few accidents involve cars which might fail the test.

Money has not been allocated in the national plan for an east-west road from Dundalk via Cootehill to Sligo, for a road from Armagh via Monaghan, Clones, Cavan to Longford and little money has been allocated to county roads in my constituency – an increase of £31,000 this year. Given the roar of the Celtic tiger, this Government needs to spend the required money on our roads. I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. Monaghan County Council passed a resolution that the fee should be abolished. The Minister cannot ignore the anxieties of the elderly and those living in rural areas. If the Minister repairs the roads, we will be happy to pay tax on cars.

I support the motion. I plead with the Minister to rethink this heartless and insensitive application of a fee to old age pensioners who in many cases have few assets other than the family car. I agree with the concept of the test. However, the fee is the problem. No speakers have asked that a subvention be given to pensioners or anyone else to grant aid the cost of repairs. We are asking the Government to look at the application and examination fees. In rural constituencies such as my constituency of Laois-Offaly, where there is no alternative, elderly people are being forced off the roads. We do not have a web of public transportation services in counties Laois or Offaly that will provide an alternative when the family vehicle is forced off the road as a result of the application of the test. The failure rate for cars is high at in excess of 60%. Bad roads were referred to by other speakers and this is a valid point. It seems to me that the Minister of State has imposed northern European conditions on Irish society where the road structure is totally different from that which exists in many Nordic countries.

It seems to have gone unnoticed to those drafting this proposal that the value of a car which needs to undergo a test has been entirely wiped out. These cars are worthless. Garages will not give a quote for a car which is eight, nine or ten years old. This means that a family asset has, in effect, become a liability.

A strong case can be made to exempt hearses, particularly in rural areas. Many of these vehicles are old, have high mileage on the clock and are in need of some form of renovation, otherwise they will fail the test. There is a strong case to be made for the introduction of a scrappage scheme for hearses such as in the case of motor vehicles in recent years. The cost of a hearse is substantial. I understand it can be in the order of £40,000 and rural undertakers in particular are not in a position to refurbish these vehicles.

It is fundamentally wrong to impose European autobahn standards for Irish roads. Autobahn standards are not applicable to the rural areas of Laois and Offaly.

I raised this matter a few weeks ago during Question Time when the Minister of State told me there was not a history of subvention on private motoring in Ireland. I beg to differ, because the scrappage scheme which was in place recently was a subvention on private motoring. I represent in the main a rural constituency where there is very little public transport. This means elderly people cannot avail easily of the free travel pass. The cost of motoring has increased. The Minister for Finance neglected to do anything in the budget to alleviate this problem. The Minister of State is now imposing a cost of approximately one-third to a half of an older person's weekly income to do this test. There is also the possibility of having to repeat the test and having to carry out essential repairs on the car. The effect of this will be to drive older people, particularly in rural areas, off the road. This will add to the isolation and loneliness many older people encounter. I submit that if the Minister had thought of this earlier, he may have included a provision in the Bill to enable older people to have this cost waived and to receive some assistance. I appeal to him at this late stage to do so. The poor, the elderly, those on social welfare and the disabled must be taken into consideration.

The roads in rural areas in particular are in a dreadful condition. This will add to the misery in rural Ireland. Many older people are worried that their cars will fail the test. I ask the Minister of State to take positive action to help the elderly, the poor and those who are worried their cars will be taken from them and that they will be isolated and more lonely as a result. This is a dreadful situation. I have met people who are very worried. Perhaps as a result of this debate the Minister of State will do something positive in this regard. I am sure his heart is in the right place and that he will.

I support the motion. I have no difficulty with the concept of car testing which I believe is necessary. However, I represent the rural constituency of Sligo-Leitrim where there are many elderly people whose only means of transport is the car as there is no public transport service. Many people who live on small farms have old cars and do not have the wherewithal to buy new cars or to repair old cars. The Government should consider introducing a waiver for these people because there are few of them throughout the country and the amount of driving they do is very little. They would probably travel to Mass on Saturday evening or Sunday morning and to town once or twice a year. It is extremely important that they are taken into consideration. When the Government decided to introduce car testing it did not take them into consideration.

The situation is different in Galway city, the Minister of State's constituency, or in any urban area where there is a major public transport service and a car is not a necessity. In rural areas, where there is a necessity for car transport for the elderly in particular, the view expressed by the Government is incorrect. It has not thought out this proposal but introduced legislation which was purported to come from the European Union. Everything which comes from Brussels is not necessarily good. We must introduce legislation to suit the people we represent. The Government should introduce a waiver scheme so that pensioners over the age of 66 will not have to take their cars to the NCT centre for testing. Free travel passes for buses and trains is of no benefit to the elderly in Counties Leitrim and Sligo, which I represent, because they need a car to get to the public transport services. It would be seen as a very decent and humane act if the Minister of State were to introduce a waiver for car testing for anyone over the age of 65.

I welcome the generally supportive tone of the contributions to this debate on the introduction of a national car test and the acceptance of the Government's undertaking to change the driving licence fee regime for older people so that an existing inequity is removed. There is a general consensus that we should not allow unsafe cars to be driven on the roads and this is what I would expect. Some Members remarked that vehicle defects may make a relatively small contribution to road traffic accidents but even a marginal contribution cannot be welcomed.

The objective of the NCT is to identify those unsafe vehicles in order to increase safety for all road users. Some Deputies stated that certificates of road worthiness are being refused for trivial reasons and examples of this have been given. This is not true. However, some mistaken media reports may have contributed to this type of confusion. It is important to note that where an "advisory" item fails the test, the owner is given a certificate of road worthiness. It is only when a primary safety critical item fails that a certificate is refused. Experience to date with the NCT indicates that this is usually because of dangerously poor brakes.

The main area of contention is that the real burden of the NCT test will arise from repair bills some older people may have to face and in order to avoid forcing many older citizens off the road, the Government should give a subsidy towards the purchase of a replacement car. It is estimated that approximately 165,000 people of 65 years of age and older are currently insured to drive cars. On the basis that approximately 78% of all cars are more than four years old and are due to be tested, approximately 129,000 people could, in theory, be eligible for a subsidy of up to £10,000 each. One does not have to be a mathematician to understand that the Government would be faced with impossible demands. The relief operated by the Revenue and offered to disabled drivers is taken up by approximately 5,400 disabled persons. It is obvious that the two schemes are not comparable.

In no other European Union country is a public subsidy, as proposed, available. It is recognised in all fellow EU member states that it is a personal responsibility to meet private motoring costs. The introduction of car testing was not seen as a reason to introduce subsidies for older car owners. The attitude taken in the motion is populist, but it is without precedence even in those countries with the widest social protection schemes.

Some Deputies said it is more important to make progress on the primary targets and policies of the Government's road safety strategy. Substantial improvements in road safety have taken place over the past two years. A total of 3% fewer people died on the roads in 1998 than in 1997, while 12% fewer people were seriously injured in 1998 compared to 1997. This represents the lowest number of serious injuries for the last decade and constitutes significant progress towards the five year target in the Government's strategy for road safety of at least a 20% reduction by 2002 relative to 1997. More recent provisional data from An Garda Síochána indicates that there were 413 road deaths in 1999 compared to 458 in 1998. This represents a reduction of 13% in road deaths relative to 1997 in the second full year of operation of the Government's road safety strategy.

Deputies also referred to the driving test waiting list and inquired when a learner driver could get a test within a year. This is already the case. The longest waiting time is now 49 weeks and, as I already informed the House, we have increased the number of testers employed by 37, bringing the total to 101. This increases the capacity of the service to 200,000 tests per year. Improvements in waiting times and in the number waiting for tests have been realised despite the unprecedented application levels – up 5% in 1999 compared to 1998, which also had record increases. Indications this year are that this high level of applications is continuing and to meet this demand arrangements are being made to recruit additional testers. The target for the end of the year is to have waiting times generally down to ten weeks.

The Government agrees with the part of the motion regarding reform of the driving licence fees structure for older people. It has taken account of the possible difficulty created for those on limited incomes, including older people who might face significant repair bills, by limiting the reasons for refusal of a test certificate to those items which are essential for safety or a healthy environment. The introduction of car testing has been responsible and equitable and will support other measures being taken to achieve the target set out in the Government's road safety strategy.

I remind the Deputies who tabled the motion that their party was in Government when the Cabinet decision was made to introduce the car test. The terms of that Government decision were that it should be introduced on a self-financing basis. To demand a change of that nature when the succeeding Government does what it agreed to do then, shows a certain level of hypocrisy.

I have some sympathy with the points made by Deputy Ring about the distances some people may have to travel but provision has been made for three mobile units. One is based in County Donegal, another in the Clifden area of County Galway and the third in Cahirciveen, County Kerry. The local council can negotiate with the national car test service to bring a mobile unit, if that is deemed necessary, to facilitate people in Belmullet or other distant regions. However, more than 90% of car owners are within 30 miles of a car testing centre. This criterion was laid down in the contract and is being met.

I understand Deputy Finucane wishes to share his time with Deputies Naughten, Cosgrave, Theresa Ahearn and Jim O'Keeffe.

I do not regard the motion as hypocritical, rather as timely. The Minister of State's comment would be understandable if the car test had been introduced in a situation where there were ideal roads. However, many of the people on whom the road test is impacting live in rural locations and only use cars for minor journeys. They also usually have older cars for economic reasons and because of the condition of the roads.

The Minister of State's colleague spends more than £0.5 million on public relations but I could take him on a public relations tour of County Limerick and show him the condition of some of the roads there. I could show him a big pothole on a national primary route outside Raheen where 20 cars were badly damaged, being driven by people coming from work at 8 a.m. When the people concerned went to the council to seek compensation for expenditure up to £300, they were told that such money could not be paid. This happened on a national primary route and one should contrast this with the position in other European countries. Most of those countries have a different road network.

Outside a funeral parlour recently I was abused over the introduction of the car test because of the condition of the roads in the area. All politicians were blamed for its introduction and there was no point in me trying to validate my argument by saying that the test was introduced on foot of an EU directive. We have a habit of conforming with EU directives rather than deviating from them but in terms of the repairs which are necessary under the car test, most of the problems with braking systems, steering, axles, wheels and tyres are associated with the type of roads.

Rather than being hypocritical, the motion asks the Government to do something worthwhile for the people the car test is affecting dramatically. The Minister of State's colleague, Independent Deputy Healy-Rae, was complaining on local radio in Kerry recently about the EU directive and the roads in his area. He said what was happening was deplorable and draconian and I am interested to see how he votes this evening.

The Minister of State's comments about road safety ring hollow because funding is not provided by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in the annual allocations for road works for the removal of dangerous bends on regional and county roads. I am aware of bends on roads where people have been killed and I have raised the matter at council level, but I have been told that funding is not available to remove such bends. The Government should get its priorities right in relation to road safety and do things properly before it introduces other measures similar to the car test.

I received the following letter recently from a constituent.

I will be in trouble with my '88 Micra which gets me around. I was told by the local garage that it needs £800 of work for it to pass the car test. I am a widow as I lost my husband 16 years ago. I am rearing six young children and I am unable to buy a car. The poor person is getting done again and no one is standing up for them. I will be grounded in the middle of nowhere. I am scared like many more who cannot afford to change their cars.

Other Deputies have received similar letters.

The vehicle has been identified as a contributory factor in only 1% of accidents. It is unbelievable that the Government is planning to increase investment at one end of the system in the enforcement of speeding regulations and the introduction of the national car test while, at the other, it is sitting on its hands and observing the increasing flow into the system of inexperienced and untested motorists. The driving test has not been reviewed for 20 years and it is not reflective of today's traffic or modern road and vehicle engineering.

If the Government is serious about its campaign to combat speeding, a points system similar to that in the UK should be introduced. The current £50 fine is prohibitive for some, but it is a paltry figure to many who drive high powered cars. The Minister has also failed to regulate driving instructors. Many of them do not have any qualifications and they can pass on their own bad driving habits to future generations of drivers. The Consumers' Association of Ireland claims that tighter training standards for drivers would help to reduce the number of road accidents.

The current situation where a provisional driver can get insurance and drive a car without any knowledge of the rules of the road is unacceptable. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has failed to introduce a new driving theory test which would help combat this problem. Drivers who possess provisional licences are neither required to take lessons or to take a driving test for up to four years following receipt of the first provisional licence. We have continued to ignore the fact that first provisional licence drivers are breaking the law by not ensuring that a qualified driver accompanies them at all times. The provisional licence has become as flexible as the full licence without any sign of restriction. As more young drivers than ever take to the roads the need for driver training becomes more imperative. If the Government is serious about stopping road carnage it must provide driv ing testers, regulate driving instruction and reform the driving test.

I am not opposed to the car test. However, it is unfair that those over the age of 70 are charged more for their driving licences than the younger members of the community. The three year licence should be granted free of charge, not at an extra cost. The elderly should be encouraged to remain mobile, not penalised for their age. Age can be hurtful. Many old people find they need a medical certificate and are restricted to a three year licence. They resent this reminder of passing years but are rightly incensed that they are charged more for their licence than others and an additional cost for the medical certificate. These costs should not exist.

The State should fund the cost of the medical and grant the licence on a no-fee basis. Having driven for years and paid driving licence charges it is not unreasonable that this small concession be made to help people retain their independence. This is an additional burden on their finances and the cost of submitting their cars for testing is too much. Elderly people, struggling to make ends meet cannot reasonably be expected to meet this payment, a cost which would take food from many an elderly person's plate as they skimp to gather the tax. There is a fear that these people, having denied themselves small comforts, will be told their trusty old pal is only fit for the scrap yard.

The Government's policy towards the elderly in respect of driving is such as to create further social isolation for these people. It would be more appropriate if the Government sought ways of encouraging these people, whom it discriminates against, to be more interactive with the community while retaining their independence. For many, the car is the only way they can get out of the house to go to the Church, shops or a simple outing such as a bingo session. Given their long years of experience and their great knowledge many senior citizens provide excellent community services by working for their communities through resident's associations and senior citizens' groups. They need a car to get to these meetings and groups.

The Government must find ways to support this segment of society. This motion recognises there are practical things the State can do to help the elderly improve the quality and safety of their lives, while conforming to the sensible approach of ensuring safety for all.

I agree that the national car test is a good scheme and was introduced with the best of intentions. Therefore, the Government should support the motion. We, the Opposition, are merely bringing to its attention the difficulties as its affects the elderly. It would show a sense of maturity not only on the part of the Government but a sense of caring for the elderly and a concern to get the scheme right, were it to accept the motion.

It would be no big climb-down were the Minister to accept the realistic and logical recommendations in the motion. We should not be indifferent to the concerns of the elderly. We should realise and accept that with age comes insecurity. Any measures that cause strain and stress and increase the feeling of insecurity among the elderly must be addressed. The problem can be easily solved. The recommendations in the motion would not only solve the problem but would enable the elderly to comply with the national car test regulations. The elderly in rural areas can be affected by this scheme. They survive either on pensions or on social welfare payments and any additional cost is of concern to them. Statistics show that older drivers are not the main cause of accidents on our roads. We want to ensure the elderly can comply with the scheme without too much of a burden.

Despite an assurance of an increase in the number of driving testers, there are 1,747 people on the waiting list in south Tipperary. The average waiting time for a test is six months. Given that we cannot cope with a practical test how will we cope with the waiting list when the written examination is introduced? The failure rate, which I am sure is no different elsewhere, is 48% in south Tipperary. There should be an investigation into the reasons so many fail their driving tests.

It is sham.

People are suspicious that it is a fund-raising exercise on behalf of the Government. There is something seriously wrong. If there was a 48% failure rate in any of our State examinations there would be an inquiry. In fairness to those undertaking the test, will the Minister carry out an investigation into the alarming failure rate? It is in the best interests of the Government, the elderly and the scheme that the Minister support the motion.

The issue before us is clear. The national car test is in operation. The Opposition approves of it and has no quibble with the test per se because we want safer roads and the vehicles thereon to be safer. That is not the issue. It is simply that there are many elderly people who will be forced off the roads because they cannot either afford the test fees or the cost of making their cars compliant. We care about them. The question is whether Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the Independents care about them. It boils down to that single issue. Our outlook is clear, we do not want to drive these people off the roads.

We want safe cars.

When the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, talks about the cost of doing anything for them the figures he produced are scare mongering. Nobody is talking about 165,000 people or 129,000 people needing £10,000 a time. Will the Minister allow a free test for those over 65 years of age?

The Deputy should read his motion.

The core issue is to provide that all testing and re-testing of cars owned by persons aged 65 years or more be carried out without charge. We also seek a subsidy towards costs in excess of £250 to make a car test compliant. Every effort is being made to blame the EU, that it is forcing this test on us. Some Government speakers implied there was no way the Government would be allowed to assist. That is not true. The previous Government, which has been out of office for the past two and a half years, was also blamed. Given that the national car test came into operation in January the Government has had ample opportunity, and still has, to provide some allowance for the elderly. There is no point in going back to 1997 and referring to the last Government.

Did the Government give a job to its pals to conduct this test?

I have also heard there is no precedent for support for private motoring. It could also be said there was no precedent for free electricity allowance, free telephone rental and free television licences before they were introduced. There is a precedent already in relation to private motoring in the limited scheme for the disabled which we discussed with the Minister today. One can search around for excuses. If the Minister cares a jot for the elderly he will put a system in place which will give them some support. Anyone who does not support our motion is showing indifference to the elderly of rural Ireland and will take the consequences of that action.

Jackie Healy-Rea.

What has Deputy O'Keeffe to say about the old age pension?

Question put.

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.

Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Ahearn, Theresa.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.

Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul. Bruton, Richard.

Níl–continued

Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.

McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
Top
Share