Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Wednesday, 19 Sep 2012

Penalty Points System: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Conor Faughnan, director of consumer affairs for AA Ireland. He will give us the organisation's view on the review of the penalty point system carried out by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Faughnan to make his presentation.

Mr. Conor Faughnan

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak. The penalty points system is almost ten years old. It seems like a quick decade but a review is appropriate at this stage. AA Ireland is well known and is the major motoring organisation in this country. We have some 200,000 Irish members and we fix 140,000 cars per year. We regularly engage with the motoring public from a consumer perspective. We have a long-standing heritage as a campaigning organisation and we have a vested interest in the sense that we represent motorists from a consumer perspective. Nevertheless, we have always been very supportive of road safety initiatives and we worked in partnership with the State and its agencies over the past 15 or 20 years to promote road safety in Ireland.

Ireland’s penalty points system has been a success story. It was launched in October of 2002 and enjoyed widespread support from motorists from the start. It has been one of the key policies, along with improvements in policing, engineering and a sea change in social attitudes, that has underscored remarkable progress in improving road safety. I was very involved in the AA’s campaign to have a penalty points system introduced. I had a number of meetings with the then Minister, Séamus Brennan, to persuade him to support the idea. It is appropriate in this forum to pay tribute to the late Séamus Brennan. He was terrific and pushed through the introduction of penalty points when many others wanted to delay.

Ten years later, we are reviewing a system that is, on the face of it, very successful. It has worked brilliantly. Road deaths have halved in the past decade. We also know from the data that, when drivers gets two or four penalty points, it changes their behaviour. A driver with four points is statistically less likely to get caught again than someone who is points-free. The number of drivers accumulating multiple points, culminating in disqualification, is very small. The yellow card system works and it raises the question of why we should fix it if it is not broken.

One of the merits in the proposed changes is that it would make our system look more similar to the one that exists in Northern Ireland and the UK, such as increasing a speeding offence up to three points. There is a good reason to do that to aid future harmonisation and mutual recognition with Northern Ireland. Both jurisdictions want to see this.

The AA engages with motoring public through blogs, e-zines and our website. We also systematically research motorists' opinions through the AA motorists panel online surveys. We get fantastic levels of engagement. When we survey motorists on the issues of the day, we regularly get 12,000 completed questionnaires. For some surveys, we received over 20,000 questionnaires and hundreds of thousands of individual comments from motorists. We have a very good handle on how motorists view issues. There is widespread support when we ask about penalty points. Nearly 17% of Irish drivers have penalty points on their record currently but the vast majority of those have only one incidence of one or two points on their licences.

It gets more interesting when we ask drivers whether it was fair on the last occasion they received penalty points. Just over half of the motorist we spoke to, 50.6%, felt the circumstances in which they had received penalty points were somewhat unfair or very unfair. We received many individual comments and their tone reveals a degree of public cynicism about the way in which the penalty points system operates and the way the Garda Síochána undertakes speeding enforcement. The old barstool conspiracy theory is that it is a revenue generating exercise. That is not fair or true but the unfairness may be in the eye of the beholder. It remains a concern for policymakers, because we cannot have a motoring population that becomes cynical about road safety enforcement. It is an ongoing communications challenge for the Garda Síochána, the Road Safety Authority and the Government. If we fuel public cynicism, we will undermine support for road safety policies.

One of the suggestions in a discussion document from the Department is that speeding should become more than one offence. Exceeding the speed limit by a small margin should be in a different category from the driver with a gross violation of the speed limit. It is a reasonable proposal but it is important to put on the record the fact that the AA does not believe we can do it yet. First, we must fix the widespread problem of poorly set speed limits. We must fix that once and for all before we start policing the speed limit with greater vigour. As part of the polling exercise with motorists, we carried out a review of poorly set speed limits earlier this year. We received thousands of examples from the motoring public in a survey with more than 20,000 respondents. We shared the results with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department is now in the process of undertaking a speed limit review. It is important that the review is completed and acted upon so that poorly set speed limits that pepper the network are corrected before we move to a stronger sanction for speeding violations.

The other eye-catching suggestion that emerged from the Department, which received much reaction from our members, is the notion that there should be tougher penalties for mobile phone use. Interestingly, motorists collectively really believe in that idea. They believe strongly that mobile phone use is an unforgivable offence. Over 17% of the motorists we polled favour an outright driving ban for a motorist caught using a mobile phone.

Some 60% of respondents expressed the view that mobile phone usage while driving should be punished much more severely than is the case. It seems to be one of those behaviours in other drivers which drives people demented. At the same time, however, more than 50% of respondents in one of our polls acknowledged that they occasionally used their mobile phone while driving, with some 40% admitting they occasionally sent a text message, even though the latter was universally acknowledged as an unforgivable behaviour. We have, therefore, a cohort of the population which is of the view that these offences should be punished very severely, while, at the same time, the people concerned admit that they will occasionally engage in these behaviours themselves. Moreover, the motorists to whom we talk are invariably of the view, where they were apprehended for such behaviour in the past, that the garda in question dealt with them unfairly. In other words, there is a clear disconnect between what people say and what they do. As such, I caution against giving undue weight to a populist line which might lead one to assume there is strong support for very severe punishments. I am certain that if such an approach were taken, we would soon discover that while support for harsh punishments might be very wide, it is not very deep. People will inevitably and rapidly turn against a system they consider to be too severe.

We must be cautious in introducing changes to the system. For example, while 17% of people expressed the view that motorists caught using a mobile phone while driving should be put off the road, most of us would agree that this seems rather too severe. One of the issues to bear in mind as we review the penalty points system is that punishments must remain proportionate to the offence. This is essential if we are to ensure a driver's penalty points status accurately reflects his or her behaviour and collision risk. Penalty points status is one of the factors the insurance industry takes into account when assessing risk. The EU gender directive which comes into force at the end of this year will lead to an even greater forensic focus on penalty points because gender will no longer be permissible as a risk assessment factor. It is vital that there should be no disconnect between a driver's points status and a genuine underlying accident risk. If penalty points are handed out like confetti for relatively trivial offences, such a disconnect is unavoidable.

A phenomenon that is not widespread but which requires close observation - perhaps specific legislative provision - is that of penalty points swapping. When we asked motorists whether they had ever been asked to accept penalty points on another driver's behalf, 2% confirmed that they had. There are two distinct circumstances in which such a scenario might arise. The first is where a person, for a variety of reasons, accepts a penalty points sanction on behalf of his or her spouse or partner. The second scenario is where an individual with an out-of-State licence volunteers that licence in the knowledge that no penalty points can be applied to it in order to allow an Irish licence holder to escape sanction. For example, in the case of a couple where one partner is British and the other Irish, the British licence is invariably volunteered for sanction. That loophole must be closed. There is also evidence - although it is anecdotal and should not, therefore, be overstated - of employers engaging in systematic penalty points swapping. Where, for instance, there are six drivers in a fleet, it might be the established custom that whenever any of them is intercepted by a speed camera, the out-of-State licence is volunteered for sanction. As I said, this type of practice is not widespread, but it is certainly happening. If the legislation is being reviewed, consideration should be given to strengthening existing provisions or introducing sanctions to close the loophole that is being exploited in this way.

In some ways, the penalty points system has become almost a victim of its own success. What I mean by this is that it is working so effectively that I find myself - members might have had the same experience - being approached by certain parties with a view to using the penalty points mechanism as a means of enforcing certain behaviours that have nothing to do with road safety. A classic example of this was when I was approached by representatives of ASH, a very worthwhile and laudable organisation which works to eliminate tobacco use in Ireland, with a proposal that smoking while driving should incur penalty points. There might be many good reasons to introduce such an offence in terms of reducing the incidence of smoking, but it has nothing to do with road safety. Penalty points might well be effective in encouraging compliance with all types of behaviours. For example, a good way of encouraging payment of the household charge would be to apply two penalty points to the licences of those who fail to do so. However, just because the penalty points system has proved so effective does not mean we should abuse it or leverage in other issues that have nothing to do with road safety.

Penalty points must remain exclusively a road safety measure and a driver's penalty points status must be an accurate reflection of past behaviour and future risk. By applying conditions that bear no relation to road safety concerns or punishing relatively routine traffic offences with penalty points sanctions that are too severe we would quickly be facing two consequences. First, we would create a disconnect between penalty points status and collision risk which would undermine the usefulness of the penalty points system for insurance purposes and, second, we would erode the broad public support for the way in which the system operates, a support that has been persistent for the past ten years. For these reasons, I counsel the committee against an emotional response which might lead to a system that is needlessly and disproportionately severe in some areas.

A review of the penalty points system is appropriate, but it should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is a system that has served us very well and is working effectively. There is certainly a need to facilitate future harmonisation with the systems in Northern Ireland and Britain. In addition, there may be room for tweaking punishments and introducing new offences. However, it is a question of fine tuning and evolutionary amendments rather than radical or drastic change. Within these caveats, the AA will be very happy, as, I am sure, will the vast majority of motorists, to support some of the proposals the Department is bringing forward in terms of changing the system.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Faughnan for his solid overview of the Automobile Association's position. I now invite Mr. Noel Brett, chief executive officer of the Road Safety Authority of Ireland, to make a statement. I ask that he be as concise as possible because members will undoubtedly have a great many questions for the delegates.

Mr. Noel Brett

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the invitation to attend this meeting. Rather than going through our submission in detail, I will touch on the main points. Ireland's road safety performance has improved dramatically in recent years, with the table on page 2 of our submission showing the change from when we first began collecting fatality records in 1959. In 1972, for instance, 640 people were killed on the roads at a time when there were only 700,000 registered vehicles and a population of 2.5 million. Last year, by contrast, 186 people were killed, out of a population of 4.4 million with 2.6 million registered vehicles. This is a tremendous success story for Ireland and the Oireachtas and proof that citizens have truly embraced the road safety message. However, while last year's figure represents a dramatic improvement, a death toll of 186 is still far too high for a civilised society. If we were to achieve the status of safest country in Europe in terms of road safety, that would equate to a loss of lives in the order of 140 people per annum. In other words, there is still work to be done. The first table on page 3 shows that we have moved into fifth place in terms of safety across the European Union, as measured in deaths per 1 million of population. There is no reason we cannot be the very safest and thus save more citizens' lives, prevent catastrophic injuries for individuals and reduce the associated cost burden for families, communities and health provision across the State.

Another measure of a country's road safety performance is deaths per 1 billion km travelled. As members will see from the second table on page 3, Ireland is the third safest country in Europe by this measure. This tells us that as a country we rely massively on private vehicles, using them far more than our counterparts across Europe. This has to do with public transport provision, dispersed living and other factors. Our status in third place is a huge achievement by citizens and the Oireachtas.

The graph on page 4 of my submission shows the results of some of the interventions in road safety. I cannot point to one action that saves all these lives as there are many interventions. Penalty points are a significant part of this, however.

When penalty points were first introduced in 2002, we saw a dramatic drop in fatalities in the next two years. Unfortunately, the system was not computerised and the volumes of enforcement expected did not happen. Our citizens cottoned on very quickly to the fact that the risk of being detected and prosecuted was very low. Behaviour changed very quickly after that and there was an increase in fatalities for the next two years. A feature of penalty points systems across Europe is that they are seen to have a dramatic and immediate effect but that it is exceptionally difficult to sustain this. That is why the time chosen to review penalty points is opportune in reinvigorating them.

The good news is that this year to date we have four fewer fatalities than at the same time last year. We are on track to have our seventh year in a row of reductions in people killed and injured on our roads. I have included several tables showing the numbers of penalty point detections for certain key offences since 2008. As Mr. Conor Faughnan alluded to earlier, fewer penalty points were issued in the first eight months of this year than in the same period last year. There may be many reasons for that such as increased compliance, fewer journey times due to the price of fuel, not as much enforcement and so forth. It is very difficult to unpack and understand what exactly is at play.

We need to be very careful that the measure of success is not the number of people who get penalty points. What we need to see is high volumes of enforcement and low levels of detection. It is wrong to measure the success of the enforcement work by An Garda Síochána or how many citizens get penalty points and fines. I would much rather see very high levels of enforcement that are visible, acting as a real deterrent with very few citizens getting detected. It is important that the measure of success in any road safety intervention should not be the number of people caught but the number of people deterred from certain driving behaviour.

The wearing of seat belts is always a significant issue. Ireland now has the best safety belt wearing rates in Europe. It is now the norm for people in front seats to wear a seat belt. Unfortunately, rear seat belt rates among adolescents are slightly lower. Primary school children are very good. On school buses and organised bus transport, younger children who tend to sit at the front of the bus wear safety belts. Notwithstanding the horror of Kentstown and other similar collisions, those who sit further back on the bus tend not to wear safety belts. We need to find mechanisms to deal with this. Unfortunately, there is even vandalism of safety belts taking place on the bus fleet.

Research published last week by the European Union, Best Point, a project of which the Road Safety Authority was part, reviewed penalty points systems across all 27 EU member states. Of these, 21 member states have some penalty points type system in place which are typically called demerit point systems. It is a credit to the Oireachtas to have brought in the legislation for penalty points. It is now widely accepted by the population and it has been tremendously successful. The committee is trying to reinvigorate the system and keep it acceptable to the population.

The EU research has several proposals for a properly functioning penalty points system. The first and key element is there must be a high chance of a driver losing his or her licence backed up by appropriate enforcement. Drivers who break road safety rules need to feel there is a likelihood they will lose their licences if caught. The sanction must be real. That is why we need the high volumes of visible enforcement which will change behaviour and, hopefully, lead to fewer detections.

It is strongly recommended that penalty points should apply to offences that have a clear and demonstrable link to road safety and which are related to more serious issues that have a direct link to collision outcome and severity. Since penalty points are seen as so successful, people may want to attach other offences to penalty points. Over the summer there was a suggestion penalty points would be given to a driver if his or her vehicle was identified in tipping rubbish in a rural area. While I understand the problem, for the penalty points system to be credible, drivers need to understand that the offences relate to behaviours that have a direct impact on collisions and their severity. There should be a direct link to the number of points and the severity of the offence. There may be a mismatch with some of the points. Five points for not having a NCT and two points for driving while on a mobile telephone do not reflect the risks involved. They must be calibrated so the points are proportionate to the offence, the public can see it is dangerous behaviour and it is a tariff, not some arbitrary figure.

It is important to recognise that drivers are not a homogenous group and one size does not fit all. There are particular driver groups which are at particular risk such as, for example, young and inexperienced drivers. We need particular waiting times for people on a learner permit and for the first three years after passing a test when one is most at risk. We need particular interventions to deal with professional drivers and particular types of driving behaviour. There needs to be a tariff that reflects the risk for particular groups of drivers so that it is not applying to a 60 year old. There must be some attempt to target particular groups and change behaviour relative to risk and the propensity to be involved in a collision.

The third key pillar the report recommends that what should underline a good penalty points system is enforcement and publicity. These two elements go hand in hand. The report also recommends moderate to high levels of enforcement. The system is a waste of time if it is not enforced and the threat is not out there. There needs to be a tremendous amount of public education and awareness. People need to understand the driving behaviour involved and what the risk is, what is expected and the consequences. This must be backed up by rigorous enforcement.

There must be a mandatory duty on vehicle owners to identify the drivers involved in an offence, a point made in the AA’s submission. There is behaviour not just in Ireland but across the EU of nominating someone else to take the points. There is no compulsion on the vehicle owner to say who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the offence. The report recommends that where the owner of the vehicle fails to identify the driver, the points should be given to the owner and stop this notion of giving it to an out-of-state driver.

It is not just enough to give people penalty points. We need to ensure we help people not to lose their licences. There are interventions, or what we might call remedial measures, that may help a driver with five or six points not to lose his or her licence. It could involve sending out regular warning letters to drivers with six points explaining that four more points would mean losing their licence. There could also be driver improvement courses in which people could voluntarily take some tuition with an approved driving instructor. The report strongly recommends that those drivers who lose their licence because of dangerous behaviour should have compulsory rehabilitation before they get the licence back. For some offences, people may be required to resit their driving test before giving them the privilege of returning their licence. In the case of a driver with an underlying drug or alcohol addiction problem, there may be a requirement of rehabilitation rather than just giving the licence back.

The report also makes several recommendations about the organisation, administration and monitoring of penalty points systems.

Interestingly, of the countries covered, Ireland is the only one with three or more agencies involved in managing penalty points. Seven countries have two agencies, with the police doing enforcement and one other agency involved, and six countries have only one agency involved. We should be clear. The system must provide value for money. It should be efficient and it should be centralised and automated. It should not be a paper-based system. It should be clear and simple for the public to understand. There should be timely and easily accessible information for offenders. For example, people should be able to look at their record online and find out where they are, when their points are coming off, where they got them and so on. There should be regular monitoring of the system, exactly what the committee is doing today. This is one of the few countries that has gone back and examined the system.

I reiterate how successful the Irish penalty points system has been. It was brave legislation and it is paying significant dividends in terms of deaths, injuries and behaviour on our roads. We often refer to the number of people killed and injured but we need to get better at understanding the economic and social costs of collisions. When there is a collision on the M50, M9, M7 or M4 and the road is closed the burden that falls on industry and employers because of the resulting congestion is significant. I hope to be able to bring forward some costings to show how many millions of euro falls on industry and individuals as a result.

The range of offences covered should be as broad as possible but it must be directly related to demonstrable road safety risk and propensity to involvement in collisions. Public awareness and education is an absolute must; the system will not work without it. If the public does not understand it and buy into it, it will not happen.

The measure of success for enforcement should not be the number of points issued. It should be the number of interventions and the volume of enforcement taking place. We need to see this on a county-by-county basis rather than rolled up on a national basis. We need to see enforcement in every corner of the country. Perhaps it could be a way of bringing enforcement back into rural Ireland on the back of traffic enforcement. This could save people's lives and prevent injuries.

I strongly suggest or recommend that Ireland should seek to actively lead the way in Europe in getting harmonisation of penalty points throughout Europe so that we can deal with out-of-state drivers in this country, whether they are professional drivers or tourists. We have a population of 4.4 million and there are 7 million or 8 million tourists coming to the country this year. These people are at the same risk of being involved in a collision as our population and they should be subject to the same sanctions as our citizens. When professional drivers and haulage operators come from other countries and operate in Ireland, they should be subject to sanction and we should have harmonisation. We must be able to deal with out-of-state drivers.

I am suggesting to the committee that we should not simply increase the penalty points willy-nilly. We should seek to reinvigorate the system to try to get further reductions in the number of deaths and injuries. This change should be proportionate and acceptable. It should be non-bureaucratic and accessible to the public. It should give the maximum level of enforcement and reduce the number of cases going to court unnecessarily as well as the associated costs.

The insurance providers could do more to incentivise good behaviour and we need to see this reflected more in premiums for people who do not misbehave or get penalty points. We need to disincentivise poor behaviour. Insurance companies could support what the Oireachtas and the Garda are at and support what we are all trying to do by making motorists more aware of the implications of poor behaviour in terms of their premiums. We need to deal with some offences that are currently outside the system, like non-display of learner plates and non-accompaniment of learner drivers. We must deal with professional drivers' tachograph hours as well. I thank the committee and the Chairman for the invitation and I am happy to take any questions.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Brett, for a comprehensive overview. I call Mr. Niall Doyle, corporate affairs manager of the Irish Insurance Federation.

Mr. Niall Doyle

I thank the Chairman and the members for this opportunity to address the committee. We agree that the principal focus of the system must and should continue to be to improve driver behaviour and reduce deaths and serious injury on our roads. The human cost of collisions is incalculable and, as the Department of Transport's review points out, the financial cost to motor insurance underwriters, policyholders and the State is considerable. It is in the national interest that we should strive to reduce these costs.

Insurers, access to penalty points is an issue. Members will be aware of the Minister's statement last year regarding allowing us access to this information. We had been seeking this access since the then Minister, Séamus Brennan, introduced penalty points. The Irish Insurance Federation, IIF, and the Department of Transport, specifically the national vehicle and driver file unit in Shannon, initiated discussions on the development of a real-time interface. This involved access to and use of personal data. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner was included in these discussions from the outset.

An excellent tripartite relationship has been developed and I acknowledge the contributions of Gerry O’Malley from the national vehicle and driver file unit, NVDF, of the Department and of Gary Davis from the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, ODPC, for their ongoing assistance. The focus has been on the identification of critical, relevant information that highlights risks and assists in improving road safety nationally. I am pleased to inform the committee that we are well advanced in this project and that pilot testing should begin later this month.

Members of the committee will be aware that it is essential that proposers of insurance should disclose all relevant and material information relating to their risk. For compulsory motor insurance this includes any traffic convictions and penalty points they may have. Insurers use this information and several other rating factors such as vehicle type, engine size and type of use, as well as the claims history and driving experience of the driver to be insured to evaluate the risk and set an appropriate premium.

There are occasions when an underwriter will be given the wrong information and this may have several consequences. The underwriter cannot evaluate the risk correctly and as a result the risk may be under-priced and consequently other policyholders have to subsidise the cost of insuring the risk. Should the policyholder be responsible for an accident, the third party will be protected but the policyholder's damages may not be covered.

Allowing underwriters to verify particulars submitted in applications for insurance cover helps to mitigate the consequences outlined above and benefits the individual policyholder in that disclosure is complete and his or her policy is valid. It benefits underwriters in that they have appropriately priced the risk. It benefits other policyholders in that the risk burden is appropriately shared. It benefits the State in that the insurance system is aligned with and backs up the penalty points system, encouraging better driver behaviour and reinforcing the deterrent effect of penalty points, leading to reduced road fatalities and serious injuries on our roads.

Enforcement is a key message that is being transmitted this morning and we will continue in that vein. In our recent submissions to the Road Safety Authority and the Garda Síochána on the development of their new strategies, we stated that the priority road traffic offences should continue to be speeding, dangerous driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, failing to wear a seat belt, using a mobile phone while driving and uninsured driving. No amount of legislation, technological advancements or media campaigns will ever be an adequate substitute for high-level and highly visible police enforcement. The IIF is concerned that as the deployment of resources comes under increasing pressure as a result of the pressures on State spending, the focus on road safety may become less sharp, fewer resources may be deployed and road users may revert to old and bad habits. This point is borne out in the stalling of the reduction in road fatalities we have witnessed since the beginning of this year. While it is true to say that the downward trend was always going to slow or bottom out at some stage, we strongly believe this has occurred sooner than it otherwise might, specifically because of a fall-off of visible enforcement action or road users' perception that less enforcement activity is taking place. It is vital to ensure that road traffic enforcement resources are maintained or, if possible, increased and that a strong unambiguous message to this effect is constantly reinforced in road users’ minds to bolster the deterrent effect of the threat of enforcement action.

Every Government-appointed international expert has advised that spending on accident prevention and safety promotion generates economic benefits associated with lower casualties which heavily outweighs the costs incurred. Within reasonable limits, therefore, such additional spending must be seen as a particularly lucrative investment in the community and most emphatically not as merely a drain on the State's scarce resources. Such investment would be popular with citizens, road users, workers and employers and economically advantageous to the State, if efficiently applied, through reducing demands on the health and emergency services and minimising the lost productivity associated with accidental injury and long-term injury and disability.

We believe these considerations are particularly applicable to penalty points and to the use of the data supplied by insurers for use by the Garda's automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, system to detect uninsured driving. The technology has been procured and, if applied, will increase the efficiency of resource deployment and administration many times over. It will initially increase the number of detections and, as a consequence, act as an educator and a necessary deterrent.

One crucial statistic can be taken from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport's review. According to Garda reports, in 92% of fatal collisions driver error is the main contributing factor.

The use of statistics is often a crude exercise and can be used to prove or disprove almost anything. The most obvious sign that the road safety strategy is working is the reduction in fatalities in recent years and many congratulations are due to the stakeholders, especially the Road Safety Authority, RSA, and An Garda Síochána, without whom this achievement would not have been possible.

The members of the IIF consider that without the support of the Garda in particular, the successes of the last road safety strategy would not have been achieved. It is to the lasting credit of the force that it was able to support the objectives of the last strategy despite the resource constraints that have been imposed in recent years.

We do not have any tangible statistics on the levels of enforcement that are being used to assess the success of the current penalty points system. Such information is needed before we can evaluate whether the penalties that are being imposed are at the appropriate level. According to the Garda website, the number of fixed charge notices - penalty points - issued for mobile phone use when driving was 41,000 in 2008, 33,000 in 2009, 34,000 in 2010 and 33,000 in 2011. On the basis of an extrapolation from May of this year, the 2012 figure will be 33,000. The remarkable similarity among the figures from 2009 to 2012 could imply that the level of enforcement is consistent with no improvement in driver behaviour, or that the level of enforcement is inconsistent and a quota is being achieved. The evidence of our own eyes - that mobile phone use when driving is endemic - cannot be disputed. We believe the substantial increase in such behaviour over recent years is a consequence of the failure to make a determined and focused enforcement effort in this area. This may result from the national constraint on resources, but at what human and economic cost?

The dramatic increase in fixed charge notices issued for speeding between 2010 and 2011 also demands some scrutiny. Interpretations could range from a significant increase in enforcement activity to a significant deterioration in driver behaviour. We simply do not know. In the first instance, the members of the IIF would like to see comparative statistics using specific penalty points issued in the same area, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year, following the same number of penalty point checks carried out by the Garda Síochána. This would give us an indication of the effectiveness of the current penalty points system and allow us to determine whether an increase in enforcement activity, or in the severity of the penalties applied, will produce safer roads for our citizens.

Section 3.3 of the report lists the offences for which the Department recommends a penalty point increase. The IIF would be happy to support these recommendations subject to clarification of the current enforcement levels, as I have just described. We firmly believe the level of Garda enforcement of such penalty point offences has not reached or come close to the point of saturation at which further increases in enforcement yield no additional benefit. We suggest it would be premature to increase the penalties until that level is approached. Our view is that drivers who persistently break the speed limit will not be deterred from speeding by an increase in the penalty, but will be deterred by an increase in the likelihood of being caught. We believe it would be premature to implement any increase before completing the review of national speed limits and implementing the recommendations that arise from this review. Our views on drink driving are similar and can be summed up by saying we believe the current blood alcohol concentration levels are appropriate but should be rigorously enforced.

The Irish system is compared internationally in section 4.2 of the report. The IIF would be in favour of specific recommendations that make more efficient use of Garda time, for example by removing the requirement for a court appearance wherever possible or by establishing a traffic court in line with international best practice. The IIF agrees with the recommendation in the report that penalty points should be aligned north and south of the Border to facilitate mutual recognition between the two jurisdictions. We would also support consideration of the adoption of offences that are used internationally but are not currently recognised in Irish law.

I would like to speak briefly about uninsured driving. I understand that legislation on statutory off-road notification is before the Government and will be enforced next year. This will close a loophole. We suggest that serious consideration should be given to the introduction of a system of continuous insurance enforcement, whereby the registered keeper of a vehicle that is not insured would be subject to a fine and a penalty. That would require evidence that the vehicle is being used. I will explain it better. Currently, a garda must catch a person in the act of using an uninsured vehicle, as opposed to just keeping the vehicle. It would be better to close off that loophole. It would not add significantly to our premiums, but it would act as a deterrent and would be a way of administering it more efficiently.

The committee will appreciate that the operation of the penalty points system in the Courts Service is an important issue because accurate information is key to the operation of the system from the perspective of each stakeholder. With that in mind, it is essential that penalty points awarded to drivers through the courts system, and perhaps more specifically the details of those points, are transferred efficiently and correctly to the Department of Transport's national vehicle and driver file. If the file does not have correct and up-to-date information, then the data on it is not complete. We understand that certain improvements have been made in this regard. We hope this will continue.

The members of the IIF would like to reiterate their support for the penalty points system. We thank the Department of Transport for their support in developing underwriters' access to this information. This will improve the risk profile of the national motor fleet, provide a valuable service to our policyholders, enhance road safety and act as a deterrent to unsafe driving. Additionally and perhaps most importantly, the human and financial cost of accidents will be reduced. The review carried out by the Department is essential and should be repeated on a regular basis. We believe the recommendations regarding penalties of increased severity are premature in advance of the provision of usable statistics on the impact of different levels of enforcement on driver behaviour. We recommend the adoption of continuous insurance enforcement as a priority. The Garda technological and human resources that are necessary for the ongoing operation of this system need to be allocated to ensure we maximise the benefits that our existing legal framework and technological capability permit us to achieve.

Chairman

I thank the three witnesses for their good presentations. The penalty points system is a success story. The basis of all of the presentations was that it can be improved. There has been a change in the behaviour of drivers and the attitudes of people on the roads as a result of the introduction of the penalty points system. We should build on this success story.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome our guests. Their presentations will assist the committee in its deliberations on the question of how the penalty points system might be improved. Each of the speakers accepted that the system is working well. As a nation, we have achieved a significant reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. We have a way to go, however. Certain measures aimed at improving the existing system will help us in that regard.

I would like to pick up on some of the points that have been made and to tease some of them out. Reference was made to the importance of retaining penalty points as an effective means of ensuring people change their behaviour while driving, rather than involving any other extraneous issues. I contend that there is an inherent flaw in the current system. If somebody responds immediately to a fixed penalty notice, he or she gets two penalty points and, in the case of a speeding offence, is required to pay a fine of €80. If somebody fails to respond within the set time, for some reason, he or she has to go to court and is automatically given four penalty points. The two-point premium that is applied in such circumstances is not linked to the person's behaviour on the road; it is linked to his or her failure to respond on time. It is really a means of ensuring the State collects its fine. The two-point premium is attached to the late payment rather than to the event that took place on the road. I will argue as part of my presentation that we should change our entire way of doing business in this regard. If someone does not respond to a fixed penalty notice within a prescribed period of time, he or she should be automatically levied with a fine and with two penalty points. There should not be a requirement to go to court. As a previous speaker said, there is no need to clog up the courts with this. That would better reflect the issues that arise in this context. Many fixed penalty notices are issued when speeding is detected by vans positioned on the side of the road. Some of the offences in question are relatively minor by comparison with those detected by a garda on patrol. There is work to be done in that respect.

Mr. Faughnan and Mr. Brett spoke about speed limits that are poorly set. Are they suggesting that local authorities should continue to have a role in that regard, in conjunction with local police? Is there is a need to look at this matter in a different way? It is clear that there are problems with it. Anecdotal information seems to suggest that detection vans tend to be placed in grey areas. We had understood they would be placed where accidents had taken place and where there is an historic recognition of the need for caution. Perhaps the delegates would like to comment on that.

I will ask a straight question about enforcement. Do the witnesses think that the reduction in the size of the Garda force is having an impact on the capacity of gardaí to carry out enforcement at the level that is needed?

I agree with the witnesses that it is not about catching people by the collar but about having high visibility. Even the introduction of the detection vans is about visibility because they are well marked and it is obvious their purpose is to check vehicle speeds. The issue of mobile telephone use was covered well in the presentations.

Witnesses talked about past behaviour, risk and trying to reduce the number of deaths on the road. Do the various organisations work with the statistics on accidents that actually take place? There is a much more detailed level of accident investigation where a death occurs on the road but has any work been done on parsing the accident statistics to identify the causes of accidents? If such data are available and could be provided to members, they would clearly indicate to us what needs to be done from a legislative perspective to further reduce the number of deaths.

Do the witnesses have a view on learner drivers who break the learner permit laws? Do they believe penalty points or some other sanction should attach to those who continue to break those laws? I am referring specifically to the requirement that a learner driver be accompanied by a full licence holder.

Deputy Noel Harrington

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. There is a common thread running through all of the presentations even if witnesses are coming to the issues from different perspectives. The harmonisation of sanctions is a critical issue for this country. Witnesses referred to the 27 EU states, many of which have penalty points systems in place and it is illogical that there has not been a harmonisation of those systems across the EU. If that were done it would sort out the 2% of drivers who are licence-swapping or points-swapping.

I wish to ask Mr. Faughnan or Mr. Brett about driver testing. Much of the practical driver test today involves testing day-to-day driving skills in a very safe environment. However, as has been outlined, many fatal accidents are caused by dangerous over-taking but I have yet to see a learner driver being taught how to overtake safely. It is a very important element of driving but it seems to me that learners are not taught how to do it safely. Similarly, they are not taught about driving in hazardous conditions, such as on icy roads. That does not form part of driver testing or driving lessons. Until we grapple with such issues, we will continue to deal only with the day-to-day safety issues, while ignoring the more extreme driving conditions that learners may face on the roads on a daily basis.

Mr. Doyle stated that 92% of fatal accidents were attributable to driver error or, at least, driver error was a contributory factor. I presume the other 8% are attributable to poor road conditions or to issues such as livestock on roads. With regard to the latter, there seems to be an increasing incidence of deer on roads in certain parts of the country and I know of accidents that have happened as a direct consequence. I am specifically interested in whether road conditions are the main cause of the 8% of accidents referred to earlier. The camber and surface of roads are important, as are inappropriate speed limits on certain roads. The point should be pressed home to drivers that speed limits are not a target but a limit and that they should always drive at a speed suited to the conditions of the road. What level of discussion takes place between the RSA, the NRA and the local authorities with respect to the condition of local and tertiary roads?

Witnesses provided interesting statistics on the use of mobile telephones and I know that Mr. Doyle's area is statistics. It is quite obvious the speed camera system we have will identify a licence plate, issue a photograph and the penalty points notice is probably not touched by a human hand until the driver receives it through the post. Similarly, speed guns capture a definitive offence automatically. However, with mobile telephone use it is the word of one person against another and if a driver disputes the matter, it could end up in court. No member of the Garda Síochána is happy with that situation. The driver could claim that it was a box of cigarettes, a dictaphone or some other item in his or her hand. Until gardaí have cameras on their person or in patrol cars, that difficulty will remain. Perhaps the Garda Commissioner and superintendents need to incentivise gardaí to bring more evidence-based reports to court. We have all seen drivers using mobile telephones. As public representatives, we drive a lot and we have all seen widespread mobile telephone use by car and truck drivers, as well as by gardaí themselves, it must be said. It is quite right that the witnesses have highlighted this problem but the solution lies with gathering the evidence.

Chairman

I urge the Deputy to ask a question.

Deputy Noel Harrington

We have seen the number of fatalities drop from a very high level in the mid-1970s to only 186 currently while the number of drivers on the roads has increased dramatically. However, insurance premiums have remained more or less the same or they certainly have not fallen to the same extent as the number of collisions. Perhaps Mr. Doyle can give an explanation for this. Road users pay enough in terms of VRT, taxes, levies, excise duty and insurance. They have bought into the penalty points system and are, by and large, driving with more care, but insurance premiums are not falling.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the stakeholders for their contributions. It has been very interesting to listen to what they had to say. There is no doubt there has been a massive improvement in road safety. The main point is that we must tackle the most dangerous elements of driver behaviour to further improve road safety, particularly mobile telephone use and excessively speeding.

Reference was made to bad drivers and repeat offenders. Some mechanism must be put in place to deal with such people, whether it be resitting the driver test, taking driving lessons or being educated on road usage and what they are doing wrong.

The maximum number of penalty points here is 12. Given that we are bringing much of our system in line with that in the UK, does the same maximum apply there or do the two systems differ in any major way? Is there a problem regarding the proper identification of cars and is there a mechanism in place to deal with situations where a car is not identifiable - that is, where its number plate cannot be read?

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has spoken about increasing the speed limit on main carriageways. In that context, I was interested in what the witnesses had to say about the impact of even a slight change in the speed limit. I find it infuriating, for example, when driving on dual carriageways, to find the speed limit is 80 km/h when it should be 120 km/h.

In the approach to a small town the speed limit is 30 km/h. There should be a way of penalising those who exceed the speed limit by a large amount and those who exceed the limit by a few kilometres. When other passengers are in a car, including a baby in a seat, there must be a way of penalising reckless and dangerous driving. Perhaps that issue needs to be teased out.

I am pleased that consideration is being given to bringing the penalty points system North and South into line. Signage is very important and there is a problem in the Border area. I do not know the opinion of the delegates on that matter and whether issues have been raised. There is also the problem that when people are fined they go across the Border to England, Europe or wherever and that is the end of it. Joined-up thinking with the European Union and the UK must be promoted.

I am interested in the national car test disc display. If the NCT disc is not displayed penalty points should be imposed. I also want to hear from the insurance industry on that issue. The NCT does not appear to be a major issue when it comes to taking out insurance, but only when a claim is made. When a car fails the national car test for, say, a month, how are penalty points to be imposed? Mr. Noel Brett raised the issue of penalty points for cars dumped illegally, a point I have continued to raise for many years, but said the system must be safety-based and related to the car. However, that would be one way of stopping the illegal dumping of cars. I appreciate what Mr. Brett has said but it would be a deterrent. The loss of one's driving licence or the imposition of penalty points would have the effect of cutting down on much of the illegal dumping. I would like to hear more on that issue.

Deputy John O'Mahony

As many of the points I wished to raise have been covered I will not repeat them. I welcome the delegations and thank them for their presentations. In regard to the 186 people who died on the roads last year, is there a breakdown on the numbers who died at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m.? When an accident occurs at that time there is no speed detection and it is automatically assumed it is the result of drink driving. All the points made were sensible and reasonable but can the number of deaths be reduced further? For example, if I am travelling home to Mayo from Dublin, a great time to drive is from 12 midnight to 2 a.m. because there is no traffic. What is the issue?

Speed detection has been changed in recent years with the introduction of speed vans and so on. I am interested to hear the comments of the delegations on the effect of the change as their locations are predictable. I have noticed in the past year that the Garda announce it will be in a particular area from Friday to Monday on a particular weekend. Previously this happened only on bank holiday weekends throughout the country but now it is focused in certain places. Is there a danger that motorists who know where and when the speed checkpoints are located will increase their speed on the way to work on a Monday when they know detection is out of the way? Given the number of live websites, one can check before starting out on a journey if a checkpoint is on a particular road. While I am not into technology, I wonder whether there is a possibility that people will check the speed points on their iPhones and will break the law in all directions. I would appreciate the comments of the delegation on those issues.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I thank the Chair and thank the witnesses for their presentations. I take on board all the points made, which are extremely sensible. A particular hobbyhorse of mine is the driving test. One day a person is a learner driver with L plates displayed. He or she sits the driving test and can drive on the motorways as if he or she had years of experience of motorway driving. The television advertisements are very effective and, perhaps, something can be done on how we drive on the motorways. Motorway driving is new to us and we are only getting used to it. On the Continent there appears to be a set of rules when coming on to a motorway, stipulating that the driver in the closest lane should automatically pull out into the outside lane to allow one come safely in. That does not always happen here and perhaps it could be included in the television advertisements in the future.

The GPS provides information on one's speed and the location of speed cameras. That is good because one will automatically check one's speed to ensure one is driving within the speed limit.

I refer to the statistics and data on the 92% of fatal collisions. When referring to acceptance of the penalty points system the statistics were broken down as between males and females but not for the fatal collisions. I am the only female member on the committee. Do the statistics show that women have a tendency to drive more safely? I would like that statistic broken down into gender and age as it could have an effect on insurance and how we attest to the safety of drivers on the roads. That is extremely important.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I thank the Chairman and welcome the visitors. It was not today or yesterday that Mr. Conor Faughnan started to address this issue. I thank Mr. Noel Brett for his presentation and the invitation to visit the Road Safety Authority in Ballina. On page 3 of his presentation he stated that Sweden is the safest place but according to page 11 it does not have GPS. How is it that Sweden got to be the safest place by doing things differently? Would its experience be of value to us?

In the first six months of the year there was an increase in the number of road deaths. We raised the issue with the Leader in the Seanad and he was to contact the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar.

I was seriously concerned that the improvements made over 20 to 25 years had been reversed. It seems that the number has flattened again, so were July and August particularly good? It is important for us to know the up-to-date figure for 2012. We can take laps of honour for the great improvement made previously but I am concerned that a very good trend has been reversed.

Deputy Dooley made a point about learner drivers. I think they give a "Harvey Smith" sign to everybody when they drive on motorways. As one enters a motorway a sign will state "no L drivers". Such drivers are nearly as dangerous as people who use their mobile phones while driving. Why are there no penalty points for such a blatant breach of the law? When we discussed the latest full-year data in the Seanad we found that the counties of Donegal and Cavan had road deaths that were out of proportion with their populations. We wondered, as Deputy Ellis suggested, whether two links could be made between the PSNI and the Garda in Derry and Donegal and Fermanagh and Cavan. There is evidence of a bad safety record in at least two of the Border counties.

Another issue that I wish to raise is vehicle immobilisation. Paddy Matthews owns a bus company in Inniskeen, County Monaghan, and he has fitted an alcohol-activated vehicle immobiliser in his fleet of buses. Now there is no danger of an incompetent or incapable driver driving his buses. Some 10% of the population still do not wear seatbelts. It has proven difficult to increase the 90% usage figure. Should we enforce usage measures? Could we introduce systems to prevent drink driving and insist on seatbelt usage? Vehicle immobilisation systems can recognise unusual obstacles and ensures that vehicles will stop if another vehicle, tree or pole blocks its path. It is well worth considering importing some of that technology from countries where cars and motor vehicles are made as we try to move on to the next stage of road safety.

I wish to ask our visitors about drugs and driving again. How good is the drug detection system? I thank the delegations and I hope that we will continue this dialogue. I hope that the number of road death fatalities did not change for the worse in the first six months of this year.

Senator Terry Brennan

I congratulate the speakers on their informative contributions. I have a question on whether a 60 km/h zone should follow a 100 km/h zone. Awarding two penalty points to a driver caught doing 67 km/h in a 60 km/h zone is harsh. Is a different view taken of someone doing 70 km/h and someone doing 65 km/h? Driving 7 km/h over a speed limit is the equivalent to driving 4.5 km/h too fast and it is a bit harsh to award two penalty points for such a breach.

I have a question on litter offences. Mr. Faughnan said that litter has nothing to do with road safety but I have an issue with this. I am trying to catch somebody who slows down their car in a 40 km/h zone to drop a bag of ashes and a bag of household refuse on a public road in the middle of a nice town, where it remains. It poses a danger to oncoming traffic and drivers must try to avoid it. I have seen other instances of this and witnessed such offences. If I catch the owner of the car I would like to think that he or she would receive penalty points on their licence and I support Deputy Ellis's view on the matter.

I have a question on the nationwide review of all speed limits, particularly in rural areas where none seem to exist or there is no indication of same but a maximum 80 km/h speed limit applies. There are 800 miles of road in my county and 8% of them have an 80 km/h speed limit. It should be halved and I should have brought photographs with me to prove my point. Its not good enough to have a carte blanche 80 km/h limit when the roads are not fit for Stirling Moss, Michael Schumacher or any Formula 1 driver to drive on. They simply could not do such speed on the roads. I ask for a more realistic speed limit to be applied.

There was a question and comment on mobile telephone usage. Practically all drivers have a mobile telephone of which many can be fixed in their cars. It is a distraction to receive or answer a call while driving. I doubt the statistics that we were given earlier and believe that a larger percentage of male and female drivers use their mobile telephones on a daily basis while driving. I am a doubting Thomas.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

In the Seanad the enemy of people smoking in cars was Senator Crown and the matter he raised may be worth researching. His view is that brain damage will occur if one smokes in such a confined space and that is aside from the risk of setting fire to oneself or other people, etc. Perhaps the matter could be examined. The relevant Bill was accepted unanimously in the Seanad and, I think, by the Minister. The safety dimension was not apparent to me until I heard Senator Crown mention the risk. It is like smoking in a telephone box and one would quickly damage one's eyes and intelligence. We do not think of a car as being a confined space but it should not be used to smoke in. The Senator would make that case for the awarding of penalty points but Mr. Faughnan will probably disagree.

Deputy Ann Phelan

A corollary to that point of view is that a smoker could rush from one point to another in order to get his/her next fix. I do not believe that any pilot smokes now. A number of years ago when they did, their management did not encourage them to give up smoking.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

That is why they lock the aeroplane doors.

Chairman

Every member has had an opportunity to contribute and I now call on Mr. Faughnan to respond.

Mr. Conor Faughnan

I shall try to get through the questions quickly. There have been a lot of recurring themes and one was the setting of speed limits, which is of massive importance. Senator Terry Brennan mentioned it and so did many others. It is evident that many speed limits are ridiculous and there is a back story behind many. I got soaked in the subject when metrication was introduced a number of years ago. There is a history behind the 80 km/h default speed limit that has appeared on local authority roads. As the Senator has said, Michael Schumacher physically could not drive at that speed. Every time one sees the speed limit it undermines credibility and respect for the system. It is a glaring omission.

One of problems is that individual local authorities have the power to set the speed limit in their areas. I got into slightly hot water for suggesting that the power should be taken from them. They have had it since 1994. I know there is a philosophy of trying to democratically devolve decisions as close to the affected citizens as possible. I favour such a move in principle but in practical effect each local authority - even well-meaning - tends to apply its own version of the guidelines and criteria. A driver can cross county boundaries and discover that rules have been changed. The N4 leaving Dublin is four lanes wide and is a brand new modern highway with a central concrete barrier which means that there are no crossover accidents but an 80 km/h speed limit is applied. The same road en route to Roscommon has a single lane boreen lined with white crosses with a 100 km/h speed limit.

We have to get those correct, certainly before we make the punishments for speeding more substantive. We have raised this already and we got good support from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and the Department. There is a review under way as we speak. It is a big issue but parallel work has been going on about it.

On whether the detection bands are in the correct locations, the motoring representative group says they are, despite the fact that I get regular complaints from motorists about it. The locations are picked fairly. They are based on the collision data for the past five years, so wherever speed caused a collision that is the criterion that is used to decide where the vans go. That data set is renewed but it has not been done yet. It should be renewed every year. It is due to be renewed this year. At any given time the cameras are located in places where over the past five years a disproportionate number of speeding collisions have occurred. It was always policy to signpost them and publish them on the Garda website. The intention is to be upfront and to communicate properly. The AA believes it is a good system. One gets the odd wrinkle or imperfection. We occasionally have to go to people such as Con O’Donoghue in the Garda with individual complaints we have had but, by and large, it works reasonably well. We do get some complaints about it but on the whole it works reasonably well. A key virtue of this, at least in theory, is that in doing the easy job in those known locations, the Go Safe fleet performs its own function but also frees up Garda time, so one should in theory see more gardaí out and about at other locations because the bread and butter work of policing the blackspots has been outsourced to Go Safe. In theory it works very well while in practice it works reasonably well, although it obviously needs scrutiny and constant monitoring.

Deputies Harrington, Ellis and others spoke about the importance of harmonisation across the EU. That is clearly important. The first priority for us is to harmonise with Northern Ireland and then the United Kingdom. There are different systems in many other European countries but to be honest, other than professional drivers, most of the traffic we have is cross-Border traffic on the island, or British people here and Irish people in the United Kingdom. That is the most common. We have to get that sorted out. We are not the cause of the delay. It is our friends in the United Kingdom. I do not wish to bash them because they are world leaders in road safety in many ways but they have not yet co-ordinated their own penalty points system properly. There is not, as yet, proper recognition of Northern Irish penalty points in Great Britain, let alone harmonisation across an international frontier. It is a priority for both jurisdictions, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We should go ahead on the island first and then have harmonisation with Great Britain and eventually have harmonisation across Europe. If we wait for a pan-European solution we would be waiting a long time before it came about.

There were some queries about accidents that are not the fault of the driver. In a lot of cases it is the road condition. Good analysis has been done on that. If anyone in the committee is interested in further reading I would recommend the European road assessment programme, EuroRAP, which can be accessed at eurorap.org. Very good analysis has been done on that, including an Irish report to which the NRA contributed along with RoadsNI.

I wish to pick through some of the other issues which are close to my heart, such as whether we are educating young drivers properly. Mr. Brett’s team is involved in that area so he will probably address the issue more comprehensively than I can. The entire system for teaching and testing drivers has been overhauled. It has been dramatically improved from where it used to be. There used to be a one-year wait for a driving test but that is gone now. There has been a good reform lesson there. It is still imperfect, and there are still unacceptable wrinkles in the system - for example, whether one is likely to pass the test is materially affected by which test centre one attends, which should not be the case. There are still some concerns around the standards of driver training. There has been difficulty in getting some of the existing cohort of driving instructors up to an acceptable professional standard. The job of work is not complete but it is much better than it used to be. Previously, one went to an amateur driving instructor and did whatever one wanted. The State did not care. The State only looked at one for 20 minutes, which was the duration of a driving test, during which one never faced real road conditions – one never went to the motorway, drove at night or faced bad weather. If one could do that and behave oneself one went in an instant from being a learner driver to a seasoned, professional mature driver with a licence that would last a lifetime, provided one renewed it every ten years. That is much better now. There is essential basic training, teaching people in modules, looking at things such as motorway driving. It is much better than it used to be.

The final point has been made several times. I understand the problem of fly-tipping and, even more sinister, systematic illegal dumping. A major problem is the illegal dumping of the by-product of fuel laundering, which is a persistent organised crime problem. It is something of an unfair stereotype to say it is confined to Border counties but there is a pocket of activity in Border counties. I am in favour of anything to get those evil so-and-sos. They got Al Capone on tax evasion. I would be glad to see the Government do whatever it can to get these guys. There is a “but”, however. Smoking is ruinous to one’s health. There is no doubt about it. Smoking in a car is probably worse. If one is fumbling with a cigarette box, for example, while driving a car, or if one slows down on a main road to tip out one’s ashtray, that is already covered under existing road traffic law. It is an offence to drive a vehicle without due care and attention. The law cannot write down shavers, CD players, lipstick or hairbrushes, or all of the witless things that a driver might conceivably do, so there is a catch-all clause in the legislation. If one’s driving is dangerous because one is doing something stupid then the law can prosecute one for that perfectly adequately under existing legislation, whether the stupid thing one is doing is littering or smoking. I would oppose the misuse of road safety legislation to prosecute other things just because the road safety legislation is the bit that works. If we want to stop people smoking in cars that is a public health issue, not a road safety issue. I do not think one can co-opt road safety law to do that. Not a single person in this room or probably in the country would defend illegal dumping out of cars but if we have a problem with that it is the dumping law that must be strengthened. It would be a major strategic mistake in the long term to co-opt an effective piece of road safety legislation and to bolt all sorts of other things on to it, whether desirable or undesirable. There is probably no better mechanism that I can think of to persuade people to pay the household charge but it has nothing to do with road safety.

If one starts to use the penalty points system for other social issues of that nature, one will have two effects. The first is that it will cease to be of any use to the insurance industry in terms of measuring risk and, second, one will lose the support of the motoring population who have bought into road safety policies and have changed. The group most entitled to credit for the improvement in road safety is the Irish motorist. Irish drivers have bought into road safety policies. The drink driving limit was reduced in 1994 from 100 mg to 80 mg. It was hugely controversial at the time and lots of people resisted it. Last year it was reduced from 80 mg to 50 mg amid universal public acclaim. That tells one the sea change in public attitudes that has taken place towards road safety in the past ten to 15 years. That has been underscored by sound policies that have concentrated on road safety and have brought the public with them. If we start to misuse road safety law just because it is effective in order to police the topical issue of the day it would probably work for smoking or for dumping but it would be a long-term strategic mistake in terms of road safety law.

Mr. Noel Brett

I will try to go through the questions but not in great detail as many of them have been covered. I agree with Deputy Dooley that we should take every opportunity we can to prevent cases going to court unless a motorist insists on a day in court. These cases should not be clogging up the court as they incur huge costs and are a crazy waste of Garda time while they wait around courts. When cases are adjourned then gardaí return to deal with cases on overtime. We need the Garda to do enforcement. If a motorist wants a day in court he or she has the right as a citizen. However, we should use every mechanism available to deal with such cases. In reviewing the penalty points system, if there is a mechanism that can stop the people who put their notice behind the clock and forget to pay it from having to go to court, if they do not want to go, then I would applaud that. It would deliver savings both in the courts system and in Garda enforcement. We need every available garda to be involved in enforcement on the road and not to be tied up in court. Neither the garda nor the driver wants to be in court and the judge does not need them there. The driver has made a mistake and he or she wants to correct it.

In terms of speed limits, there are two actions in the current road safety strategy. One was for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to set new engineering guidelines for the entire country. That has been done. Every local authority is now reviewing its speed limits. There is an issue with which we must grapple in terms of consistency, on which Mr. Faughnan touched, namely, that even within a county one can get different interpretations of the guidelines within different engineering areas.

Guidelines need to be implemented universally and drivers need to be able to know from the road, almost intuitively, what speed they should be doing. They should not be looking around for the limits. The limit of 80 km/h on a boreen or bog road that has rushes growing in the middle is considered the default limit at present. I understand the Department has some proposals to reduce that but it is also in the gift of every local authority to set its own limits for those roads, which needs to happen. It is a very cumbersome process for elected members, a reserved function that takes ages, so we need to do something nationally in terms of fairness and consistency. Every one of us, as a driver, should know intuitively, just by looking around us at the road type and layout and what is happening in regard to pedestrians and traffic volume, what speed we should be doing. Speed limits should be there just as a reminder. I agree with the speaker on that.

I refer to the placement of the GoSafe, privately operated camera vans run by An Garda Síochána. These do 6,000 hours of filming per month and are paid only for that. They are not paid for whomever they catch or do not catch. Approximately 53% of their hours are during evenings and at weekends, to reflect when fatal and serious injuries caused by speed-related collisions take place. The vans have been a fantastic success story. Members may wish to consider inviting the Garda Commissioner to tell them about it in terms of the savings they have made and how they have reduced collisions on our most dangerous routes. This work has freed up a tremendous amount of Garda enforcement - some 6,000 hours. We need to see that enforcement in place, not instead of Garda involvement but as an addition to it. It is a fantastic story and a credit to gardaí in the way they have operated it. It enjoys very strong public support. We are now in a situation where local representatives are writing to us, saying there is an issue in their community and they want one of these vans. That is an example of how local representatives are realising this is a solution for their parts of the country. I have had probably three or four letters from public representatives asking for vans to be moved but, in general, people want them in their communities and realise they add considerable value. It is a good success story.

With regard to collision analysis, I will send this information to the clerk of the committee. Every year we publish road collision data and we are about to publish for 2011. It is based on the report we get from the Garda in regard to every collision. Last year we received 29,400 forms, all of which were analysed. If members are interested in their local areas they can access our website, which has a section on collision statistics where it is possible to select and check any section of road in the country and analyse the collisions that have happened in recent years and their types. That is of great use to people in their own communities.

Deputy Dooley asked about learner drivers who do not display "L" plates or who do not have accompaniment. My view is there should be two penalty points for each offence and this should be enforced. Forcing these drivers into court is not the right way; there should be an automatic awarding of two points, irrespective of age. It is to do with experience. Such a driver is in a learning period and is a novice.

In response to Deputy Harrington, I would echo what Mr. Faughnan said. We must harmonise with Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Ireland is in a good place now to lobby for harmonisation and lead on this in Europe. It may take decades but if one does not start one will never do it. I am particularly concerned about the number of tourists and foreign drivers who come into this country. They must be subject to the same rules as our own drivers.

I refer to driver testing and training. Anybody who is learning to drive now has compulsory lessons and a syllabus. There are 1,900 approved driving instructors operating around the country, all of whom have a FETAC level 6 qualification. The syllabus includes the types of issues the Deputy referred to. That is the new cohort of drivers. The vast bulk of drivers, including myself, have never had this training - that is an issue. Mr. Faughnan spoke about the changes that have happened in driver testing and training. We are on a journey here. A lot has been done but further changes and reforms remain to take place. I would disagree with Mr. Faughnan's view that the test centre in which one takes the test dictates the outcome. A range of factors dictate this. There are economic factors - whether one has access to a vehicle in order to practise, whether one has taken tuition, the quality of same, etc. There may be literacy and socioeconomic issues. For example, I refer to the driver theory test. Every candidate gets the same book, learns the same questions and goes and sits in front of a computer. No other individual is involved. The questions are put at random in front of the candidate who touches the screen to respond. There is a 34% difference between the centres with the highest and lowest pass rates yet no other person is involved. The testing in this country compares remarkably to the high-end of testing outcomes in Europe. I would disagree, therefore, that the result is down to location. Our service is accredited. It is a constant battle to keep consistency of testing. Ours is one of the only testing regimes that publishes its outcomes by test centre, by theory test centre and by NCT test centre. That is the kind of openness we need. People need to see that. However, there are many complex factors involved given that the theory test shows that everybody is on the same field. The more information we can provide in terms of consistency the better. I accept there is a continuous battle in any testing regime, across any sector, to ensure that the right person gets the right result all of the time. It is always a challenge.

Deputy Harrington made some comments on mobile telephone use. This is notoriously difficult to detect. One has to actually see the person and catch him or her in the act. It would be a natural extension of the safety camera and the Garda ANPR systems to start capturing footage in regard to mobile telephone usage and use it as good strong evidence. There is also a requirement to change legislation so that in any fatal or serious injury collision it should be normal investigative practice that both drivers' mobile telephone records are sought. As I understand it, at present one must deal with the Wireless Telegraphy Act, which is very dated. There are many issues around privacy and all of that. However, where a citizen has been killed on our roads, or has had a life-altering injury, I believe it is proportionate that both drivers' mobile telephone records should routinely be requested and checked. If there was mobile telephone use at the time of collision that should be a very significant part in the prosecution. If such legislation were in place and was the practice, coupled with the penalty point system, we would see a marked change in what is now perhaps the most dangerous behaviour on the road, the one that, as Mr. Faughnan's survey shows, irritates the most motorists. It irritates all of us because we are sharing the road with somebody who is not sharing it fairly. I agree with the Deputy as to the quality of evidence.

I refer to adverse conditions such as motorway and night-time driving. There are proposals with the Minister in terms of graduated licensing to the effect that after a person passes the driving test during the following three months he or she would have to take additional tuition with an approved instructor in order to be fit for motorways and night-time driving. There are issues when this happens with novice drivers. In parts of the country, for example, there is no access to a motorway and very inexperienced drivers would have to travel long distances. Night-time driving is easy to do in the winter but harder to do in the summer. We believe it would be much more effective that a person who has mastered the basics and passed a basic driving test would be required to take some very targeted tuition with an approved instructor, going out on the motorway or dual carriageway, doing some night-time driving, and practising and logging these hours. That would be a more effective way to do it when a person is at this stage in his or her driving career.

Deputy Ellis raised a broad range of issues, some of which I have covered. I agree with him about a mechanism to re-educate bad drivers. The threat of having to re-sit one's driving test would probably focus the mind of every one of us in the room, more than a fine would. That mechanism should be there for the most serious offenders.

At present the maximum number of points awarded in Ireland is 12; in the UK it is ten. The systems are not harmonised as they need to be. Mr. Faughnan touched very well on that point.

I refer to the identification of number plates. Somebody may have a defective plate or may have deliberately altered the plate so that it cannot be detected, not only in road traffic situations but for other crimes. As of now, a garda has to detect that, issue a summons, take the person to court, stand up in court and deal with that situation. The court should not have to deal with this. It is an ideal offence for penalty points, one that is directly related to road safety and road use behaviour. I concur with the Deputy in that regard.

We have covered speed limits. Consistency is the big issue here. I would make the point a couple of members have made - when people start talking about being "only a small bit above" the limit we should remember that it is the location in which the offence takes place that counts. Exceeding a speed limit by 7 km or 8 km in a zone with limits of 30 km/h, 40 km/h, 50km/h or 60 km/h, where there are pedestrians and children, can mean one is 10% or 15% in excess. It is about the risk, not about how many kilometres per hour one is in excess. It is about the location where the offence takes place and what that means in terms of risk. There is scope to look, in due course, when the speed limits are sorted out, at some kind of calibrated system that penalises excess. However, we need to relate that to the environment in which the excess happens. For example, a person driving at 67 km/h in a school zone is of much more concern to me than somebody driving at 140 km/h on a motorway.

It is just a matter of identifying the context in which offences are taking place and then trying to deal with that.

All European jurisdictions have different signage. I would love to see the introduction of a European project to establish core signage. I refer here to key safety signs, such as stop signs, junction signs, etc. It would be great to establish the same signage across Europe, particularly in view of the fact that the populations of the various countries are highly mobile. Irish people visit other member states and citizens from the latter travel here. I am of the view, therefore, that there is much more to be done in the context of this matter.

Reference was made to motorists displaying NCT certificates on their vehicles and to more general issues relating to the test. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the NCT as a road safety measure. When it was first launched in 1999-2000, fewer than 8% of cars passed the test at the first attempt. We all remember what the vehicle fleet on our roads was like at that stage. At present, some 54% of vehicles pass the NCT at the first attempt. We have a fantastic fleet but it is ageing. The current age of vehicles in the fleet is eight years and we are in a dangerous place in this regard. People are making decisions with regard to whether they should pay their mortgages, feed their kids, pay a particular bill or service their cars. Each month some 400 vehicles which are subjected to the NCT are given what is called a "fail dangerous" notice. Such vehicles are absolutely unsafe to leave the test centre and must be taken away on recovery trucks. There are very serious road safety issues with regard to these vehicles, and their owners would have driven them to the test centres in that condition. The condition of the fleet is critical. There is a need to ensure that people have their cars tested and, as a result, the NCT is linked to drivers' insurance and motor tax.

In recent years I have noticed that a large number of vehicles are failing the NCT as a result of the state of their tyres, suspensions and various components. People are just not servicing their cars because they do not have the cash to do so. That is a major issue. As a result of this, a greater proportion of fatalities and injuries on our roads are going to come about on foot of the condition of the vehicles in our fleet. We have made huge leaps forward in the context of the condition of the fleet. We must ensure that our progress in this regard continues by incentivising people.

As Mr. Faughnan stated, we need to tackle illegal dumping and similar issues in the arenas in which they are taking place. For example, dumping is a reprehensible crime and those who engage in it need to be hit hard. In that context, I am concerned that penalty points would be seen as an immediate but lesser solution. Dumping is such a serious offence that it must be dealt with at source by means of the correct legislation. There is strong evidence from research carried out at European level that one makes a long-term mistake if one tries to use road safety legislation to tackle other matters. There is a need to keep the punishment relevant for people. I agree that this is an issue of major importance. As a rural dweller-----

Deputy Dessie Ellis

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has responsibility in this area. When someone is caught dumping, would it not be possible for it to issue an automatic recommendation that two penalty points be added to that person's licence?

Mr. Noel Brett

It is open to the Oireachtas to examine the most appropriate sanctions to be imposed. Perhaps using a vehicle to commit a crime could be the subject of a sanction. However, using standard road traffic legislation to deal with this matter would mean that we would be ducking our responsibility and failing to deal properly with this important issue.

Deputy O'Mahony referred to the 108 fatalities which occurred last year. In the coming weeks we will be publishing a breakdown in respect of each of these. I will ensure that the Deputy and the Chairman receive copies of the relevant information.

On speed enforcement, I welcome the use of websites and other mechanisms. We want people to change their behaviour rather than be caught. I return to the point I made in my submission with regard to the need to get people to comply. Safety cameras have been exceptionally successful and the Garda Síochána is to be congratulated in that regard. However, it is time that the zones were updated. A discussion needs to take place - perhaps at this committee - in respect of how much of the activity relating to speed enforcement should be covert in nature and how much should be overt. At some point we need to start moving the vans around such that the locations in which 80% of them are to be found will be publicised while information relating to the other 20% will not. This is a very sensitive matter, particularly in the context of how action is calibrated. There is a need to do as I have suggested, however, because it ties in with deterrence.

Ireland is unique within Europe in the context of the level of public support for penalty points and speed enforcement. This is because people understand what is involved and are in favour of existing activity being expanded even further. Localised campaigns, such as Operation Focus, run by the Garda are welcome but these are no substitute for day-to-day routine enforcement, particularly in rural areas. It is important that the enforcement effort should reflect what is happening on the roads in the context of the number of vehicles that are in operation and the number of collisions that occur. We must ensure that enforcement does not just take place in urban areas. It must happen across the entire country.

Deputy Ann Phelan referred to driver manners, driver arrogance and basic behaviour on the roads. This matter is addressed in the context of graduated driver licensing in respect of our motorways, etc. At present, the RSA has a number of campaigns running on television and the Internet and in cinemas on the subject of merging into traffic and overtaking on motorways. The Irish population did not grow up with motorways and its members are really struggling to understand them. Roundabouts are another huge issue. The number of people who drive the wrong way around a roundabout is unbelievable. Those to whom I refer are all holders of Irish driving licences. We are trying to push hard in respect of these matters and it is for this reason we need the penalty points regime to reinforce that education and awareness.

The Deputy is absolutely correct in respect of satellite navigation and warning systems. Anything that helps one to moderate one's driving, behave safely and not be detected is a good outcome for Ireland and for drivers in general. In addition, such systems are cost-effective and I am happy with that aspect.

All of the data relating to gender and age can be found on our website. Nine out of ten fatalities are male. This is predominantly a male issue and members can see a breakdown in respect of it on the website. I will certainly forward the collision data to the Deputy.

Senator Barrett asked a number of questions about Sweden. The latter currently does not have a demerit system. Sweden is 30 years ahead of us. It has a particular culture with regard to vehicles, roads, etc. What we are trying to do is accomplish in ten years what it took the Swedish 30 years to achieve. We are doing this by learning from them. The Senator will be interested to note that Sweden lost its first place in Europe last year, when it was overtaken by the UK. Ireland is in fifth place while Sweden is now in second. There are major issues in Sweden, one of which relates to traffic policing. The job is never done and once one takes one's foot off the gas - I hope members will pardon the pun - bad behaviour returns very quickly. It is much more difficult to change people's behaviour the second time. There has been a major change in this country in recent years in the context of drink driving. People here no longer offer others alcohol if they call to their homes and are driving. It is fine to say "I am driving".

If we do not continue to enforce the law, people will come to realise that this is the case. When, a number of years from now, we return to this matter and try to spend the amount of money required in order to change their behaviour again, they will not accept the message as easily. One only gets one chance in respect of this matter. It is critical, therefore, that we maintain the level of enforcement. The issue of learner drivers using motorways is one which is ripe for enforcement and the imposition of penalty points. Such drivers should not be on our motorways. Some 45 holders of learner permits were killed in collisions last year and a further 75 suffered serious injuries. These are not the only people at risk on the roads but a particular type of intervention is required in respect of them.

Senator Barrett raised a number of issues in the context of vehicle technology, including "alcolocks", vehicle inhibitors, speed limiters and so on. Representatives from the RSA and other agencies are currently involved in examining the position with regard to these devices. In the context of the forthcoming budget, I wish to point out that there is an unusual situation in Ireland in that proven safety features attract the highest rate of VAT and they also attract VRT. In a way, we are almost disincentivising people from using the devices to which I refer. If a person is buying a fleet of vans and if he or she chooses to opt in for some proven safety features such as "lane assist", alcolocks, etc., not only will the base price increase but he or she will also be charged VAT and VRT. We are, therefore, disincentivising fleet buyers and private motorists from choosing the safest vehicles.

Another example in this regard relates to motorcyclists. We want motorcyclists to wear the best possible quality of safety helmets. In Ireland, however, such helmets attract the highest rate of VAT. I need motorcyclists to wear proper leathers, back protectors, spine protectors, gauntlets and boots but all of this equipment attracts the highest rate of VAT. In the UK, it is zero-rated. As a result, people in Ireland purchase cheaper gear or they buy it on the Internet. They do not know the quality of the latter and whether it will fit them. We do not have a home-grown industry selling that material. There is a strong opportunity to achieve a huge road safety dividend by encouraging people to purchase the safest vehicles and use the type of technology to which the Senator refers. The same applies in respect of motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. The latter should be able to obtain the type of protective equipment to which I refer, particular as it can save lives or prevent injury.

A great deal needs to happen in respect of drug driving. Three issues arise in this context: illegal drugs, over-the-counter medicines and prescription medicines. We must not try to use road traffic legislation to deal with illegal drug use. However, we must deal with impairment. As I understand it, the forthcoming Bill will contain a number of provisions in this regard.

My take on smoking in vehicles is that it is a public health issue. If there are children in the vehicle, then it is also a child protection issue. The notion that one would fill a small space in which children are to be found with a toxic substance is unbelievable. I am of the view that if this matter is to be tackled in a robust manner, then it must be dealt with in the realms of child protection and public health. Obliging gardaí to stop people who are smoking in their cars and give them two penalty points will not change their behaviour; rather, it will make them frustrated. There is a need for some very robust legislation in this area. Mr. Faughnan referred to people driving with due care and attention.

A similar scenario is where a motorist leaves a drive-through takeaway with a burger and a drink on his or her lap. There is legislation to deal with those issues, and that is how we should deal with the smoking issue.

Senator Terry Brennan raised several issues in regard to speed, and we have touched on some of those. He also spoke at length about motorists using mobile telephones while driving. We have covered that issue.

Senator Sean Barrett and Deputy John O'Mahony both asked about the future and where we hope to go from here. The table on page 5 of my submission sets out the fatality data. As members will see, we were going very well this year until June, when there were 25 fatalities. That came out of nowhere and I cannot say what caused it. It might simply be a statistical variation or a function of behaviour or enforcement practice. It is my view that we will not see a continuation of the downward trend in fatalities for seven years in a row. Instead, I expect there will be an increase this year and subsequent increases in 2013 and 2014. The graph on page 2 shows the level of fatalities has gone up and down in the past. Without a genuine reinvigoration of the efforts that have been made in the past six or seven years, we are on the cusp of an increase and it will be much harder to push the rate down the next time. The major risk in this regard is complacency, including both public and political complacency. The single most important action that must be taken is to reinvigorate efforts to address the issue, as the committee is doing today. We must persist in our endeavours to increase awareness among the public. Above all, we must ensure that enforcement remains a priority. If efforts on that end fall away, I absolutely guarantee that this graph will be back above 250 within two to three years. That is a natural consequence of human nature and human behaviour. History shows that a major intervention, such as the introduction of penalty points in 2002, will lead to a massive reduction in fatalities. However, if the enforcement aspect is allowed to falter, a rise in the death toll is inevitable. That is the most important message I would leave with members.

Deputy O'Mahony asked about the days of the week when accidents are most likely to occur. There is a perception that most fatal road accidents occur in the early hours of the morning, but that is not the case. So far this year, the most dangerous time on the roads has been 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., with 25 fatalities occurring at that time. The table on page 5 shows the days of the week and the times at which all accidents occurred. Saturday and Sunday remain the most dangerous days, and the data in this regard are in line with the view that one is most likely to die in a road accident late at night. Across all days, however, the most dangerous time is the afternoon and evening. We are now heading into the most dangerous time of year when the clocks go back and the weather deteriorates. The rate of road fatalities will resume an upward trend. My colleagues in the various organisations and I are struggling to keep the numbers down but without interventions, an increase is unavoidable.

Chairman

I invite Mr. Doyle to respond, although a great deal has already been covered.

Mr. Niall Doyle

Mr. Brett likes to steal my thunder.

I absolutely endorse the proposal regarding a centralised system for speed limits, which makes total sense. However, we should never forget that no matter how poor the road conditions, one must always drive in accordance with those conditions. To drive in any other fashion makes one an uneducated road user. Blaming the condition of the roads or trees falling on roads is not convincing; motorists should be prepared for all such eventualities.

That leads to another point which I do not think has been mentioned. Of course there are penalty points and there are all sorts of things going on with regard to driving on motorways and various other things, but we must keep advertising and we must keep educating. Therefore, there is a question of funding. I am sure Mr. Brett would agree with me that providing funding for advertising in this regard will result in the population being educated. One needs to know how to drive safely. If one cannot get to a motorway, one still sees the ads, which are good. However, these have to be funded; therefore, funding for the RSA, which runs them, needs to be kept up. Otherwise, awareness will come down.

The statistics I referred to, including the figure of 92% in regard to driver error, are not mine but come from the report of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. The data on mobile telephone use are from the website of the Garda Síochána. When I was examining the information on mobile telephone catches on the website, there was significant coherence in terms of the numbers. I would argue strongly that this is not because it is a persistent problem that will not go away. We all know that, and something must be done about it.

I cannot but reinforce the message Mr. Brett has given in regard to Garda enforcement. I am confident that we can achieve a reduction in the annual number of road fatalities from 186. We can and should be best in the class. The great thing about Ireland is that we are a small country which can get stuff done nationally. The speed camera programme, for which I and others campaigned long and hard, is a wonderful initiative, but it is not a reason - and we were told it would not be a reason - for the Garda to step down its enforcement activities. Unfortunately, all of the evidence suggests that because of resource constraints, that is precisely what is happening. If that trend continues, I agree with Mr. Brett that fatalities will rise, we will be wondering what happened and the blame game will begin. On the question of increasing penalties, my view is that we should concentrate on enforcing a consistent application of existing penalties before considering any changes in that regard.

Insurance premiums peaked some ten years ago and have since declined by 26%. As it stands, they are half the price of premiums in the United Kingdom. We are doing quite well on the premium front. When I joined the IIF ten years ago, prices were insane but we were making a loss on our motor book. Today motor insurance companies are making a profit on their motor books, which will please the shareholders and pensioners, but it is not a significant amount. As I said, prices here are, on average, half the equivalent United Kingdom rate. We are doing well in that space, but I am sure there are individual cases which go against the grain.

Deputy Noel Harrington

Will Mr. Doyle provide those figures to the committee? The cost of motor insurance is a public bugbear.

Mr. Niall Doyle

I will be happy to submit the data for the past ten years.

We are not particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of the European gender directive coming into force in January. Women are better drivers than men and live longer than men, but we will no longer be able to factor that into our risk assessments. We must follow the law and do our best to use other risk-rating factors to ensure we are appropriately applying risk. That is why immediate and accurate access to penalty points data is vital if we are to identify safe and unsafe drivers so that the former can be offered competitive premiums and the risks can be accurately reflected in the prices offered to the latter.

In regard to the NCT, we are under some difficulty in terms of accessing data. We are hopeful that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport will grant us official access to vehicles' NCT status and information on driver disqualifications, but there is no provision for that in the legislation. We urge that this be done in the next road traffic Bill. We would not be prepared to underwrite a vehicle that has not passed the NCT and there is an implication for the risk assessment of a driver who has a previous disqualification. We must have access to that information if our assessments are to be accurate.

I will conclude by reiterating the message regarding enforcement. It is only by maintaining and enhancing enforcement efforts that we will build on the great national achievement of reducing deaths on the road.

Chairman

I invite Mr. Faughnan to respond to any outstanding points.

Mr. Conor Faughnan

On the question of the cost of insurance in this country compared with the United Kingdom, we can see the Irish tendency to bash ourselves. In fact, we are miles ahead of Britain in terms of motor and other liability insurance. Ten years ago insurance premiums were double the price of those in the United Kingdom, but now they are only 50% of the UK average price. That reduction is a consequence of the work done by people such as Dorothea Dowling and her colleagues at the Injuries Board. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is sleepwalking towards a major crisis by allowing the legal industry to do significant damage to consumers. Anybody who is unfortunate enough to be at home during the day watching British television will know what I am talking about.

These advertisements comprise payday loans that target the unemployed and ambulance-chasing solicitors encouraging people to come forth to sue. Everybody has to pay for this. The average insurance premium in the UK is approximately €1,100, more than double ours. We need to give ourselves some credit in this regard. The UK actually needs to learn from us on this and not the other way around.

To echo what Mr. Niall Doyle said earlier, the gender equality ruling is an absolutely monstrous decision. The law is an ass; sometimes pan-European law decided by a committee can be a monstrous ass. This is a significant injustice to a large cohort in our society. The two words “equality” and “fairness” are often used in Irish debate as if they have the same meaning. They do not. They are different words with different meanings. We are forcing equality into motor insurance at the clear expense of fairness. It will seriously inconvenience Irish women, particularly young women drivers. I will declare an interest as the AA has up to 100,000 motor insurance customers. We are having to gear up for this. There is no excuse for it. We are now having to tell our women customers that the law has been changed in order to be unfair to them. It is not a great point to make to one’s customers. The decision is out of our hands and it is an absolutely appalling decision with which we have been saddled.

Mr. Noel Brett

I thank Mr. Niall Doyle for his plug for my advertising budget.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Noel Harrington

Is he a beneficiary?

Mr. Noel Brett

The Road Safety Authority, RSA, is particularly well-funded. Last year, it was 74% self-funding and by 2013 it will be 90% self-funding. It does not require more Exchequer funding. If there is any discussion around funding in the area of road safety, it should be first applied to protecting the level of enforcement and driving it up and then to the maintenance of regional and local roads. The RSA is well-funded and structurally sound and I thank Mr. Niall Doyle for the plug.

Chairman

I thank the various delegations that attended this committee meeting and I thank members for staying so long. It was a worthwhile meeting. The committee will draw up a report for next week’s meeting as the Minister is anxious for it.

We all have a responsibility to ensure road fatality figures keep going down. It is of concern to hear Mr. Noel Brett say he is worried there will be a rise in the figures next year. It is one of the benefits of this committee’s work that it is trying to reduce road fatality figures. I thank the various agencies for their input and work here this morning.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. on Thursday, 20 September 2012.