On Community legislation regarding driving licences etc.; Deputy Herbert is very involved in this work in the European Parliament and in the Transport Committee. There was a suggestion that this report be postponed and perhaps Deputy Herbert would explain why.
Proposal for Council Directives on Vehicle Driving Licences and Road-worthiness Tests.
If you agree, I would suggest that we take the report today. I should like, with Deputy Gibbons, to congratulate the staff on the fine work they have been doing. This appears to be a harmless technical report, and the Directive from the Council also appears to be harmless. Its history is rather long and arduous. It is very tedious. It had a very long journey through the European Parliament. It was first communicated to the Parliament in October, 1972 and it emerged from the Parliament in April, 1974. There were four reviews, and when it did finally emerge the Parliamentary Reports contained a great number of amendments to the original Directive. Of course this Directive, is part and parcel of the overall plan for a Common Transport Policy which is very much in the embryo state. They have been trying to evolve it through the years in the Community, but it is being implemented piecemeal. As you know, there is a section of the Common Transport Policy about to be implemented in this country. That will, of course have very serious social and economic effects. I refer to the social implications in relation to driving hours and rest periods for drivers and so on. But apart from the Directive being part and parcel of the overall plan for a Community Transport Policy, the main objective was to increase the safety factor in regard to road transport. The report of the Committee on Roads is before me. There are 75,000 deaths per annum in the Community. There are 1,200,000 people badly maimed, not injured but badly maimed, per annum. So you can appreciate the anxiety of the Community in this regard. They are doing everything possible to increase the safety factor. One might ask why the amendments seem to be in complete contradiction to the original document but most of the Community felt that the Directive was too extreme, that it went too far.
There are great social and economic problems. This is the reason why it took so long to go through the Committee. There are great social problems both for Ireland and Britain, the new member States. The Directive went to extremes in relation to the tests and the frequency of tests. The test was broken into four different parts. We have a practical examination at the moment. Originally the proposals also included theoretical, medical and psychological examinations. A driver would be subjected to these stringent tests 20 times between the ages of 20 and 70 years. I venture to say that over half the licence holders in the country would be consigned to the armchair. They would never pass those tests. That is the reason why we amended this so radically.
In reference to those tests, we discovered that the European Commission, in drawing up the criteria for them, had not consulted with the World Health Organisation and they have a layman's approach to what is a very complex and technical subject. They expected laymen like us to deliberate on these highly technical and delicate matters. We passed it back to the Commission and suggested that the medical tests, the psychological examinations and theoretical examinations, would be the subject of further consideration.
The Commission accepted our amendments. They had a slight reservation about one article which deals with the penalties, the suspension of the licence of motorists of Member States. The original Article 11, as contained in the Directive, had stated that each Member State may suspend the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State in any case where the holder of such a licence commits an offence in the territory of the first mentioned State which under the law of that State is punishable by suspension or withdrawal of a driving licence. We amended that and stated that only the Member State of the national involved may suspend a driving licence. This was the only enactment that the Commissioner had any reservations on but he promised to defend the report before the Council, with this reservation. Since then we have heard nothing of that Directive. I understand it is about to appear again, in amended form, but, as yet, it has not been communicated to Parliament.
In the interim there is no harm in our producing this report which goes along on general lines with your own report as rapporteur of the Committee.
It does. I wish I had the assistance of the Joint Committee two years ago.
Then we are left with the question of road worthiness of vehicles.
That was accepted by the Commission.
I should like to ask Deputy Herbert if there were any figures obtained for the age groups of drivers involved in accidents? Was that gone into at all?
It was not. We asked the Commission to get that information for us with reference to reducing the age from 21 to 17 years.
I am not talking about that; I am talking about the incidence of accidents of drivers in a certain age group. Was that considered?
It was considered. We sought the information and we were told it was not available.
Will it be made available before a decision is made?
Yes. In relation to the reduction of the age limit from 21 as proposed in the draft legislation to 17 years, in our cases and to 18 years generally, the minimum in our case is 17 as is the case in the UK.
I notice we say that, in the opinion of the Committee, it would be a retrograde step, so far as this country is concerned, to raise the age from 17 to 18 years. Would everyone agree with that?
Some members of the sub-committee will recall that I pointed out that my son, aged 17, was a better driver than I am. It is still a very open point. I suggest that we need not concern ourselves unduly with it at the moment. This is by way of an interim report. Deputy Herbert's committee's amendments to the original Directive are now under study at the Commission. They will then bring forward an amended Directive. When we get that amended Directive we will then have to deal with it in detail. In the meantime we should publish this report because it gives the preliminary view of this Committee in regard to the Directive and it, more or less fairly accurately, indicates the European Parliament's view. It will help public discussion in the meantime.
I understand there is some question in relation to the ratio of brake horsepower to the metric ton capacity of road vehicles.
The whole question of axle weights has never been resolved. It has been discussed by the Member States. They tried on several occasions in recent years to achieve axle weight harmonisation but they cannot agree, due to the reluctance of some Member States, particularly Ireland and Britain, because of the huge cost.
For example on 1973 figures if we were to raise our axle weight from the present ten to 11 it would cost us £1 million for a temporary strengthening of the transport infrastructure. One can appreciate the reluctance of Member States to agree on this very serious matter.
The Deputy is referring to road worthiness?
Axle weights are a different matter.
This has caused considerable difficulty before because people have been summonsed for this. One could have a bulk carrier with a very light material, but put another type of material in, and it would be much heavier. This is giving rise to some worry to general hauliers as to what their position will be. I understand that there is a suggestion of something like seven brake horsepower per metric ton carrying capacity. Have there been discussions on these lines?
No, there is no Council Directive on that. There are Regulations for agricultural tractors only. I presume the other point will come up for discussion.
May I move to the next one, roadworthiness tests?
We seem to have slipped from the question of age very quickly.
I have explained that the European Parliamentary Transport Committee made certain amendments to the Commission's original Directive. The Commission are now considering issuing a new Directive. In the meantme, we are issuing this report of ours which broadly encompasses what Deputy Herbert's committee reported as an interim document to enable public discussion to take place. We will have to have a full discussion when the amended directive comes before us.
We come then to vehicles. May I direct attention to the last paragraph where it says :
It is scarcely reasonable, therefore, to anticipate the proposed tests having any dramatic effect on road safety. If this is so the cost of the scheme is of particular importance. The Department of Local Government has informed the Joint Committee that it is unable to commit itself to any estimate of costs until further progress is made on the proposed Directive. In the absence of such estimate the Joint Committee is unable to commit itself to supporting the proposed Directive.
I am afraid that, non-committal though it may be, sums up our position at the moment. The nub of the thing is whether this testing of vehicles can make any contribution to road safety. Arising out of that is the question of how much it will cost. We have not got any such equipment here at present; we would have to establish it de novo. We would have to establish inspectors, depots and testing apparatus generally. Until we have more information on the effectiveness of this from the point of view of road safety and its likely cost, I do not think we can be expected to make any firm recommendation about it.
It is interesting to note that the responsibility for 85 per cent of the road accidents in this country rests with drivers. The remaining 15 per cent can be attributed to infrastructural faults, and I suppose that is road conditions and defective vehicles. It is likely that that proportion may change—the figures are for 1973—due to the fact that people are not now holding on to their cars for as long as they used to. However, we do not have sufficient information at the moment.
Several States are moving towards that idea of roadworthiness testing. For example, Luxembourg introduced such testing more than two months ago.
Any idea of the costs involved?
No. I would welcome legislation whereby second-hand cars would have a certificate of road worthiness. People are being codded into buying second-hand cars for which they have no certificate of road worthiness. I understand that in the UK they have to have such certificates.
That would be a welcome innovation.
When you say that the UK have them is that as a result of an official apparatus of road-worthiness testing?
No, they have no official testing.
Who issues them? Certificates are all very well but unless they are backed up by an organised body and by an apparatus of testing——
One would assume that that would be done.
May I take it that we will issue this report ad interim? We must adjourn. It is 6 o’clock. There are some very important documents still before us. In particular, I want to refer to item F, Nine Statutory Instruments made under the European Committee’s Act, 1972. We need some time to discuss it because there will be some very important comments to make, comments of some significant import. Senator Eoin Ryan has put in an amendment to the draft report. I would like some more time made available to us than we have this evening to go into that item in particular and also item G. Item E is the Directive on Trade in Poultry Meat. We dealt with that very thoroughly and comprehensively at sub-committee and I do not think that involves any problems.
I think we should meet again tomorrow to get these three dealt with. Before you go I would just mention to you that—taking our adjourning until tomorrow into account—this will be our last meeting of the year. I would like to avail of this opportunity to refer to the recent visit of a delegation from this Committee to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We were a bit confined as to members because of financial limitations but we had a fairly representative delegation at London. We were very graciously received and very much facilitated by our two counterpart Committees over there. Mr. John Davies is the Chairman of the Commons Committee and he made every arrangement for us that could be helpful; Lady Tweedsmuir, who is the Chairman of the Lords Committee, likewise. I think the members of the delegation agreed that these were successful meetings and we learned a great deal about the way the two Committees over there operate. There are a lot of problems which we have in common. All in all this visit was very satisfactory and helpful. Our very best thanks are due to the two Committees and in particular to Mr. John Davies and Lady Tweedsmuir for their help and kindness and generous hospitality.
The Joint Committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Thursday, 11th December, 1975.