Mary Upton
Question:64 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Transport when the Commission for Taxi Regulation will be incorporated into the National Transport Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12774/10]
Other Questions.
Taxi Regulation.
The National Transport Authority was established on 1 December last. In accordance with the provisions of the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, the Commission for Taxi Regulation will be subsumed into the National Transport Authority, at the request of the authority, on such day as the Minister appoints by order.
Discussions are currently taking place between the National Transport Authority and the Commission for Taxi Regulation on the details of the assimilation process, such as the integration of financial and information technology processes. It is important that the assimilation takes place in a manner that ensures an effective transition to the new institutional arrangements. I expect this process will be carried out expeditiously and that the integration of the two organisations will be completed over the course of this year.
Is the Minister saying that by the end of 2010 the Commission for Taxi Regulation will be based completely within the National Transport Authority? The authority will then effectively be the regulator. I understand that according to the Bill that we put through the House, the current taxi regulator is the last such regulator.
Is the Minister aware of the considerable unease in the taxi industry at present, with many taxi workers feeling it is impossible to earn a decent living under the current conditions and the current regulator? People are going out for three or four hours and coming back with €15 in their pockets, then having to work all night in chaotic circumstances. Has the Minister met representatives of the Irish Taxi Council and, if not, is he prepared to meet them? Will he meet with other representative taxi bodies?
Will he address the major concerns of the council with the Commission for Taxi Regulation? It is concerned, for example, about the nine-year rule for cars, under which many taxi drivers will be obliged to replace fine cars that are now around nine or ten years old. In the current circumstances, they will find it difficult to get credit and pay back loans. Will the Minister ask the regulator to review this rule? Many taxi drivers have large cars with two-litre engines in fine condition which may be more than ten years old. Will he consider any of the other issues raised by taxi workers, particularly that of a moratorium on the issue of taxi plates?
Over the last couple of years I have met representatives of the Irish taxi industry — the established representative bodies which have been there for some time, some of which are unions or members of unions. They are involved in the consultative process that is currently taking place with the advisory council to the Commission for Taxi Regulation. The Advisory Council stated in a letter to me dated 16 March 2010:
The industry representative bodies which sit on the Advisory Council have fully engaged with the proper consultative processes and have played their part in progressing a number of initiatives such as the forthcoming introduction of Wheelchair Accessible licences only for taxis and hackneys, stricter rules on transferability of licences, new vehicle standards and the new Driver Skills Development Programme.
Clearly, not only is this kind of engagement the correct and proper route to take, it is also the most constructive for all parties. The Irish Taxi Council [which is the group the Deputy mentioned] ‘demanding change' whilst disrupting the general public cannot possibly be a successful route to improvement of standards.
I agree with the advisory council that the way to change any regulations with which people have a difficulty is through the consultative process and not by disrupting the general public, who have enough hassle in their lives.
I am relaying to the Minister the deep concerns I have heard from taxi workers in every part of the country — not just those represented by the Irish Taxi Council but also those represented by six or seven other bodies, including SIPTU. They all feel we need a coherent taxi service that is up to international standards and run in a different way. The continuous antagonism between taxi drivers and the regulator, as they see it, must end. We need a better service but one in which workers can earn a decent living. That is the reason people want the Minister to intervene.
It will be on the Minister's own head if there is further disruption in coming weeks, because people want to meet him to tell him about their concerns. There are almost 50,000 taxi drivers and more than 27,000 taxi plates. The situation has become chaotic and is out of control. We need a service that is well organised and also provides people with a good living.
The Deputy is not reflecting the views of the established taxi organisations on the current process. The taxi advisory council, whose letter I quoted and which represents these organisations, is satisfied with the level of engagement and accepts that things are happening and that change is taking place. It is part of the process of consultation. I accept the Deputy's point that whether people are in the Irish Taxi Council or some of the other representative bodies, they are in difficult circumstances. However, this is a result of the state of the economy, and there is no easy solution except to restore the economy.
With regard to achieving change in the taxi regulations and the implementation of recommendations made by other bodies, including the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, the proper way to do that is not by engaging in disruptive behaviour——
They asked to meet the Minister.
I have no function in negotiating any changes.
The remit of the Minister for Transport includes public transport.
Yes, and I have appointed by law — in an Act passed by this House — the Commission for Taxi Regulation to regulate the industry. It has established extensive consultative processes that can be used by the Irish Taxi Council on an individual or collective basis, or any other way it wants, so that it does not have to disrupt traffic.
There is no harm in meeting people.
There is no way we can respond to bully-boy tactics from anybody.
Road Traffic Offences.
Damien English
Question:65 Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Transport when the Road Traffic Bill 2009 will be enacted; when the reduced blood alcohol limits will be introduced; his views on the Road Safety Authority survey that stated that one in three drivers believes it is acceptable to drink and drive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12873/10]
The Road Traffic Bill 2009, which is currently before the Dáil for Second Stage consideration, provides for the lowering of the legal blood alcohol concentration to 20 mg per 100 mL for learner, novice and professional drivers and 50 mg per 100 mL for other drivers. The lower limits will be introduced following the enactment of the Bill and when the necessary evidential breath testing, EBT, instruments for testing at the lower limits are available.
The Medical Bureau of Road Safety has commenced the procurement process for the new EBT instruments, following which the new instruments will be evaluated and tested by the bureau over a six-month period. The Road Safety Authority's recently published national survey of driving attitudes and behaviour shows a 71% level of approval for the new 50 mg limit and 73% in favour of the 20 mg limit. The survey also shows that 61% believe the legal limit of alcohol is one drink, after which a person should not drive, and 90% indicated they had not driven a motor vehicle in the past 12 months after consuming two or more alcoholic drinks.
Overall, the RSA survey results show a significant hardening of people's attitude towards drinking and driving in the country and indicates a profound change in the public's attitude over the past decade.
On this the House is ad idem. I very much welcome the results of the survey from the Road Safety Authority, which shows the profound change over years in public opinion. The voices in this House which have argued for a reduction in the alcohol limit have been proved to be in tune with public opinion. Unfortunately, there are the likes of Deputy Mattie McGrath in this world who do not want change and have articulated a view that one can drink and drive. That is no longer acceptable.
Will the Minister continue, with the Road Safety Authority, to provide a budget particularly for bringing about awareness of the effects of drink on people? The key point is that no matter how low the levels of drink, it can affect how people drive.
I agree with the Deputy and it is my intent to continue to support the RSA in its education profile. It is a good example of at least one area where across parties people have been constructive and positive in the implementation of policy and the highlighting and support of issues that needed it. I hope it will continue as it is a matter of life and death as far as I am concerned.
The best briefing I got on the Bill as it stands was from Ms Susan Gray, Ms Donna Price, Ms Ann Fogarty and Ms Teresa Leonard. They are great road safety activists from the PARC organisation and they are very anxious to meet with the Minister when the Bill emerges from the House. I wonder if he could facilitate such a meeting as these people have a deep understanding of the issue; each of them suffered an horrendous tragedy in their own family, which has been the basis of their terrific campaign over recent years to bring about safer roads.
We hope the Bill will begin Committee Stage soon and the Minister might indicate when this will be. We clashed before about the evidential breath testing, EBT, machines so what is the timeframe on the recalibration of the machines? Issues have also been raised about intoxilyser machines which will be in Garda stations and the fact that their tolerance is too high compared with the UK and Northern Ireland. Has the Minister any views on that?
The process involving the testing, tendering and purchase of machines started on the day I put the Bill into the public domain. I did this in order to cut at least six months off the normal time taken to procure such instruments. The largest and most complex part of the process relates to the EBTs. The current versions, approved and supplied to the Garda stations, could be recalibrated to the 50 mg limit but could not be recalibrated to the 20 mg limit. I have asked the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, MBRS, to purchase the new generation of EBT instruments, which will be capable of measuring all the range. It has begun the process and we are coming to the end of the process where people identify and submit interest in tendering.
Samples must be evaluated by the MBRS and these are tested over six months, which will be in the latter half of this year. At the end of that period, towards the end of this year, it is expected that they can be approved by January 2011. They are then moved to Garda stations and over a period of approximately six months they will be installed in Garda stations and gardaí will be trained in their use. They will be ready for operation by that summer.
I join with others in congratulating the Road Safety Authority on this turnaround and the reduction in deaths so far this year. We have our fingers crossed as the chairman as indicated that we could end up with a sudden shock over just one long weekend.
I know the Minister has covered the possibility for gardaí to form an opinion that somebody is under the influence of a drug other than alcohol but will the availability of testing kits be further explored so that gardaí might quantitatively and qualitatively know that somebody has been taking an intoxicating substance that could influence driving?
That is something which has exercised everybody on all sides of the House. The impairment tests are being legislated for.
They are welcome.
Gardaí can also form an opinion and do a test later. We are working with the EU to see if we can get a roadside testing kit that would assist in the issue. I assure the Deputy that we will pursue the matter and try to ensure an effective testing system for drugs other than alcohol.
State Airports.
Róisín Shortall
Question:66 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he is currently examining proposals for the development of any new aircraft maintenance or engineering initiatives at Dublin, Cork or Shannon airports; if he has been briefed by an airline (details supplied) on that company’s original plans for hangar 6; if his attention has been drawn to the location of this airline’s proposed new maintenance investment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12789/10]
Bernard Allen
Question:76 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Transport the discussions he has had with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Dublin Airport Authority and an airline (details supplied) regarding hangar 6 at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12826/10]
Shane McEntee
Question:94 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Transport the contact that was made to him in relation to the proposals to create 500 jobs at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12836/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 66, 76 and 94 together.
I have not received proposals for the development of new aircraft maintenance or engineering initiatives at Dublin, Shannon or Cork airports. In any event, these would be matters in the first instance for the Dublin Airport Authority, which operates the three State airports, and for the relevant development agencies.
I have not had discussions with Ryanair on its plans for hangar 6 at Dublin Airport, nor have I been specifically briefed by the company on other locations for the company's proposed new maintenance investment. I have been in close contact with the Dublin Airport Authority and my colleague, the Tánaiste, while she was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, on the use of hangar 6, which is leased to Aer Lingus.
In recent correspondence with Ryanair, the Tánaiste has confirmed her wish to focus constructively on the possible alternatives to hangar 6, which include the use of available existing hangar space, new builds on available sites on airport land or some combination of the two. The legal position on hangar 6 has been set out comprehensively by the CEO of the DAA in his statement to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport on 24 February.
During the controversy, was the Minister briefed by Mr. Michael O'Leary or others in Ryanair on the proposal for hangar 6? Does he have any information on where the much-talked jobs were located? I did not notice it mentioned in any press release from Ryanair.
We got a good report from Mr. Barry O'Leary of the IDA at a meeting of the transport committee. He mentioned that hangars 1 to 6 were increasingly occupied by Aer Lingus, Ryanair, Dublin Aerospace and a garage operation. He told us hangars 3 and 4, which were then fully available to Mr. Michael O'Leary and Ryanair, were in a process of negotiation for a major maintenance project. Is the Minister aware of this?
With regard to aviation jobs in general, it is my understanding that since mid 2008, Ryanair removed approximately 500 jobs from the three main Irish airports in Dublin, Shannon and Cork. Was the Department given any information on this? I tried to raise this with the Minister on a number of occasions but I did not notice my Fine Gael colleagues jumping up and down about the loss of 500 critical jobs. Those were real jobs which would have been created at the three main airports but they have now gone elsewhere. Does the Minister have any comment to make on the matter?
No, I was not briefed by Ryanair at any stage. I did not seek a briefing in respect of the hangar 6 issue, nor did I receive one. I was, however, fully briefed by the then Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment at that point.
She is still Tánaiste.
Yes. I also had meetings with officials in my Department and their counterparts from the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Furthermore, I had brief discussions with representatives of Aer Lingus at one stage. I was, therefore, fully briefed about the matter while events were unfolding.
Hangars 3 and 4 were available to Mr. O'Leary at the time. One of these hangars is similar in size to the facility at Prestwick, while the other is larger. For some strange reason, however, a facility the size of that in Prestwick did not appear to fit the bill in Dublin. As the Deputy is aware, Dublin Aerospace had an interest in some of the buildings at Dublin Airport. Subsequently, that company established operations in hangar 5 and part of hangar 1. In addition, an aircraft painting company was due to move into certain of these buildings. The contract in that regard was awaiting signature prior to my departure abroad to carry out my duties for St. Patrick's Day and, as far as I am aware, that contract was signed. Much of the hangar space that was available at the airport is no longer unoccupied.
I cannot inform the Deputy with regard to the exact number of people Ryanair has made redundant in Ireland during the past ten to 15 months. I cannot argue against the figures he provided. As a result of cuts on routes from Shannon, Dublin, etc., I have seen a number of different figures from Ryanair in this regard. Announcements of job cuts of that nature on the part of Ryanair are usually accompanied by a tirade of abuse against the Government, individual Ministers, the DAA or whomever. The purpose of this is to distract attention away from the fact that such jobs are going elsewhere. That was the case in this instance, when Ryanair decided to try to create as much of a smokescreen as possible. That is par for the course with this company.
That is a disgraceful comment. The Minister has launched an attack on a company that creates jobs. Over 432,000 jobs have been lost in recent times. Deputy Dempsey is the second Minister to indicate that he neither met or sought a meeting with representatives of Ryanair in order to discuss that company's proposals. Is it not a fact that Ryanair wrote to the Department, etc., stating that it wished to create 500 jobs? However, those in Government did nothing about it. Is it not the case that last week some Government Ministers went the extra 10,000 miles in order to try to attract jobs from New Zealand or wherever? Not one of them thought to travel to Dublin Airport in recent months in order to secure jobs. Instead of flying around the world, the Ministers to whom I refer should have sought a meeting with Michael O'Leary in order that they might discuss his plans with him.
Is it not a fact that the Minister failed to do this? His fundamental duty of care is to try to attract jobs to Dublin Airport. He is the line Minister with responsibility for the DAA but he did not seek to attract these jobs. He has again attacked, in a disgraceful fashion, a company which has created thousands of jobs and which is one of the largest airlines in Europe. This illustrates the Minister's completely callous attitude to the company in question and the jobs it creates.
I am only stating facts. I have the utmost regard for the achievements of Ryanair, which has created jobs, brought down the cost of air fares, etc. I have no difficulty acknowledging that. Ryanair is an Irish company and on a number of occasions my Department has been obliged to make representations at European level in respect of cases it has brought to its attention. I do not have a problem with regard to being even-handed in respect of this company. Equally, I am entitled to express my views. If the Deputy can find something untrue in what I said with regard to the tactics that are used by Ryanair, he can inform me of that fact.
There is little point in rehearsing the history of this matter. It is clear to everyone that an opportunity was missed. Will the Minister outline his view on the current position at Aer Lingus? Staff are being threatened that they will be let go and then re-employed. All the while, they have also been informed that they will be able to avail of Government redundancy packages. Is this not an abuse of both taxpayers and the workers at Aer Lingus?
These questions relate specifically to Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports.
The matter to which the Deputy refers has been the subject of discussions at the LRC and is now the subject of a ballot among staff. I hope there will be a positive outcome for the company and for the employees concerned.
It appears Mr. Mueller and the Aer Lingus management team were on the verge of acting illegally in the context of the course they were allegedly going to pursue in respect of vulnerable cabin crew. It must be noted, however, that the wages and conditions for such crew appear to be set in Ryanair's headquarters. That is one of the difficulties that arises. I reiterate that ten aircraft — which were making an important contribution to the economy — were withdrawn from this country and we have not had an opportunity to discuss the issue in the House. My colleagues in Fine Gael did not think the Ryanair cuts worthy of being raised here.
A few weeks ago the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Calleary, informed Senator Brendan Ryan and I that the process relating to the globalisation fund is so long and convoluted that it will be the end of the year before moneys will become available to the 800 former employees of SR Technics. Many of these individuals are commencing courses in aviation engineering at DCU and other universities. They already trained as engineers and are now intent on moving one step up. However, the colleges do not have the funding to facilitate them in this regard. There will be an eight-month wait before funding becomes available. In view of the importance of aviation to the country and its economy, would it not be possible for the Government to assist these young men and women in completing their training?
The Deputy is broadening the scope of the question to an unacceptable degree.
My final supplementary is related to the original questions.
At least Deputy Reilly's supplementary was somewhat related to the matter under discussion. I do not know the answer to Deputy Broughan's question on the former employees of SR Technics and the globalisation fund.
The process is extremely slow.
I accept that. I will take the matter up with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to see if something could be done for those involved.
The Deputy also referred to the difficulties at Aer Lingus and the cuts that have been made. I accept that the process involved is very painful. I do not know where the wages, etc., are being set. I am not sure they are being set by Ryanair or anyone else. The aviation industry is experiencing an extremely difficult period. Aer Lingus needs to continue with the process it currently has in train in order to try to survive. Sacrifices were made by Aer Lingus employees in the past. I am of the view that the case which has been put forward to the effect that cabin crew previously made major sacrifices is not unreasonable. Unfortunately, as a result of the downturn in both the economy and the aviation industry, they are being asked to make even further sacrifices. I am confident that if Aer Lingus can achieve what it has set out to achieve, there are better times ahead for both it and its staff.
Ryanair is one of the largest airlines in the world and has 231 aircraft. Aer Lingus, another excellent company, has only 45 aircraft. The difference in scale is massive. It would have been great had we attracted additional Ryanair business to Dublin Airport. I would fault the Minister and the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan, for not taking action in this regard. A year ago, Ryanair proposed to create 500 jobs at Dublin Airport. Now, however, those jobs have disappeared.
We have no control over Ryanair, which is the only airline that is creating jobs in the aviation industry.
And taking jobs out when it suits it.
It is reducing costs and overheads. The State has an influence through the Government being a shareholder in Aer Lingus. That is the point. However, I accept what the Minister stated. The Aer Lingus company is under excellent management now and it is time for both sides to get together — and most people are together on it — and vote on it, seal the pact and save the airline.
I agree with the Deputy that it is wonderful to have an airline as commercially big, powerful and strong as Ryanair. I have no difficulty accepting that and stating that it is a good thing which has helped competitiveness in the aviation sector here also and that is extremely important. From the point of view of these jobs, every facility was given to Mr. O'Leary and the Tánaiste met him because it was her area of responsibility at the time. The best thing I could state is that if anybody really wants to know how serious the situation was they should look at the evidence given before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and the behaviour of the witness before that committee and form their own judgments.
Rail Accidents.
Ulick Burke
Question:67 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Transport the discussion he has had with Irish Rail over failed safety monitoring systems prior to the collapse of the viaduct at Malahide, County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12837/10]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:79 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport the steps taken to ensure safety on our railways; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12804/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 79 together.
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Priority Question No. 62, answered today.
The key point is that journal 143 of the Irish Railway Record Society, which can be referenced very easily on the Internet, would indicate to Irish Rail, the Minister, me or anyone who cared to look at it, the issue of the Malahide viaduct and how it was constructed. There is a 12 page article on it by a gentleman who works for Irish Rail, Oliver Doyle. I find it entirely unacceptable that Irish Rail can have a self-serving summary of the conclusions of the report without the complete report being published. Is it not a fact that Irish Rail should publish the complete report?
The regulator, which is the Railway Safety Commission, has served a compliance order on Irish Rail with regard to the Malahide viaduct, the content of which it is refusing to disclose. To have confidence in railway safety, and Question No. 75 from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe also covers this, we need to know exactly what the Railway Safety Commission specifically stated to Irish Rail about the Malahide viaduct. That should not and does not in any way prejudice the accident investigation unit, which is an entirely different and separate activity. I want to know what is going on, what the Railway Safety Commission knows and what it stated.
I hope and expect, and by law I know, we will get the report from the railway accident investigation unit, which is independent of, but part of, the Railway Safety Commission. I agree with the Deputy that the maximum amount of information must be made available and made public. However, all of the facts and investigation should be completed and then all of the information should be made available. The report has to come out within 12 months from when it was commissioned so a maximum of four months remains. It can do the report earlier and I hope it would be in a position to do so.
Separate to anything else, the Railway Safety Commission has made a finding on the Malahide viaduct and I believe the contents of that report are very significant and I want to know what they are. The key issue is that the Government promised to make the Railway Safety Commission operate under the Freedom of Information Act. The statement of strategy of the Railway Safety Commission, which is on the Internet, states that pending that order being made it will abide by the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and make information available in a free and proper manner. It is refusing to do so. It creates concerns for me and all travellers on that line that it refuses to do so. It is not good enough. I should not need to have a conversation with the person who is acting head as that person should respond to my freedom of information request, which is an entirely separate matter to the railway special investigation unit.
I do not know whether the Minister has the same view but I believe Irish Rail's attitude to all of this is shameful, disgraceful and self-serving. Hundreds of people could very easily have died in that accident. It did not do enough to make it safe. In 1998——
The Deputy should ask a question and not give information.
——an initial report on safety adequacy found that it was one of the most potentially dangerous locations in the country for a rail accident.
Will the Deputy provide me with a note on what he has raised? I do not want to give a commitment that I will be able to give the Deputy that particular report because as I understand it the report may feed into the investigation unit. I agree that we should have maximum information if it will not prejudice the investigation.
I support the call. We should have the three reports in full. The bit of information we have raises many questions. It reaches a damning conclusion but it raises many questions. Was the Minister shocked by the reference that the 2006 scour report, which Irish Rail conducted, decided it would investigate only underneath the piers six years later, in 2012? That seems an indictment of maintenance procedures. It is incumbent on the Minister to publish it. Questions must be raised about the Railway Safety Commission. We passed the Bill to establish the commission five years ago and it was established four years ago. It has very small resources and I felt its performance at a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport was not sufficient and that was before this near disaster occurred. Will the Minister review everything about the Railway Safety Commission? The history of recent years reveals that a series of regulators, from the banking industry to building control, was not just light touch but non-existent. Was railway safety part of the same cancer, in other words non-regulation? The Minister should look at the commission as well as at Irish Rail.
The Deputy is being unduly harsh on the Railway Safety Commission, if he does not mind me saying so. We have had an excellent record up to this particular incident, which I agree could have been a huge disaster. Once we have the report I want maximum disclosure and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport could review it. If issues arise for any agency, body or the company itself we should discuss them.
I support my two colleagues' call for full transparency on the investigations taking place. The Government has a terrible tendency to delay reports. It is eight years since a young child died in care and we are receiving the report now. However, I will stick to the Malahide issue, which was extremely serious and in which several hundred people could have drowned. The report and the bit of information we have to date suggests that nobody knew and it was nobody's fault because people left and they did not tell other people. What sort of a company are we running? We are back to PPARS — nobody is responsible or accountable. Fortunately, nobody was killed. Is this lack of culpability, responsibility, accountability and transparency in a semi-State body acceptable to the Minister?
It is not acceptable to me or to people in my constituency or elsewhere in Ireland.
Everyone should be fully accountable for actions or lack thereof in particular areas within this company or any other. However, the normal manner in which this is done is within the company. The board, in the form of the chairman and board members, is there to do so.
They are not doing so.
I reiterate it is my understanding that apart from the separate investigations to be conducted by the Railway Accident Investigation Unit, RAIU, Irish Rail also conducted its own internal review and report in this regard. All the details and data have been passed on to the RAIU and I am sure this also will be referred to in the report. I agree with the Deputy on one point, which is there should be transparency and openness and people should know the exact position. However, people should be given the opportunity to do a thorough job in investigating before producing a report.
Will the Minister sign the requisite freedom of information order?
Road Traffic Offences.
Joan Burton
Question:68 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Transport his views on whether national road safety has been compromised after 18,000 drivers who had committed road safety offences got away without a single penalty point being applied to their licences; the proposals he is developing with the Department of Justice and Law Reform to address this problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12798/10]
It is important to state at the outset that more than 70% of fixed charge notices are paid within the statutory prescribed 56-day period and that penalty points, where appropriate, are applied as a consequence of making such payments. Where fixed charge notices are not paid, the matter is dealt with by way of summons to appear before the courts. There is already an obligation on a person appearing before a court charged with offences under the Road Traffic Acts to present his or her driving licence to the court. However, the Road Traffic Bill 2009 amends existing provisions to facilitate administrative procedures in the courts by obliging a person to also bring a photocopy of his or her licence for presentation to the registrar, clerk or other principal officer of the court.
This proposed amendment arose during the extensive discussions with key stakeholders, including the then Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that preceded the drafting of the Bill. The Bill also includes a number of provisions to facilitate the endorsement of penalty points where a licence record does not exist and for foreign driving licence holders, as well as to bring foreign driving licence holders into the scope of the application of sanctions for road traffic offences, including a disqualification from holding a driving licence.
The public were shocked to learn that so many drivers had got away on this technicality. Moreover, when this was allied to the issues concerning non-Irish national drivers and drivers from Northern Ireland, people concluded that the penalty points system is a farce. Has the Minister made further progress in respect of the mutual recognition of penalty points with Northern Ireland?
This is being done jointly with the United Kingdom and at present we await a report from the United Kingdom's authorities in this regard. The United Kingdom is the lead authority on this issue as we were the lead authority, with Northern Ireland, regarding the mutual recognition of disqualifications and, consequently, we are in their hands to an extent. While progress is being made, I acknowledge there will be a three to four year period before the two systems can be aligned.
While I accept the Minister has made progress in this regard, cars from Northern Ireland still drive at extremely high speeds on the M1 every day of the week. When will the authorities be able to deal with this problem effectively? The Minister has acknowledged this is a serious matter and I am surprised it has not been dealt with heretofore.
As I stated in my response to the previous question——
I apologise as I did not hear all of it.
In that regard, we await a progress report from the United Kingdom authorities.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.