On a point of order, we are at a disadvantage as the Bill we debated on Second Stage had as its objective the establishment of one type of authority, whereas the Minister now proposes to amend it to establish a different type of authority. As there has been no opportunity to tease out his general thinking on the road safety authority, it might be appropriate for him to make some opening comments on the issue. Members do not know what the new authority will entail. It is very unsatisfactory to deal with it solely on the basis of the amendments proposed without knowing what the Minister has in mind.
Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004: Committee Stage.
I assume the new authority represents a quantum leap from what was first proposed. Like Deputy Shortall, I believe it would benefit members if the Minister outlined the major changes to be made to the Bill since it was first published.
The problem is that we are here to consider the Bill. If the Minister wishes to make a comment on the proposed amendments, he can do so. We cannot, however, revert to having a Second Stage debate.
The Chairman will accept that the debate we had on Second Stage is now largely irrelevant as the Minister no longer proposes to introduce the authority proposed.
I am not in a position to comment on that matter.
SECTION 1.
Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 52, 58 and 59 are consequential on amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 59 is consequential on amendment No. 57. Amendments Nos. 60 to 62, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 59 and consequential on amendments Nos. 29 and 30. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1, 7, 18, 29, 30, 52 and 57 to 62, inclusive, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
""Authority" means Road Safety Authority established under section 3;".
On the point raised by members, the committee will be aware that the Bill came before the Dáil last year. I indicated on Second Stage that I intended to broaden the remit of the driver testing and standards authority, not necessarily to establish something entirely new. A useful public debate on the issue of road safety took place, to which many Opposition Deputies and Senators contributed. It focused especially on the National Safety Council and the need to put in place a strong single body with the necessary legal basis to address a large number of road safety matters, which until now have been the responsibility of various agencies. As we wanted to provide for a clear focus, we expanded the driver testing and standards authority proposals and extended the provisions in the Bill to provide for a road safety authority.
The amendments under discussion arise from the change in the name of the authority to the road safety authority. They provide for its title and the amendment of section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 to facilitate the implementation of the proposed bilateral agreement with Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. As I indicated on Second Stage, the change of name arises from the report of consultants engaged by my Department to make recommendations on the organisational structure of the DTSA. They recommended that the DTSA be given a broader remit to make it a more viable organisation and enable it to better contribute to road safety. I accepted this and many other recommendations. The establishment of a separate public sector body to deliver the driver testing service and take responsibility for other functions which would be more appropriate to an executive agency than a Department presents an opportunity for other general road safety functions to be assigned to the authority. I advised the House on Second Stage that I proposed to bring forward appropriate amendments on Committee Stage. I propose the amendment of the Bill to include enabling provisions which will allow for the transfer of additional functions which have a bearing on road safety to the authority. These additional functions are contained in the proposed amendments.
While I welcome the establishment of the road safety authority, it would have been preferable if we had an opportunity to debate what would be required of it. The production of a Bill to establish the driver testing and standards authority, which is then amended to establish a different authority, smacks of making up policy as one goes along. I am not clear on the functions the Minister has in mind for the new authority, even though some of them are set out in the amendments. Will it take over the responsibilities of the National Safety Council? I do not see any provision for the repeal of legislation which underpins the council, something which requires to be done explicitly. It is not clear what the Minister's thinking is and what will happen existing staff. Will they become the staff of the new authority?
I would like to see the proposed authority being given more teeth. Its role in respect of the road safety strategy should be outlined explicitly in the legislation. Is this job to be taken over by it? We know from past experience that performance has not been especially good on whatever has tended to be the strategy of the day, which is why we must be careful to set out performance indicators and measure and report on performance. Where five-year strategies have been put in place previously, the tendency has been to leave much of the implementation process until the end of the period, with the result that a number of provisions are not delivered and certain targets not met. We must strengthen the provisions of the Bill to provide the new authority with a specific remit to produce a strategy, set its targets and publish periodic reports on performance. Currently, responsibility for road safety is spread across so many Departments and agencies that it is impossible to have a clear focus. The establishment of the road safety authority provides us with the opportunity to ensure a clear focus and bring the various responsibilities within the remit of a single body. I am not sure, however, that the sum of the Government and Opposition amendments will amount to the necessary structure.
I would have liked to have heard the Minister speak about the new agency and the actual role it will have in overseeing road safety activities, collecting data and setting targets. Ultimately, the new authority's critical function will be to champion road safety. Rather than allow it to get bogged down in a co-ordinating role, it would be preferable to provide it with a clear objective to drive road safety measures. While I hope that at the end of the process we will get such an authority, it is difficult to know at this point what will happen. Currently, the proposal is something of a camel, which is why it would be helpful if the Minister set out a clear vision of the role the new authority is to play.
I am ad idem with the Deputy on all points. It will become clear as we go through the amendments what the vision is for the road safety authority. The Deputy will recall that those involved in the National Safety Council correctly articulated strong views in the public domain on how they saw the road safety issue being handled. They made a number of the points the Deputy has made and I am acutely aware of them. Having examined them and the recommendations of the consultants, I was presented with the opportunity to expand substantially the remit of the original authority rather than go back to the mill with two separate Bills. There was a sense of urgency about the matter.
The Bill provides for the absorption of the National Safety Council's remit into that of the road safety authority. My aim is broaden the remit to cover a range of programmes, rather than just a strategy. I agree with the Deputy that benchmarks, targets and fixed timeframes will have to be set. I have put similar structures in place in most of the bodies with which I have been involved. There is also a need, however, for the authority to consider broader programmes on education and health, rather than adopt a narrow strategy. Many of the issues involved have been articulated in the public domain, not least by the Deputy. I wish to ensure the financing of the authority is the subject of a clear subhead, which has not previously been the case. While resources have been provided and I have ensured anything requested was provided, it will be useful to bring clarity to the budget.
I chair a group of Ministers with responsibilities in this area with a view to consolidating matters and its findings are reflected in the Bill. Its work will also be reflected in the forthcoming Road Safety (Traffic) Bill which will focus on further issues which have also been the focus of substantial discussion lately. What I want out of this process is an authority with a clear focus, a legal mandate, clarity in its responsibilities and the power to implement its strategy. It will be its responsibility not only to articulate the strategy but also to produce substantial and innovative proposals. I have had a number of meetings with its new chief executive, Mr. Noel Brett. Whatever my opinion, and it is a very high opinion, in the public domain he is well thought of by those involved in road safety. Mr. Eddie Shaw made that absolutely clear. He has discussed in broad terms with me how he sees the remit of the road safety authority. He has very innovative ideas which should form part of its remit. I want to provide for all that in legislation to ensure the authority's remit is broad, targeted and has the weight of law behind it so that it can do its job as it believes it should and there will be no divergence with the NRA being responsible for some statistics, the Garda responsible for others, and local authorities responsible for yet others. All aspects will be centred on the Road Safety Authority which will have the clear focus, direction and policy to deliver on a programme of work which will be clearly articulated in the public domain with clear targets set out. That is the way it should be done. In broad terms, that is how I see the road safety authority operating. Nothing mentioned this morning will not be encompassed.
Fine Gael is in favour of the road safety authority. Most people who listened to Mr. Eddie Shaw when he was before the committee would accept that there is a need for an authority with teeth that will be listened to. Fine Gael has tabled a number of amendments with which we will deal in due course.
I appreciate and accept most of what the Minister said. However, many of the provisions are designed to enable the Minister to exercise power by ministerial order rather than legislating to give powers to the road safety authority. That will create problems for the authority. The principle of a road safety authority is a good one. I have heard no argument against it. However, what is important is what it can do. The Minister mentioned meeting with other Ministers who will be involved. That is a problem that will come up time and again today because unless Mr. Brett and his authority have absolute power over certain aspects of road safety there will be an ongoing tug of war between the Departments. There have been several instances of this to which I will refer when moving the various amendments.
I do not understand why the Minister is not giving the authority real power through legislation rather than by providing for ministerial orders. It was the intention to have a concerted, focused programme organised and executed by the authority under Mr. Brett, with powers vested in the authority and the exercise of those powers not dependent on any Minister. Most members of this committee agreed with the principles enunciated by Mr. Eddie Shaw when he appeared before the committee. The Minister has stated that he is introducing most of those principles. However, they are being introduced in dribs and drabs. The central issue is what the authority will do, and Fine Gael has tabled important amendments which specify exactly what the authority will be able to do, irrespective of what any Government Department says. That is the link that is missing in the Bill.
I understand the Deputy but do not necessarily agree with him. There is a need for Ministers to make regulations on issues that arise from time to time. That is quite normal. I have discussed this issue with the chief executive who wanted to be absolutely sure that the powers required to drive forward this road safety authority, including not an option but a duty to raise public awareness, formulate policy and so on, are all contained in the Bill. It is not intended as a criticism, but a number of the Fine Gael amendments, while they are very important, have been tabled on the wrong Bill. They are much more relevant to the next Bill, which deals with the Road Traffic Acts than to this Bill, which is about establishing an authority and setting out its functions. It does not deal with the Road Traffic Acts. They will be dealt with in a new Bill which will deal with a range of issues. We will discuss all the amendments in any case. I do not disagree with the thrust of many of the amendments. There are EU and legal frameworks in which those responsibilities are set out. Some of those that are referred to need to be dealt with but it is not appropriate to do so under the heading of this Bill. We must be careful about that. We will deal with those issues as we go through the Bill.
A number of the amendments in this group are Fine Gael amendments. Does the Minister intend to respond to each of them?
I will respond to them if the Deputy wishes me to.
I would appreciate it if the Minister would refer briefly to them. My understanding is that on section 1 several amendments are linked.
Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 18, 29, 30, 52 and 57 to 62, inclusive, are being discussed together. As most of these are Fine Gael amendments, does Deputy Connaughton want the Minister to comment on them now?
I do.
The first Fine Gael amendment is amendment No. 29. The development of support for the penalty points system involves significant and ongoing consultation with all the State agencies involved, including the Garda Síochána, the Courts Service, the vehicle registration unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The system involved the establishment of data linkages between the national driver file and the relevant IT systems in the Garda Síochána and the Courts Service. An intrinsic part of this system is that all endorsements of penalty points on a licence record and all disqualifications are recorded on the national driver file. All the information on the driver file is available to the Garda Síochána. The Garda has never been involved in the surrender of driving licences. Driving licences were always surrendered through the courts to licensing authorities where a person was disqualified by the courts.
Recent media reports have suggested that there are loopholes in the administration of the penalty points system. This is not the case. Any driver who accumulates 12 penalty points is automatically disqualified for a period of six months under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. The person concerned is notified that they are disqualified and directed to surrender their licence to the appropriate licensing authority. It is an offence, therefore, under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 not to surrender a driving licence to a licensing authority. The disqualification is flagged on the national driver file and if a person is found to be driving while disqualified, they can be prosecuted again under section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 for driving without a driving licence. In order to ensure the Garda is aware of who has been disqualified we have agreed that copies of the disqualification notices should be sent to the Commissioner. We have agreed to do this. I thank those who raised the issue. In the circumstances, the amendment is no longer relevant.
Perhaps the Minister might clarify if the following is correct. It has been brought to my attention that often several months elapse before people are notified they have incurred penalty points having been caught speeding on camera. In such circumstances, a person could incur up to 20 penalty points without he, she or the State knowing and could continue to drive when he or she should no longer be doing so.
The Minister might also clarify if it is true there is a backlog in the numbers of driving licences awaiting endorsement. I have received many representations pointing out that people convicted for driving offences have not had their driving licences endorsed. We are trying to find a simpler way of addressing this issue. Perhaps we could provide that a person convicted for a driving offence be required to present his or her licence to the local Garda station for endorsement, as is the case in respect of car insurance. I ask the Minister to comment on this point.
The Deputy is speaking about the old system, pre-2002. Under current legislation, no licence is endorsed, even when a person is prosecuted through the courts. The endorsement of licences was abolished in 2002. Currently, such records are kept on the driver's file and everyone is aware his or her licence has been endorsed. I have not received any indication that many motorists are driving around the country unaware they have incurred penalty points. The procedure is that a person must act on an endorsement 28 days following receipt of a notice of disqualification. The notifications are swift, whether one is dealt with under the automatic penalty points system or the courts system. The system is clear, as are people's obligations under the law. Those who continue to drive following suspension of their licence are breaking the law and leaving themselves open to a further prosecution.
They may not be aware of it.
That is not possible.
That is the information I have received.
The information I have suggests that is not the case. Obviously, a person only becomes aware he or she has incurred penalty points when he or she receives a notice in that regard. However, notices are issued quickly and a person is given 28 days following receipt — a reasonable amount of time — to react to such a notice.
Let us return to the national driver file. What information is contained on it?
It contains the details of penalty points incurred and convictions secured for all drivers.
Will the new authority have control over it?
The national driver file will remain within the remit of the current body.
I am speaking about cohesiveness and integration as the central issue. What will be the connection between the new authority and the national driver file in terms of road safety?
The authority will have access to the national driver file. I presume the Deputy is not suggesting the road safety authority should be responsible for enforcement which is clearly a matter for the Garda Síochána and the courts. I am sure the Deputy would not wish the authority to become bogged down in such matters. It will have full access to the file, as is currently the case.
Where a person incurs the maximum 12 penalty points and this information is recorded on the national driver file, there is no mechanism by which the information can be relayed to the Garda. There is uncertainty about what the Garda needs to do to revoke a person's licence. There is a need for an obligation to be placed on a driver to present to the Garda his or her driving licence for endorsement. There is a gap in that while the information is recorded on the national driver file, there is no mechanism by which the Garda can inform itself of the situation. In the circumstances, what action would it be required to take?
The Garda Síochána has access to the national driver file. There is a grey area in terms of notification following the disqualification of a person from driving. I am providing that the Garda, at Commissioner level, will be automatically notified of such disqualifications. The Garda Síochána has never had a responsibility in revoking licences. It is responsible for prosecuting those who misbehave under the law. The information required by it is what gardaí can do if they stop a person who has incurred the maximum number of penalty points and should not be driving. The nub of the point raised by the Deputy has been dealt with.
Will the Minister explain what will happen in practice?
The Garda will be automatically notified of disqualifications. Previously, such information was notified to the licensing authority and the driver concerned. We are now adding a third strand to provide that such information will be automatically notified to the Garda Síochána.
What endorsement will be indicated on the licence?
Is the Deputy asking about physical endorsement of the licence?
Yes.
There will be no physical endorsement of licences. The procedure was changed in 2002.
What will be the position where a garda stops a driver and requests his or her licence? Will the licence contain information to illustrate the driver has been disqualified from driving?
No. Even where a person is disqualified by the courts from driving, this information will not appear on the licence.
Is that not a gap in the system? Would it not be helpful if, as proposed by Fine Gael, a driver was required to present his or her licence at the local Garda station for endorsement?
That was the position prior to 2002 and it was an enormous administrative burden on the system. Technology has moved so fast that automatic systems are now available. The new Garda computer system will contain all the relevant information on the national driver file. We have moved away from the requirement for drivers to queue up at the licensing authority to have their licences endorsed. That system was abolished four years ago. As correctly identified by the Deputy, the Garda should be notified at the same time as the licensing authority and the driver concerned of his or her disqualification from driving. This information will now be available to it.
Is it not crazy that where a person who has been disqualified from driving is stopped by a garda and asked to produce his or her licence, the licence will not contain any information on the endorsement? That it is not immediately obvious a person does not possess a valid licence represents a major loophole in this legislation.
There is a black spot on this legislation but the Minister appears not to see it.
My understanding is that a garda will be in possession of a hand-held computer. When a person is stopped and hands over his or her driving licence, the garda can enter the driver's name, registration number and driving licence and the information will be immediately available.
This can be done if a problem with the licence is suspected. Not every garda at every checkpoint will have such a hand-held device.
They will have thousands of such devices. Let us not make a mountain out of a molehill. I have seen such technology in use all over the world and it is quite simple to operate.
We have been talking about the PULSE system for years and it is still not working.
I was not responsible for that but the legislation we are introducing works everywhere. Let us not pretend that we do not have the capacity to obey the law. Deputy Connaughton is suggesting that people will not obey the law, risk further prosecution and continue driving when they have received 12 penalty points or been convicted of serious motoring offences. He also suggests that gardaí at checkpoints will not be in possession of the relevant information. Gardaí will automatically be in possession of information and will be able to act on any suspicions they may harbour.
I am surprised by what the Deputy is suggesting because neither Fine Gael nor the Labour Party raised this issue five years ago when this change was made to improve efficiency and quality of information. Far more information is available to gardaí than would be the case if people's driving licences were stamped. Every driver in this country has a file and all relevant information — including that relating to the number of penalty points accumulated or any disqualifications for serious driving offences — is available to the Garda Síochána.
A disqualified driver has 28 days to cease driving from the date on which he or she was notified. No evidence has been presented to me that those convicted in courts or with maximum penalty points continue to drive. If the Deputy possesses such evidence, I would appreciate it being passed on to me. Although people may refer to anecdotal evidence, the Garda Síochána has not presented such evidence to me. The new system, which comes on stream in April, will address the difficulty identified by Deputy Shortall, namely, the automatic notification of a driver's disqualification to the Garda Síochána. Previously, the individual and the licensing authority were automatically notified but this will now extend to the Garda Síochána. Information will be available to the key parties, particularly our enforcement authorities.
I disagree with the Minister's assumption about drivers and human nature. We must assume that considerable numbers of people will break the law unless it is adequately enforced and until penalties are imposed in respect of its been broken.
Such penalties exist.
The current level of enforcement is not adequate. There are almost 500,000 people driving on our roads who should not be doing so. Some 404,000 of them possess provisional licences and should certainly not be driving unaccompanied. Countless others do not have licences. There is a sense that driving in Ireland has become a free for all. Young people appear to believe that they need not be concerned about taking driving lessons or passing the driving test. This environment was created as a result of the failure of the Minister and his predecessor to implement a proper driver testing system. Many young people have lost all respect for driving because they are not obliged to undergo any training or testing.
We must learn lessons from the period subsequent to the introduction of penalty points. People were of the view that the law would be enforced properly for the first time and driving behaviour changed as a result. Very quickly, however, individuals realised that the law was not being enforced and reverted to old habits. People must have a clear understanding that if they take chances, they will be caught. However, that will not happen under the Minister's current proposals.
I do not accept that most gardaí will have hand-held computers that will be able to access drivers' records. Despite waiting umpteen years, a computer system to support penalty points is still not in place. Given the many problems associated with the PULSE system, I do not accept that the Garda's operations in this area will be fully computerised in the foreseeable future. The Minister asks why this cannot happen in Ireland if it happens everywhere else. This country seems to have a habit of cock-ups in respect of computer technology.
This discussion is not relevant to the amendments before us.
It is most relevant.
Due to what we agreed in respect of amendment No. 1, I have allowed some latitude. However, the Deputy's comments are not relevant to any amendments relating to this section.
It is outrageous that those who are disqualified after accumulating 12 penalty points can continue to drive. In theory, they are breaking the law but they have what appear to be clean driving licences. If a driver is stopped by a garda, the garda has no way of knowing——
That is simply not true. As usual, the Deputy is making it up as she goes along.
The Minister is assuming that every garda will have a hand-held computer but I do not accept that to be the case. It is incredible that those who have been disqualified from driving can pass themselves off as legitimate drivers to any garda by whom they are stopped. The Minister is allowing this to continue by refusing to provide for the physical endorsement of licences.
That practice ceased many years ago. The measures the Deputy proposes are old hat. Deputy Shortall takes the typical scaremongering approach to road safety. What she states is not true.
Will the Minister indicate why it is not true?
Deputy Shortall is suggesting that massive abuse of the penalty points and court systems is taking place and that people are driving illegally. I do not accept that because I have not seen substantial evidence to support the claim. I suspect Deputy Shortall cannot provide the evidence.
I did not use the word "massive". I stated that there is a system in place that does not work.
Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to respond.
A garda can ask a motorist to produce information at a station if he or she has any suspicion about the driver. It is not true to say that thousands of people are abusing the system.
I did not say that. The Minister is misrepresenting me.
Deputy Shortall stated that 400,000 people are abusing the system and have no respect for driving licences issued in Ireland. I do not agree with her. It is typical of Labour Party Deputies to state such nonsense. It is not true.
I stated that almost 500,000 people are driving without being qualified to do so.
The Deputy stated the people to whom she refers have no respect for the driving licences issued in this country.
I did not say that.
The Deputy cannot——
The Minister should stop misquoting me and making these tired points.
Allow the Minister to reply.
The Deputy wants it every way.
The Minister should stop making political points.
The Deputy is the person who started making political points, which——
No, that is not true.
——is typical of her approach to this issue.
One cannot have a system in which disqualified drivers can get away with driving.
Where is the Deputy's evidence? I do not have such evidence.
Where is the system to stop this happening?
There is a full enforcement system.
There is not.
A person is notified automatically of his or her disqualification. If he or she does not stop driving, he or she is open to further prosecution under the law. That is the position.
How are they detected?
They are detected by the Garda on the enforcement side. It is as simple as that. I agree there are issues about enforcement and I accept that there is a need to up our game very substantially on enforcement. I have no argument with the Deputy on that. However, I am dealing with policy and trying to set out fundamental policy changes, including a substantial new body, the road safety authority, to deal with those issues. The Deputy is introducing issues from the other side of the equation for which I do not have responsibility. I do not accept the tenor of the Deputy's suggestions as being the truth across the entire country.
We are speaking on a Fine Gael amendment. I have been contacted by a small number of people on this issue. No matter what happened previously, it is incumbent on us at Committee Stage to point out areas for improvement in the system.
The Fine Gael amendment was tabled because we saw a black spot in that it is possible for people who should not drive to do so. In other words, they should have been put off the roads. I have no idea whether this practice is widespead. I knew before I came to this committee that endorsements had finished some years ago but I do not see anything daft about this proposal. We hope the new system will work as every party in the House is committed to road safety. The Minister has not convinced me that our proposal is unworkable.
The Minister should note that the committee will follow up the issue of the famous hand-held computers the Garda is meant to have. The Minister stated the Garda could have 100,000 computers, which would be a lot for a force with only 12,000 or 13,000 members. Should we take it that this technology is available in every Garda station? Does every member of the Garda have a hand-held computer? The Minister must convince the committee they have.
We have moved from my responsibilities to those of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
No.
The Garda is responsible for enforcement but I do not have responsibility for the Garda. It is my understanding that these hand-held systems are available to every Garda station. If the Deputy wishes to take the matter further and get exact details, I suggest he submit questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Deputy is suggesting that the system whereby people have been brought before the courts over the past four years for serious breaches of road traffic law is not working. That system is separate from the penalty points system. That is news to me. We must have a balance. In all walks of life there are people who will try to break or avoid the law. Enforcement is the job of the Garda. What is the position of the vast majority of people? Do they accept the law? It is my confident view that they do. When they receive endorsements on their licences and are put off the roads, they accept it.
This amendment would mean going backwards in terms of how we do business to an old system from which we moved some years ago. The issue is about enforcement, which is a matter for the Garda, in which we either have confidence or do not. I understand the technology is in place.
Has the Minister ever received an estimate of the number of licences with endorsements or more than 12 penalty points at any one time?
I recently gave a figure of 52 people who have reached the limit and been notified of their disqualifications. The total number of notices issued under the penalty points system is 339,320.
Is that for people with 12 or more penalty points?
A total of 52 people have reached the 12 penalty points limit.
Does the Minister know how many licences have been endorsed?
Does the Deputy mean how many people are off the road?
People who did not want to go to court.
I do not have those figures in front of me.
I sympathise with the point made in relation to the stamping of licences. Last week, I was asked by an insurance company to bring in a licence so it could determine whether there were any endorsements or penalty points on the licence. If the number of people is small, it might not be a large administrative problem to have licences stamped in Garda stations. It is not always wrong to return to a former system that was proven to be good.
It was never in place as the Deputy suggested. A court stamped the licence.
The point I am making is that licences were stamped.
I am more perplexed than ever by the Minister's last answer. I have here a written answer to a parliamentary question submitted by Deputy Olivia Mitchell on Tuesday, 28 February to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in which he stated: "Information on the number of penalty points attaching to a driving licence is not available to the Garda Síochána through the PULSE system or on the hand-held units used by gardaí on traffic duty." It contrasts with the Minister for Transport's comments.
The new system to deal with a range of issues raised by the Garda will be introduced in April. If what the Garda is saying is as stated by the Deputy, it is a surprise. The new hand-held systems I saw have the capacity for all of that information. It is a matter for the Garda to work out how best it accesses the information available to it.
That is not what the Minister stated.
What did I say?
The Minister gave the impression the hand-held computers——
That was my understanding.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, does not agree.
He may have been speaking about facts to date while I am speaking about as and from April, when the system will be in place.
This discussion raises the overall question of what various Ministers are doing on road safety. Despite their Departments being centrally involved in the relevant legislation, it is obvious the Minister does not know what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is thinking. What we are doing may seem frivolous to the Minister. He spoke about it in a way which appeared to indicate that we are regressing to the dark ages and that this process is a waste of time. It is against this background that I——
We are also moving to a smart card system. How are we going to start endorsing smart card licences? We either embrace a more efficient way of doing business or we do not. We moved away from this some years ago. What the Deputy is stating is an utter exaggeration. I meet people every day who complain about receiving penalty points but they accept them and behave within the law. I do not meet people who say "To hell with the law" or who not observe it. Such an occurrence would be news to me and I do not believe it to be the case. That is a red herring.
Does the Minister believe that the reply by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to a question tabled by Deputy Olivia Mitchell is a red herring?
I did not say that. We are discussing the fact that a view is being expressed to the effect that a substantial number of people in this country are not observing the law in circumstances where they have been dealt with either by the courts or through the automatic disqualification mechanism under the penalty points system. I do not accept this.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that information on the penalty points attached to people's driving licences will be made available to An Garda Síochána through both the PULSE system and the hand-held units to which he referred earlier?
It is a matter for the Garda to access the information. The Deputy is asking if I will make the information available.
This matter involves cross-cutting.
We are running into a problem.
It is a big one.
As Chairman, I am running into a problem. This discussion is not relevant to the amendments before us. We decided at the beginning that members would be granted a fair amount of latitude during the debate.
I thought the Minister was replying to a Fine Gael amendment?
What is the number of the amendment?
Whatever number it is——
What is the number?
At the outset, the Chairman asked if I would like the Minister to reply in respect of the Fine Gael amendments.
I referred to amendments in the group we are discussing.
The Minister began his reply in that context.
To which amendment is the Deputy referring? If he indicates the number of the amendment, I will decide if the discussion is relevant to it.
The amendment relates to section 1.
To which of the amendments to section 1 is the Deputy referring?
When the Minister began——
I do not wish to be awkward but——
The Chairman asked earlier if I wanted the Minister to reply to the amendments and I stated that I did want him to do so. The Minister began to reply.
He began to reply to the amendments listed as being relevant to section 1.
That is when he mentioned that the Fine Gael amendment, as he saw it, was more appropriate to the next item of legislation.
Yes, that is exactly what he said.
He continued thereafter to comment on driving licences, endorsements, etc.
This matter is more relevant to section 5 and amendments Nos. 28 and 29 in the name of Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
On a point of order, we are dealing with the first grouping, which includes amendment No. 29.
Yes.
We are speaking on all the amendments in the group.
If members wish to take the amendments en bloc, I have no problem with that.
That is the idea of grouping amendments.
We will try to move on.
We are in order.
I will not dispute it.
We are trying to be helpful.
The central question, in terms of the policy, is whether the Garda has full access to all of the information it requires to enforce the law. That is absolutely the case. There is full access to the drivers' files and there is no barrier or grey area. The Garda has access to all information relating to individual drivers.
The question the Deputy is asking refers to law enforcement and how the Garda is proceeding in that regard. That is a matter for the Garda; it is not for me to decide.
I have no difficulty with the national driver file and I accept the Minister's statement on it as the truth. With regard to the information given to us about the hand-held devices——
It was my understanding——
——according to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that is not the case. When Mr. Eddie Shaw appeared before the committee, he discussed this matter and stated that one Minister does not know what the other is doing. I am not raising this matter because the Minister is in that position. The circumstances outlined by Mr. Shaw reflect what has been the state of play in this country for many years. We all thought the effort being made by the Minister through this new authority would eliminate that problem. On the day we are commencing Committee Stage proceedings, there is still a gulf between two Departments.
To what gulf is the Deputy referring?
The gulf is that as far as An Garda Síochána is concerned, access to information on the number of penalty points attaching to people's driving licences is not available to it through either the PULSE system or on the hand-held units used by officers on traffic duty. The Minister indicated earlier that the opposite is the case.
My understanding is that from April, when the system goes live and the new penalty points offences are activated, it would be accessible through the hand-held devices. I may be wrong but that is my understanding and it seems logical. I cannot understand why this would not be so. A highly sophisticated computer system should facilitate the display of information on the hand-held devices. I may well be at a point where the question answered represents the current scenario but where it will not be correct when the hand-held devices go live from April. I will need to confirm this for the Deputy.
We can set aside that matter for the moment. The issue under discussion is an important aspect of what we are doing. If it transpires that what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated is correct, our deliberations today will prove a waste of time.
I do not accept that. Any garda in the country can stop a driver and establish the current position of his or her licence. There is no question that this is not the case.
I wish to respond to that. Nobody is stating that this is a widespread issue or that it concerns large numbers. We, and the Garda, simply do not know what is the position as regards those 52 people who have been disqualified. All of these people could still be driving or the opposite may be the case.
Some have served their time and are back on the road. All those people would not be off the road at the same time.
It seems to make sense that if a garda stops a driver and asks for a licence, it should be obvious to the officer if that person has been disqualified from driving. It is well and good to speak of modern technology but the record of the Garda in matters of modern technology has not been good. The Minister made a categorical statement 30 minutes ago when he remarked that all the information was available. Deputy Connaughton has clarified that this is not the case and it is clear the Minister was under a misapprehension.
Would it make more sense for a driver to be obliged to present his or her licence to the Garda Síochána and have it stamped to indicate that he or she has been disqualified from driving for a period? By doing this, we could avoid cases where gardaí stop drivers, ask to see their licences but are unaware that they have been disqualified. That appears straightforward and there would not be large administrative problems.
I think such problems would arise.
I do not believe so. We are not considering massive numbers. We are discussing putting an obligation on people who would have already incurred 12 penalty points. There should be an obligation on such people to present their licences at Garda stations in order to have them endorsed.
What if they did not go to Garda stations to have their licences endorsed?
Further penalties would then be imposed.
We would then be in precisely the same position as currently proposed.
The Garda could also contact them.
That is the current position.
No, gardaí at checkpoints are not aware of the status of people's driving licences.
They will not be aware of the status of a licence if the driver chooses not to have his or her licence endorsed at a Garda station in the manner proposed by the Deputy. If the person chooses to disobey the law when he or she is informed of disqualification, one can probably presume that he or she will not bother going to a Garda station to have his or her licence endorsed. In that case, what would be the difference in terms of enforcement?
I presume the computer system in a local Garda station would indicate that a person who was supposed to present his or her licence had not done so.
That is precisely my point.
As matters stands, no action is required of anyone.
The Deputy's proposal intrudes into how the Garda Síochána manages its operational affairs, although I accept that it may be legitimate to do so.
The Minister is not responsible for the Garda but he gave a categorical assurance that the system works and it has since been proven that this is not the case.
Nothing has been proven.
While he may not be responsible for the Garda Síochána, the Minister is responsible for road safety and, therefore, it is incumbent on him to ensure that the penalty points system works. There is no guarantee that this is currently the case
In what sense?
On the grounds that a loophole exists.
What loophole?
When a person is disqualified, having been awarded the maximum number of penalty points, he or she can continue to drive around with a driving licence which does not indicate that he or she has been disqualified.
In such circumstances, the person would be breaking the law. If I understand Deputies Shortall and Connaughton — who expressed a legitimate point of view — correctly, they want to return to a version of the old system by requiring that everybody who receives penalty points must go before the courts to have their licence endorsed.
No, that is an incorrect interpretation.
The Deputies want them to go to Garda stations.
Yes.
They seek to impose a significant administrative burden on the Garda Síochána by providing that it endorse licences for a very small number of people who, as the Deputy appears to agree, choose not to obey the law.
The Minister appears to prefer a system in which such people are not detected.
The Deputy wants 330,000 people to trot into Garda stations.
No one has suggested such a high figure. The Minister should stop twisting what we are saying.
Will Deputy Shortall show some respect and allow the Minister to reply?
The Chairman should not allow the Minister to distort what members are saying.
I have no problem with the Deputy responding to the Minister but she interrupts every time he tries to answer her questions.
Everyone concerned has access to all the required information. Files on every driver in the State, which contain information on penalty points, court convictions and so forth, are available to the Garda Síochána. Every driver is immediately informed of penalties endorsed on his or her licence, as are the Garda and the licensing authorities. The Garda Síochána has all available information at its disposal. The question of how this information is managed to maximum effect is an administrative matter for the Garda authorities. Like the Deputy, I wish to ensure that every possible effort is made to enforce the rules.
I do not have substantial evidence of any significant abuse of the law in this area. If a person, having been informed that he or she is disqualified, chooses to ignore the law by driving, he or she will face further penalties if caught by the Garda. If a person is prepared to break the law in the first instance, he or she will hardly trot down to the local Garda station to have his or her licence endorsed. Deputies Shortall, Connaughton and I share similar views on this issue and they are correct that a few people will always choose to break or ignore laws. The Garda Síochána, through its enforcement regime, will filter such persons out of the system and prosecute them when they are caught.
Will the Minister comment on the other amendments?
On amendment No. 30, section 60 of the Finance Act 1993 was amended by section 86 of the Finance Act 1994. It provides for the establishment, by the Minister and the licensing authorities, of joint records, the form of records, the source of information held in the records and the format in which the records can be held. The proposed amendment refers to a section which no longer exists.
Will the Minister comment on amendment No. 52?
I dealt with amendments Nos. 1, 7, 18, 52, 58 and 59 together and amendments Nos. 29 and 30 separately. On Deputy Shortall's amendments to amendment No. 58, the purpose of the Bill is to establish a road safety authority. It is entirely inappropriate to amend the Road Traffic Acts in the context of this legislation. As already stated, I propose to introduce a road traffic (amendment) Bill to address general road traffic issues.
This Bill is part of the panoply of legislation dealing with road safety. The proposed road safety authority will not be a separate entity, with no connection to road safety legislation.
While I accept the Deputy's point, the purpose of the legislation is to establish the road safety authority. A further Bill will come within the bracket of all other road traffic legislation. The forthcoming legislation would be a more appropriate forum for discussion of many of the amendments with which we dealt in recent weeks.
In amendment No. 30, my party colleague, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, proposes the insertion of a new section. Will the Minister comment on that amendment?
The amendment proposes to change a section in the Finance Act which no longer exists and which cannot, therefore, be amended.
To which section is the Minister referring?
Section 60 of the Finance Act 1993 was amended by section 86 of the Finance Act 1994. The section referred to in amendment No. 30 no longer exists. I presume that a misunderstanding has arisen.
That may be the case but I understand that the amendment refers to the creation of a road accident investigation unit.
No, the amendment to which the Deputy is referring was ruled out of order.
Two amendments were disallowed because they have financial consequences.
A road accident investigation unit would be an extremely important body.
That matter has no relevance to amendment No. 30.
Would such a body be relevant to the Bill?
No.
Would it be relevant to the road traffic legislation the Minister proposes to introduce?
The Deputy is referring to a disqualified amendment, the text of which I do not have to hand.
Such a unit could carry out important research into the reasons for road traffic accidents. I was also of the view that it could be part of the new authority's remit.
Amendment No. 32 is the relevant one but it has been disqualified because it imposes a financial charge.
I have no intention of delaying proceedings on this point——
I merely wished to explain why I was obliged to rule the amendment out of order.
——but I cannot understand why the research function is not part of the authority's remit.
There is a major research element involved. The NRA already possesses research functions, all of which will be transferred to the RSA. The Chairman has explained why the particular amendment at issue has been ruled out of order.
Under Standing Orders, we cannot discuss it.
Leaving that matter aside, I wish to ask the Minister about the issue involved.
We must proceed to section 5. Deputy Connaughton may make his points on the refusal to take amendment No. 32 at that stage.
That is fine. I am in the Chairman's hands.
We will allow the Deputy to speak then.
On foot of the differences of opinion between the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Transport, however, I intend to seek a division on amendment No. 1.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl; 4.
Tá
- Brady, Martin.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Ellis, John.
- Glennon, Jim.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- Power, Peter.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
Níl
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Healy, Séamus.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Ryan, Eamon.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
""Act of 1961" means the Road Traffic Act 1961;".
The purpose of the Bill is to establish the road safety authority and amend section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. The instruction to the committee which was agreed by the House yesterday states that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Transport that it has power to make provision in the Bill to provide for the establishment of the road safety authority, to provide for a change in the name of the Bill to the Road Safety Authority Bill and to amend section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 to provide for the procedures in section 9 to apply to bilateral arrangements between member states before the convention on driving disqualifications comes into force. In this context, the Bill cannot be used to substantially amend the Road Traffic Acts which constitute a legal framework for the regulation of traffic, vehicles and drivers. The amendment seeks to include a reference to the Road Traffic Act 1961 in the context of such amendments. I ask, therefore, that it be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Shortall. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are related. Amendments Nos, 4, 47 and 48 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "2001" and substitute "2005".
All of these amendments relate to the same issue, the correction of a drafting error. The Bill refers to the Companies Act 2001. The amendments would update the reference to take account of the Companies Act 2005.
I will accept the amendments. However, I advise the committee that I will bring forward an amendment dealing with the definition of "company" on Report Stage which will remove reference to dates in accordance with the provisions of the Interpretation Act 2005 which will allow the Companies Acts to be referred to collectively without reference to the dates of the Acts.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 25 to 27.
This amendment deletes the definition of "functions" as such definition is covered in the Interpretation Act 2005.
Amendment agreed to.
The next amendment is amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Olivia Mitchell. Amendments Nos. 8 to 15, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related. Amendments Nos. 6, 8 to 15, inclusive, and 40 and 41 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
""informative sign" means an upright sign which gives information in regard to a road, including the places to which the road leads and the distances to or from such places, as described by Article 3 of the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1962;".
Will the Minister comment on this amendment?
Deputy Mitchell has presented a range of proposals to the existing Road Traffic Acts relating to the legal determination of traffic signs. In addition, she has presented proposals that would see the road safety authority engage in a specific supervisory role in regard to such signs. The Road Traffic Acts present a very specific supervisory role in relation to them. The Acts present a very comprehensive legislative framework relating to traffic signs generally. The framework provides the Minister for Transport with specific powers to determine the design, purpose and provision of such signs. Clear, concise, yet comprehensive definitions of regulatory warning and information traffic signs are set out in the Acts. Regulatory signs supported directly by regulations made by the Minister encompass upright signs, the vast majority of road markings and all traffic lights. All of these signs have a direct relationship to the application of traffic regulations and certain provisions contained in sections of the Acts. The determination of all other traffic signs, including signs depicting route numbers, is set out in a direction given by the Minister for Transport under the Acts which also provide a clear statement on the general responsibility of road authorities in the provision of all traffic signs.
The amendments proposed by Deputy Mitchell would give rise to the promotion of significant change to the current legislative determination for traffic signs. This would have immediate potential for calling into question the legislative basis for the application of key traffic safety and traffic management provisions, including speed limits. Ensuring the adequacy of the provision of traffic signs and their maintenance is a matter for road authorities. To assist them and bring greater certainty and clarity to traffic signs generally, my Department is engaged in consultation with the National Roads Authority, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the County and City Managers' Association in the development of a comprehensive new traffic signs manual. It is hoped the new manual will be available by the end of this year. In the circumstances I suggest the Deputy consider withdrawing her amendments.
I wish to bring a number of issues to the Minister's notice. The reason for tabling the amendments is that there is an unevenness about road signs across the country. Wherever the directions are coming from, it appears many local authorities are singing from different hymn sheets. How does this fit with the new road safety authority? What say will it have? Does the Minister agree that the authority should have overall responsibility for providing whatever signs are necessary?
I do not disagree with the Deputy's central point. We need a much more cohesive approach to traffic signs. That is why the National Roads Authority, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Transport and the County and City Managers' Association are in the process of developing a very comprehensive new traffic signs manual which will be available later this year. The Deputy is correct in identifying the various bodies and the problem of where responsibility should lie. I want to have an overall cohesive approach to signage. That is why the manual is being put together.
Who has overall responsibility for the manual?
I do.
Is it not reasonable to ask why that responsibility should not be transferred to the road safety authority? Should this not form part and parcel of what it does?
That is a regulatory function and the responsibility to make regulations remains with the Minister. Signage is not as good as it could be. That is why we are in the process of producing a comprehensive traffic signs manual for the entire country. We are dealing with the various bodies involved. The local authorities, the County and City Managers' Association and the Department all have responsibilities. We are designing the manual which should substantially improve the situation. At is a regulatory function, responsibility will, therefore, remain with me as Minister for Transport.
Why did the Minister not see fit to transfer the function to the Road Safety Authority? Why is it not possible to do this?
The road safety authority will not have a regulatory function. That will remain with the Minister.
Why will the road safety authority not be able to do so?
It will not be a body with the power to make regulations.
That is another flaw in the system.
I do not accept that. The Deputy asks if we are improving signs and the answer is that the process is under way. Bodies with a view on the matter are collaborating to ensure we can produce a comprehensive traffic signs manual for the entire country. The power to make regulations can only rest with the Minister. It cannot be transferred to others outside the Oireachtas as they would have no means to lay regulations before the Houses.
Who will implement these diktats?
The local authorities will do so.
They will revert to their old systems, believing themselves to be independent republics. How will the new authority deal with this?
I return to the central point — there is a need for a comprehensive, consistent system that every local authority will be obliged to use. Local authorities have had this power since 1961.
In many cases they have made a poor job of it.
That is why the manual is being introduced. It is not correct to state local authorities have made a bad job of it but I agree there are inconsistencies. We need a substantial improvement in the quality of road signs.
I am not satisfied we are on the right track. What will happen if local authorities decide to ignore the diktats of the Department? How can we ensure these measures will be implemented on a standard basis in order that if one drives across the border between County Sligo and County Leitrim, the system of signs will not change? Confusion will result if we do not do this. What will ensure the new system will be better, given that the road safety authority will not have an input?
We need a cohesive, comprehensive system, to which every local authority will be obliged to adhere. That was not the case. To rectify this we are introducing a comprehensive road traffic signs manual in order that everyone will sing from the same hymn sheet. If the new road safety authority raises matters and suggests they be addressed, the Minister will be able to correct obvious problems. However, certain regulatory and legislative functions cannot be transferred to the authority. This matter is one of a range of issues that have been flagged and must be addressed. The bodies responsible are already working on a new traffic signs manual.
I assume it will introduce a degree of co-ordination. Like many Members, I was a member of a local authority for a considerable period of time. I heard the same matters raised 20 years ago but see no improvement in road signs which are getting bigger. However, there is no co-ordination between local authority areas. I have no doubt the manual will create a level playing pitch but worry about how these proposals will be implemented. During the years Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government from various parties did not standardise road signs.
The draft document was sent to local authorities last November. Therefore, much progress has been made. Local authorities are competent but they may not have received the direction they needed.
They did not know what was going to happen across county borders.
Yes, that is why the County and City Managers' Association and local authorities are being included in the scheme to ensure we achieve consistency. No one has suggested there is anything but support for this measure across all local authorities. The manual will ensure that if one crosses from one county to another, there will be no change in the approach to road signs. Drafts have been provided for local authorities. The chapter dealing with this issue was given to them in November.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 31 and 32.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 8 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, lines 4 to 16, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—(1) An order or regulation made pursuant to this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either such House resolves that the order or regulation be annulled within 21 days after the order or regulation is so laid it shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.
(2) Within 1 month from the making of an order or regulation under this Act, and without prejudice to the operation of the Statutory Instruments Act 1947, a copy of the order or regulation shall be published on the Minister's website and shall be delivered to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport.".
The purpose of the amendment is to provide greater information on secondary legislation for Members. We spend much time debating and passing legislation in the Houses but it is often secondary legislation that makes a difference. However, there is no formal system for notifying people when secondary legislation such as regulations and statutory instruments is signed by the Minister.
The first part of my amendment is covered by amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister but the second paragraph would provide for better communication. It is difficult to keep track of changes made by way of statutory instruments and determine whether a statutory instrument has been signed by the Minister. This makes it difficult for Members to follow what is happening.
The amendment would provide for a simple requirement that, when the Minister signs a statutory instrument, it be published on the Department's website and that an official notification be sent to this committee informing us when it will be in place. The amendment has been tabled purely for reasons of ensuring better communication and awareness of the up-to-date position on legislation, would benefit many Bills and be of assistance to Members generally and those researching issues to do with legislation on our behalf. Will the Minister consider accepting it?
I have no issue with the amendment or the points made by the Deputy but the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel is that I should not accept the amendment as it would move away from established practice. I do not want to introduce a new system. I will discuss the amendment further and return to it on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister.
Most of that should happen anyway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 4, lines 19 to 22, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"3.—(1) There stands established on the establishment day a body to be known, in the Irish language, as an tÚdarás um Shábháilteacht ar Bhóithre or, in the English language, as the Road Safety Authority, and in this Act referred to as the Authority.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 28, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 19 to 28, inclusive, will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—(1) The Authority has such functions in respect of certificates of competency, test certificates and registration of driving instructors as conferred on it in accordance with the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004.
(2) The Minister may by order confer on the Authority such functions of the Minister under section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 or 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 or section 36 (6), (7) or (8) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as specified in the order and, accordingly, a reference to the Minister in a provision so specified or connected with it includes a reference to the Authority.
(3) Every function of the Minister conferred on the Authority continues to be vested in the Minister, but is so vested concurrently with the Authority and the Minister so as to be capable of being exercised or performed by either of them.
(4) The Minister may by order require the Authority to carry out any or all of the following functions:
(a) such advisory, executive, administrative and organisational functions as may be specified in the order in respect of driving and provisional licences (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961), standards related to the registration, construction, equipment, use, testing and examination of vehicles and their components and replacement parts, including standards for the type approval of new vehicles and vehicle components and standards for vehicles already in use; and
(b) the promotion of public awareness of road safety and of measures, including the advancement of education, relating to the promotion of the safe use of roads, including co-operation with local authorities and other persons in this regard.
(5) The Minister may by order confer on the Authority the power—
(a) to appoint transport officers for the purposes of section 15 of the Road Transport Act 1986, and
(b) to bring and prosecute summary proceedings for offences as set out in section 17, or as specified by the Minister by order under section 18(1) (b), of the Road Transport Act 1986.
(6) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section (including an order under this subsection).
(7) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it.".
This amendment replaces section 4 and provides for additional functions to be assigned to the Road Safety Authority. The proposed changes are intended to bring within one single authority activities currently under the auspices of the Department of Transport or its agencies that are focused on improving driver and vehicle standards and the promotion of road safety.
Subsection (1) provides that the Road Safety Authority will have functions in relation to driving tests, vehicle testing and registration of instructors which will be designated in regulations made under the Road Traffic Acts. The Road Safety Authority will be the issuing authority for certificates of competency following successful completion of driving tests, test certificates certifying that vehicles meet test standards on successful completion of a vehicle test and an approved body which can issue instruction certificates for the purpose of regulating driving instructors.
Subsection (2) provides that the Minister may, by order, provide that notifications of fixed charge payments from the Garda Síochána and convictions from the Courts Service for the purpose of endorsing penalty points or disqualifications on a person's licence record may be processed through the Road Safety Authority. The Minister's functions under section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 relating to the operation of the EU convention on mutual recognition of driving disqualifications may also be conferred on the Road Safety Authority. However, subsection (3) makes it clear that functions of the Minister conferred on the authority continue to be vested in the Minister and may also be exercised by the Minister should the need arise. This provision relates to functions conferred under section 2 and, in particular, section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 relating to the operation of the EU convention on mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. We are advised that, as these functions relate to the operation of an international convention, they should remain vested in the Minister.
Subsection (4) sets out functions the Minister may require the Road Safety Authority to carry out. Subsection (4)(a) enables the Road Safety Authority to carry out functions relating to driving and provisional licences and vehicle standards currently carried out by the Department. In the case of licensing, blank licences are issued to licensing authorities and the operation of the licensing system, including the driver theory test, the application of penalty points and disqualifications, is monitored.
A wide range of functions relating to vehicle standards that are technical in nature and include type approval and construction, equipment and new standards will transfer to the Road Safety Authority. Subsection (4)(b) provides that the road safety functions of the National Safety Council will be carried out by the Road Safety Authority. The authority’s primary focus will be to promote greater coherence in the advancement of road safety generally. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that the authority should adopt the lead role in the promotion of road safety awareness by building on the excellent work of the National Safety Council.
Subsection (5) allows the enforcement functions under the Road Transport Act 1986 to be conferred on the Road Safety Authority. These relate to the enforcement of road haulage licences, working time directives, driver hours and digital tachography.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 19:
In subsection (1), after "driving" to insert "schools and".
I am not clear. In the original Bill one of the functions was the testing of mechanically propelled vehicles. I am not sure what role the Minister sees for the new authority in that area as it is difficult to know where the authority would fit in respect of the NCT contract. The NCT contractors are answerable, as it were, to the Department. I propose in amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 19 that in subsection (1) we insert the words that the authority "shall make recommendations to the Minister on the implementation and supervision of the national vehicle testing contract". It is important that the authority should have a role. I am unsure as to whether the Minister is still proposing that the contract for vehicle testing should be between the Minister and his Department and the contractor or if the new authority will have a role in the matter.
The new authority will have a role.
That is not specified in the amendment. The existing contract is with the Department.
There is power in the Bill to transfer it to the road safety authority. The Deputy's point is correct and the provision is included in the Bill.
I could see how that would be the case in relation to future contracts——
It is the right approach.
——but I am asking about the current contract and what role the authority will have. It should be specified.
It is provided for in section 33 which addresses the preservation of certain continuing contracts. Not only is the Deputy right in terms of what will happen in the future but the existing system can also be taken over and absorbed. I have provided for this in the Bill as it makes more sense for the authority to take over the functions completely.
The authority will not necessarily have a monitoring role. It may take over responsibility for the contract but what about vehicle testing?
I presume the authority will set performance standards. It would not be a case of taking over the contract and doing nothing about it. The authority will set performance standards and examine new ways of setting them.
It would be better and more effective if the measure was specified in the Bill. The Minister may express a view here but that may not be the way in which the matter will be interpreted in the future.
I will go back over the matter which has been well covered. If I need to specify, I will return to the issue on Report Stage. I am unsure specifying is necessary, but if there is confusion or doubt, I will correct the situation.
It is specified that the new authority will have responsibility for driving instructors. However, we must also include driving schools. Each instructor should be obliged to register. If someone sets up a school, it should be registered. The same issue arises in relation to pharmacies. There is a tendency to establish schools rather than individuals operating as instructors. We should include driving schools in the provision.
Driving schools are covered by other forms of law such as company law, etc. The Deputy is correct in that there is not a specific provision in terms of specifying a direct function of the road safety authority.
Will the Minister consider making a provision? I do not see an argument against it.
In principle, I do not have an issue with setting down standards for driving schools and someone having a monitoring role in that respect. I have not provided for this in the Bill. I am unsure whether it is necessary to do so, given the other forms of law, but I will consider and examine the matter.
I propose a third amendment to the Minister's amendment, which would insert the words "but notwithstanding the transfer of functions to the Authority, the Minister shall be accountable to Dáil Éireann for the general policy of the Authority". It appears from the Minister's earlier amendment, where responsibility will be retained for various functions, that he will be accountable to the Dáil, both for the functions and performance of the authority. All of us in opposition — perhaps the Minister in time, if he is ever in opposition — experience frustration in attempting to find out information on activities carried out by a State agency, with the response from a Minister being that he or she is not accountable to the Dáil. It is an important principle to establish that the Minister, given the importance of the road safety issue, will continue to be accountable to the Dáil for what is happening in this area.
There is no doubt that the Minister of the day will give policy directions and be accountable for them. The CEO of the new road safety authority will clearly be accountable for the matters for which he will be responsible.
Will the Minister accept that amendment?
No. I will not do anything with the Bill that will change the overall approach. I am not sure the amendment is necessary in the way it is being phrased by the Deputy. The Minister of the day will retain responsibility for many functions and will be held accountable for them. I do not wish to put myself in a position where the Minister of the day will become accountable for the daily operations of the road safety authority. That may be a moot point.
Will the Minister give an assurance that once the authority is up and running some time next year, if the Opposition table a question asking about its performance, the reply will not state it is a matter for the authority?
That would depend on the question asked. I do not want to put the CEO in a difficult position. He will either have responsibility or he will not. I cannot pretend he has and then abrogate it.
I am not suggesting that.
I have no issue with going into the Dáil to answer questions on road safety. I do not see a time when a Minister will not answer questions on the issue.
This is a new authority and I am dealing with questions about its performance.
There is no doubt the Deputy will be able to get questions tabled to the Minister or in other fora relating to the authority's performance. I do not wish to cross a line on some issues where it is clear that the chief executive of the new authority will have responsibilities. There is no doubt the chief executive will be held accountable before an Oireachtas committee. I do not wish to place the Minister of the day in a position where he or she will be accountable for many of the chief executive's functions where the chief executive should be held directly accountable. There is no doubt the chief executive will be accountable to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport.
That is fine in theory, but in practice a State agency may be called to appear before a committee once a year. Members can get information in this way. Issues relating to the performance of agencies arise throughout the year. For the Dáil to work effectively, it is important that the Minister in question should be in a position to provide relevant information.
I am happy to provide answers to all of the questions that it is appropriate for me to answer in the Dáil, or before this committee. I have no issue with this. It is important that the chief executive of the day should feel he or she is accountable to a committee. It is important that the person concerned should not feel the role does not matter as the Minister will answer all the questions asked.
I am not suggesting that.
There is a line between the two and I do not propose to change it.
The Minister providing information for the Dáil——
The Bill provides for this also.
——would not diminish the role, authority or responsibility of the chief executive.
I would not think so. It has not crossed my mind that I will have a diminished role in the Dáil in answering questions.
That has been the tendency in recent years. One can look at the example of the HSE. It is almost impossible for Members to get information on health related issues. The buck is always passed by the Minister to the HSE, if it replies to the question asked. I do not want to encounter a similar scenario with the new authority.
Deputy Shortall's point is very important. Since the Minister entered political life, it has been getting increasingly difficult to get answers to Dáil questions on various issues in which the public has a significant interest. I would like him to consider this amendment further. The regime may be similar to that of the Health Service Executive or the NRA. I find it almost impossible to get answers to questions required by the public which it is entitled to receive. Once this system is changed, it will become flawed. The Dáil question and the answer to it are the bedrock of the system. I would like to think that the Minister who is chiefly involved in this process will be in a position to answer most of the questions emanating from the initiation of this body and how it will impact on the public.
The Deputy is raising a wider question relating to parliamentary procedure which I cannot resolve in the Bill. I am clearly stating that, from my own perspective as Minister, I would welcome the opportunity to answer questions relating to my responsibilities in the area of road safety. It is important — although some functions will be transferred — that I will retain authority and the functions vested in me. I will answer relevant questions. However, I will not do the job of the chief executive also. Either we have somebody in charge of an organisation which is independent to some degree and has a voice and legislative base or we do not. That body and the individual responsible for it must be held accountable in the public domain. It is provided for in the Bill that the person concerned will be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas through this committee.
There are other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 4 to the Minister's amendment relates to the National Safety Council. It is not specified in the Bill that it will be subsumed into the new authority. My understanding is that the NSC was established under the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971. There is a need to repeal this Act.
It is an establishment order under the Act which I am revoking.
Where is the reference to the revocation?
It is not required. I have dealt with the movement of the National Safety Council into the road safety authority. It is an establishment order which I have revoked.
Where is the Minister revoking the order?
I do not have to legislate for this. It does not have to be provided for in the Bill. The committee may note that subsection (4)(b) addresses the core functions in respect of the promotion of road safety and, in general, the education of road users. The wording reflects provisions contained in the establishment order for the National Safety Council, the remit of which will pass to the Road Safety Authority. It is my intention to formally revoke the order through the exercise of my powers under the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971. While I appreciate the overall thrust of the amendments proposed by Deputies Shortall and Olivia Mitchell, I suggest the outcomes they seek are being adequately sought.
Amendment No. 28 is a technical amendment to update the citation.
It relates to the new section 4.
I assume we are discussing amendments Nos. 19 to 28, inclusive.
Yes.
The Minister has indicated that the new authority will have responsibility for the management and standard of driver testing in Ireland. Is that correct?
Yes.
Did the Minister say the functions of the authority are to review and update the driving and driver theory tests to ensure each examination will conform to international best practice? Will the driver testing process reflect safe driving practices?
Absolutely.
The Minister has also said each examination will have regard to the needs of persons who are hearing impaired. Does this include persons who do not speak English or Irish as defined in the Official Languages Act 2003, as well as people with hearing difficulties?
Are we not dealing with amendment No. 33?
No. I am referring to amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 24 reads:
In page 4, subsection (1)(b), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"(v) education of drivers, and promotion of educational and information campaigns for safe and responsible driving,".
It is, therefore, relevant.
I would like to believe the authority will deal with those problematic cases in a humane way. I also hope people with a physical disability will be catered for.
They already are.
A detailed report on the results should include information not only on whether candidates passed or failed the test but also on what errors they made. This is happening to some extent but under the proposal a candidate would be notified after failing a test of the areas requiring improvement, as well as how he or she can reapply. It might seem normal practice to us but many are confused on how the system works. The amendment would ensure the new authority would bring clarity to the procedure.
I agree with the Deputy.
It also proposes that the authority should produce an updated drivers' training manual on a regular basis, containing the rules of the road, advice on safe driving, etc. I understand from the Minister that the authority will do this.
Yes, in addition to the powers it has been given, the authority has been given a general duty to explore all the issues mentioned and provide for improvements as necessary.
Can we go a step further and consider driver testers? Will the authority have responsibility for their training?
It will.
Will it regulate driver testers and maintain a register of those who qualify to conduct official driving tests?
Yes. The driver testing provisions were included in the original Bill and have been subsumed into the Road Safety Authority Bill.
Will testers have to undergo regular quality control testing?
They are constantly training and updating.
Will this form part of the authority's remit?
It will. The new road safety authority will consider the adequacy of the training provided and make whatever improvements are needed. It has the general powers and duties to work out what needs to be addressed.
What would I have to do if I wanted to start a school of motoring?
That is a different issue. Somebody who wants to teach people to drive can set up with just a full driving licence. The road safety authority will introduce a register for schools and individual instructors. A suggestion was made that the authority should set standards. I would be in favour of this. There should be a regime, to which everyone should have to adhere. The authority can consider this.
Will it? It has been sought for a long time.
A consultation paper will be issued from my Department to all interested parties shortly. The road safety authority will be able to study it.
I will ask questions on two issues. As the Minister knows, there has been in place a voluntary register for driving instructors for several years, the introduction of which was funded by his Department. Many who underwent training are concerned about their future. Will a new regime be put in place or does the Minister intend to recognise the existing register? People are worried that they will have to revert to square one.
I will not do this in an arbitrary way. A consultation paper is being prepared on all these issues. There will have to be full consultation. I want the outcome to be a plan agreed by all parties.
Does the Minister accept the principle that he should recognise the existing register and that people jumped through hoops to become listed?
We should engage in the consultation process. I am not saying I do not recognise the register, if that is what the Deputy is asking. However, we need to improve it and allow the consultation process to decide how we should proceed. The Deputy and I are trying to ensure standards will be high and set higher. We must consult widely to ensure both sides will know what the other wants, to determine how we should proceed and why we need higher standards.
It is important to recognise the work of those involved in this area who have been trying to raise standards.
I do.
What will be the status of driver testers under the new arrangements?
A Civil Service structure exists at present. This presents certain constraints. Under the legislation, it will change to a public service structure and create an organisation with far greater ability to do the job.
Will industrial relations issues arise?
These are being discussed. I have encountered issues of this nature in respect of various bodies. They are being addressed. There will be engagement with the unions. The Deputy is referring to changing from Civil Service status to public service status.
Setting up a new agency and changing the status of staff in this way is generally covered in legislation, with guarantees provided in respect of maintaining conditions of employment.
That is set out in section 16, which protects staff tenure.
Does the Minister expect this to progress relatively smoothly?
Although people have legitimate concerns when such changes are introduced, when they are reassured that their position is not being changed, they accept the proposed changes. Staff of the new road safety authority realise that this is a major opportunity to be part of a fundamental body. Staff see this as an opportunity to have greater authority across the entire road safety spectrum. It is not seen as a threat.
In recent years, the waiting list for driver testing has grown and the number of testers was capped, a development I could never understand. Will the cap on recruitment continue to apply under the new arrangement?
No, we are training more testers and a further ten will enter the system in a few weeks. The backlog clouds the matter somewhat. I have been trying to reach agreement with unions in the past eight months, including attending the Labour Court conciliation and undertaking the arbitration process. This staff increase is for a fixed period to attempt to remove the backlog. When the backlog is removed, the existing number of testers will be able to implement the current procedure for obtaining licences.
The additional ten testers were granted as a concession by the Department of Finance.
Yes, we filled some vacancies and there are also some additional staff members.
Will the cap imposed by the Department of Finance continue to apply?
There is a general cap on recruitment.
Will it continue to apply to this service when it comes under the remit of the authority?
We have sufficient staff for the road safety authority. We have had extensive discussions with the Department of Finance so that agreement could be reached on the staff needed to ensure the new authority functions. We are satisfied with the staff — numbering approximately 300 — recruited to the new road safety authority.
Ten staff members were recruited from a recent intake. A large number of people applied for these posts.
Some 2,000 applied. It is obviously attractive employment.
That is seemingly the case. A number have been informed that they are on a waiting list of 80.
From 2,000 applicants, 80 were chosen and are being tested but more people will be employed on a contract basis.
Are all 80 expected to be employed if they are suitable?
No, ten will be employed, with seven more being trained at present. These were deemed suitable to be transferred from the Department of Agriculture and Food.
What cohort of testers is needed to reduce the backlog?
The Minister for Finance was supportive in providing additional resources, such as a bonus package for driver testers. We need a limited outsourcing element to contribute to resolving this problem. The three-pronged approach involves increasing the number of testers, hiring some contract workers, providing a bonus package for testers and outsourcing a specific number of tests for a limited period to reduce the backlog. We must reduce the backlog as soon as possible.
The road safety authority cannot consider changing the licensing regime with such a backlog. We must reduce it so that people can sit the test within weeks of applying for it. At that point, substantial changes could be made to the licensing system and many interesting ideas have been proposed recently on the type of licensing system we could put in place.
The number of staff to which the Minister refers could not possibly make an impact on the backlog in the next two to three years. This should be considered in the context of the numbers applying for the posts.
The backlog could be cleared within 18 months if the package proposed to existing driver testers for weekend work and night work, with overtime and bonuses paid for extended hours, was agreed and if the proposed number of outsourced tests was agreed. We considered this before offering the package and I would not wish the process to take two or three years. The maximum timeframe was 18 months, although I would it like it to happen more quickly. If this measure had been agreed when it was proposed eight months ago, we would have made significant progress by now. I had hoped this would be the case as the package offered to our driver testers was very attractive. I must adhere to certain procedures, such as the Labour Court conciliation and arbitration. Although I wish people would not take such an approach, they are entitled to do so.
Nobody would deny them the right to do so. At present, waiting periods are increasing.
The waiting periods are substantial and this is an unacceptable situation for which I offer no defence. After applying for the test, it should take a maximum of six weeks for a person to complete it.
It has been suggested that people will have to wait a year for driving tests.
In some cases the waiting period is 54 weeks and this is unacceptable. I have had a proposal to deal with this problem for the past eight months and I have been trying to reach agreement with the unions to implement it. Serious road safety implications exist and I, therefore, wish to have this matter resolved. I do not accept that an amnesty should apply to those awaiting tests. A framework exists to test people, process their applications and end the backlog within the next 18 months. With a modern system, the capacity exists to examine the licensing structures that obtain and the new regimes that could be introduced. I am of the view that such regimes are necessary.
It is difficult to know how the Minister arrived at the figure for the number of testers that will be required on a permanent basis. The waiting time for a driving test is more than a year in some places. However, the number on the waiting list for a driving test represents only one third of drivers on provisional licences. How did the Minister arrive at the number of testers required in his projections?
It is difficult to understand why 16,000 fewer tests were carried out last year compared to 2004. Given that the number of testers remains static, is there an issue in regard to productivity?
It was flagged at the time that a significant number of testers were on heavy goods vehicle training, which had to be done last year, the impact of which was to reduce the number of tests carried out. As the Deputy rightly points out, this led to a decrease in the number of tests carried out.
Has there been a downward trend in the numbers taking driving tests in recent years?
In addition, approximately 17,000 people did not attend at tests that had been arranged. That is unacceptable.
Is there a productivity issue?
With greater flexibility in the system we could substantially increase the number of tests being carried out.
I hope Mr. Brett will be more successful than the Minister.
Is the Deputy withdrawing amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister?
Yes, because Minister gave a commitment to examine the matter.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 19:
In subsection (2), after "Authority" where it secondly occurs, to insert the following:
", but notwithstanding the transfer of functions to the Authority, the Minister shall be accountable to Dáil Éireann for the general policy of the Authority".
Amendment to amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment agreed to.
As acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 4, amendments Nos. 20 to 28, inclusive, cannot be moved.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Section 4 deleted.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—The Act of 2002 is amended by—
(a) inserting the following new subsection after subsection (3) in section 1:
"(4) responsibility for the maintenance, operation and alteration of the licence record shall vest in the Road Safety Authority.",
(b) deleting section 2(2) and substituting the following:
"(2) Where a person is convicted of a penalty point offence, the number of penalty points specified in column (5) of the First Schedule opposite the mention of the offence in column (2) of that Schedule shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act—
(a) be endorsed on the entry relating to the person in respect of the offence,
(b) be entered into the record of the Garda PULSE system, and
(c) be endorsed upon that person’s driving licence by an Garda Síochána.”,
(c) inserting the following new subsection after subsection (5):
"(6) (a) Upon receipt of a notice under section 5 of this Act, a person shall, within 14 days, surrender his or her licence to a Member of an Garda Síochána at any Garda station, so that the penalty points under this section may be endorsed upon it.
(b) A person who fails to surrender his or her licence under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding €80 for each offence until the said licence has been endorsed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.”,
(d) deleting section 5 and substituting the following:
"5.—(1) When penalty points are endorsed on the entry of a person, the Minister shall, as soon as may be thereafter, cause a notice to be given or sent, by post or otherwise, to the person—
(a) to the effect that the number of penalty points specified in the notice has been endorsed on the entry relating to the person following—
(i) the making by the person of a payment referred to in section 2(1), or
(ii) the conviction of the person of a penalty point offence, and that, subject to section 3(2), they will remain on the entry for a period of 3 years beginning on the appropriate date, and
(b) specifying the total number of penalty points that, following the endorsement aforesaid, stand so endorsed and, if that number equals or exceeds 12, specifying that the person will be disqualified under section 3 for holding a licence for a period of 6 months, beginning on the appropriate date, and directing him or her to submit the licence held by him or her to the licensing authority that granted the licence not later than 14 days from that date.
(2) When a notice is given or sent to a person under subsection (1), the Minister shall cause—
(a) particulars of the notice, including its date, to be entered on the entry relating to the person,
(b) a copy of that notice to be sent to the Garda Síochána, and
(c) particulars of the notice, including its date, to be entered on the Garda PULSE system.
(3) A person who does not comply with a direction under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) in a notice under that subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) The Garda Síochána shall—
(a) have jurisdiction to seek the surrender of a licence in the name of person to whom a notice has been given or sent under subsection (1), in the same manner as if a court order had been issued for the forfeiture of that licence, or
(b) seek a court order for the forfeiture of that licence under this Act.”.”.
The Deputy may still want to press the amendment but if he wishes me to do so, I will clarify it.
Yes.
On the operation of the penalty points system, with particular reference to disqualification resulting from persons reaching the threshold of 12 points, gardaí have immediate direct access to the national driver file, on which is recorded all penalty point entries and all driver disqualifications. Where a person is disqualified as a result of penalty points or for any other reasons, the licence must be returned to the issuing licensing authority. It is an offence not return it. It is also an offence to drive when disqualified from holding a driving licence. Given that when a person is disqualified he or she is required to return the licence to the licensing authority, there is no gain for the application of the requirement that the licence document is noted or endorsed seeing that it must be handed up to the licensing authority.
Where a member of the Garda stops a driver and asks to see his or her driving licence which must be made available to the member, the garda can concurrently take sufficient details to allow for specific queries to be made to the national driver file. The new equipment being made available to the force with effect from April next will greatly enhance this process. I have confirmed with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that disqualification notices that issue to drivers who have accumulated 12 penalty points are also being copied to the Garda. This will include all drivers currently disqualified and all future disqualifications. Where a member of the Garda detects through this process a person who is disqualified, that member can immediately instigate proceedings against the person concerned.
I am far from happy.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Healy, Séamus.
- Shortall, Roisín.
Níl
- Brady, Martin.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Ellis, John.
- Glennon, Jim.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- Power, Peter.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 31, 38, 39, 55 and 56 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—(1) The Authority shall have policy role in—
(a) making general road safety policy recommendations to the Minister,
(b) advising the Minister on any review of speed limits,
(c) advising local authorities on general road safety policy,
(d) liaising between itself and any one or more of the following bodies:
(i) an Garda Síochána;
(ii) the National Roads Authority;
(iii) local authorities and municipal authorities;
(iv) the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government;
(v) the Department of Transport; or
(vi) such other bodies as the Minister may prescribe from time to time.
(2) The Authority shall have consultative and advisory roles in any review or reform of road categories, or in terms of their route letter and number.".
This amendment relates to the strategy statement. I presume that a specific requirement of the authority will be that it produce, in consultation with the Minister, a five-year road safety strategy statement that will have regard to national policy on road building and road safety and provide details in respect of the action it intends to take, the annual targets to be achieved, international comparisons and the recommended actions for other State agencies. Does the Minister agree with this?
I will respond when the Deputy has posed all his questions.
It is important that the new authority not only produces a five-year road strategy statement but that, as mentioned earlier, it produces annual targets to be achieved. In other words and in so far as all matters are concerned, an annual statement outlining whether targets were met or surpassed under various headings will be published. If memory serves, I believe the Minister stated that this is his view of what will be done.
My amendment is similar to amendment No. 31. I repeat my concern that the various functions being granted to the new authority could cloud its primary function, namely, to set a clear road safety strategy and produce indicators against which it can measures its performance. We should state specifically in the Bill that this will be the authority's primary function.
The previous strategy was in place for five years, from 1998 to 2002. There was no strategy in place during 2003 and the current strategy was only devised late in 2004. There has been much slippage in this area. We must provide for a definite focus in respect of road safety strategy because it is an issue of which we tend to lose sight until there is a great deal of carnage on our roads over a series of weekends. It should not be dependent on this or the particular interest of the Minister of the day. It is important to set out definitively that this will be the main function of the authority and explain that what is expected of it is performance on the targets established. Unless the responsibility is put on an individual's or the authority's head, nothing will happen. Other matters will tend to get in the way. To maintain a strong focus on road safety, we need to spell out the functions.
While amendment No. 39 seeks to allow the new authority to collect data from various agencies, I am concerned that there will be no obligation on the agencies concerned to provide the data sought. To strengthen the hand of the new authority, I propose that we insert the phrase "A person to whom such a requirement is directed shall comply with the requirement". I understand the Minister is well disposed towards my amendment.
The purpose of amendment No. 38 is to introduce a clear legislative provision which will ensure the road safety authority will have a lead role in the development of strategies and measures to advance the road safety agenda. Road safety comes within the remit of various Departments and agencies. In consideration of its extensive remit, the road safety authority will be in a position to engage with all of them to develop and monitor the delivery of a comprehensive road safety programme. It will play a significant role in the development of future road safety strategies and submit a programme for approval to the Minister. It is envisaged that the programme will form the basis of the Government's road safety strategy. It is also envisaged that the authority will compile reports which will address policy recommendations across a range of road safety measures. The authority will have a role in the oversight of implementation of the programme of the Government's road safety strategy, in which context it will regularly report to the Cabinet sub-committee on road safety.
Amendment No. 39 seeks to include in the Bill a second new section, the provisions of which will assist the authority in the task of road safety research. The aim of the provision is to set out clear terms for the co-operation of all relevant agencies in supporting this element of the authority's overall range of functions. The provision will add value to our current statistical base as the information collected will facilitate the development of future road safety strategies. The amendment will also provide specific direction for the authority to pursue international data on road safety.
On the amendments proposed by Deputies Connaughton and Shortall, it is not necessary to provide in the Bill that the authority should set performance indicators and measure performance against them as this function is implicit in its role in the development and monitoring of strategies. It is not correct to set out a timeframe for a road safety strategy in legislation as policy initiatives contained in such a strategy may require varying timeframes to implement. We will all have seen that this is traditionally the case. Equally, including a very prescriptive requirement in the determination of annual targets and reviews would have the potential to influence negatively the pursuit of strategy objectives which, by their very nature, may need to be based on the delivery of measures over a longer timeframe.
Given the thrust of the proposals contained in amendments Nos. 38 and 39, the focus of the amendments proposed by Deputy Connaughton on behalf of Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Shortall is well addressed. I am happy, however, to accept Deputy Shortall's amendment to my amendment No. 39. It provides for a belt and braces approach, but I do not have an issue with it.
One of the measures in the current road safety strategy is a provision for the collection of statistics for the numbers of serious injuries and the setting of a target for their reduction. In reply to a parliamentary question recently the Minister told me it would not be possible to include a similar measure in the new strategy. Mr. Eddie Shaw and Mr. Noel Brett have said that while it is all very well to have an admirable strategy, matters are overlooked or put on the long finger in the absence of mechanisms to measure and report periodically on performance. We are providing the authority with many and various functions, but it is important to state its primary function will be the devising and implementing of a road safety strategy. The record on the current and previous strategies has not been very good. It is in the nature of Departments with many responsibilities that matters are overlooked.
I agree with Deputy Shortall. The National Roads Authority has indicated that it is not in a position to issue data on the causes of accidents in 2005. If true, it is remarkable that it does not have the wherewithal to produce the information. Our aim today is to ensure that, irrespective of the pressures on the new authority, certain overriding instructions and objectives will be specified, to which it will have to adhere. While we are all agreed on what we would like the authority to do — I assume it will agree with those aspirations — there is a significant difference between thinking one should do something and actually doing it. That is why there has been great concern in the past two to three years about the lack of an overall strategy to address fatalities on our roads. It would make sense to write into the Bill certain targets and functions which would have to be met, irrespective of the pressure to which the authority will be subjected. It is what should be done on behalf of the people, each one of whom has an interest in a matter which, unfortunately, touches everybody one way or another every week of the year.
It is against this background that the collection of data on the causes of accidents is so important. The National Roads Authority which was expected to carry out this work does not have the wherewithal to do it.
That is simply not true. It will take time to compile all of the information for 2005. One will not find another country which is in a position to provide the information nationally at this point. My aim, however, is to speed up the process and make it more coherent by making it the responsibility of a single body. For that reason, I am including these functions in the remit of the road safety authority.
I do not agree with the Deputy in the sense that we are either dealing with legislation or we are not. It is clear from the legislation what the responsibilities of the road safety authority will be. We are setting out a substantial Bill outlining all of its functions. Deputy Shortall's emphasis is not different from mine, but she breaks down what the issue of road safety entails. The gamut of functions for which the authority will be responsible will have implications for road safety, including driver vehicle testing. There is no doubt in my mind or those of the individuals in charge of the authority that road safety in all its guises and related issues will be the authority's responsibility. There is a significant range of programmes and strategies which I expect and I am sure the authority will bring forward. It would be utterly wrong, however, to set out timeframes in the legislation because these will vary to a significant degree. For example, it might be possible to shorten the periods required for dealing with certain specifically focused issues. Instead of a five-year strategy, issues might be tackled in one or two years. I have framed the approach to the road safety authority in a broad way to give the widest possible remit. The Deputy is trying to narrow the remit to specifics or perhaps to focus on numbers and figures. It is a bigger picture than that.
I must trust the authority and afford it flexibility to develop its role, albeit under a legislative framework. In employing good people with strong views on road safety, it is important to give them the freedom to develop policies and oversee their implementation. For legislators to be trying to set out everything specifically in legislation is overly prescriptive and it would be the wrong way for the road safety authority to commence its existence. Timeframes will be set down in respect of programmes that will evolve.
The high level ministerial group that I chair will receive reports from the authority. Deputy Shortall tabled a parliamentary question on obtaining progress reports. I am aware of the necessity of such reports and I will seek them. That is not the function of legislation, however, which is to set out the parameters, roles, responsibilities and duties of the authority. It would be a mistake to become overly prescriptive in what this would entail. That would be the wrong approach.
I do not agree with the Minister. It would be difficult for legislators to be prescriptive if it came down to the specific aspects of what would constitute a programme. It would be normal to contemplate a five-year strategy because, as everybody understands, the issue will not change in a week, a month or a year, although we would like it to do so. It will take longer than that to implement the various strategies. In the business sphere, many companies work to five-year strategies.
They are all very different.
It would be great to send a message to the authority that we, as legislators, want a five-year strategy put in place. If action is needed sooner, it could be taken within two or three years. The strategy should not be allowed to run on or become a moveable feast. That is the trouble with these strategies. Before one knows it, an action that was meant to be carried out by 2007 may not——
The current strategy will run for three years. Is Fine Gael suggesting that a more long-term strategy is required?
No.
If the Deputy wishes to have a strategy——
If the Minister wishes to bring politics into this, I will give him all he wants in that regard.
I am only informing the Deputy. He may not know that the current strategy is set to run for three years.
I am aware of that.
Does the Deputy not like the current strategy?
The Minister should take the matter seriously. From now on, our strategies will have to be much better than those — regardless of whether they ran for two, three or five years — put in place in the past.
We should be clear that driver behaviour will have to be much better than it is at present.
Of course.
The Deputy should not depersonalise this matter by deflecting attention away from people who simply will not obey the law of the land and who do not have any interest in policies. This is an important issue. We had a five-year strategy and we moved to a three-year strategy in order to create a better focus. The duration of the EU strategy is ten years.
I agree with the Deputy's point but it would be wrong to set down that the road safety authority will not be flexible or to choose a shorter timeframe in respect of it.
As the Minister knows, that is not what we are saying.
What is the Deputy saying?
Once the authority is up and running, a five-year strategy to carry out certain actions should be put in place. There will be many things that can be done in the first three years but some actions that should be taken within five years may not be taken for six or seven. It is that important.
We are setting up the road safety authority to be responsible for this area. The criticism has been that we badly needed an independent road safety authority with a strong legislative base to enable it to carry out its functions. Before I introduced the legislation, I discussed this matter with people who are charged with that responsibility to ensure that they were getting precisely what they wanted in respect of their ability to be robust, flexible and strong in what they do. The authority is to be broadly based in order that it might deal with all types of issues.
The legislation behind it cannot be prescriptive. That is the reason I have framed the amendments, through much consultation, in a strategic approach that affords flexibility. The new authority would not want to be directed by the Oireachtas to carry out certain actions within four years if it felt that a longer period might be required. It would not wish to be given ridiculous timeframes of six months when something may take two years to complete. Those who will serve on the authority know that it will have to deliver on targets, timeframes and progress reports. It will do so.
For the law to set out policy issues on a legislative basis is the wrong approach to take. We are not disagreeing on the fundamental point of disseminating information. We are disagreeing on whether it should be in law or whether the authority should have flexibility.
This is a fundamental mistake. People out there will want to see real targets being set.
Such targets will be set.
They can become moveable and that has been the case in the past. It is entirely appropriate that a time limit should be placed on the strategy. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister's view on the issue.
The road safety authority will have to be credible. It will not be given powers and functions only for it to take forever to do something. Those who will serve on the authority understand the responsibilities and are aware that timeframes, strategies and programmes to deliver results will have to be set out. The actions of the authority must be publicly clear. Everyone must understand that there will be certain targets and that a strategy must be put in place.
When the current strategy ends this year, for example, the road safety authority will be charged with introducing a new one. It may opt for a shorter timeframe or, as the Deputy suggests, it may take a more long-term view. I cannot be certain what will happen. For the Oireachtas to be prescriptive and decide the term in advance of the authority assuming responsibility would be the wrong way to proceed. That is why the amendment has been framed in a way that includes everything but that does not prescribe actions for the authority. The latter can take all factors it identifies as impacting on road safety into account when devising any programmes or strategies, right across the spectrum. I will not be prescriptive.
If we consider some of the suggested ways of measuring performance, one of the factors in the road safety strategy related to serious injuries. The Minister mentioned the figures for 2005. The 2004 figures are not available for that element of the strategy.
I accept, like the Deputy, that this is a failing in the system. That is why we agreed that one body to be responsible for everything was required.
Equally, the number of 300, which was set as the maximum for the annual number of fatalities, has been significantly surpassed. There are many other areas where a gap in information exists. For example, we spoke earlier about the 404,000 provisional drivers. We do not know the driving status of people involved in fatal accidents. There are many gaps and I hope the new authority will tackle those problems.
It will do so.
We are good at launching initiatives and making announcements. However, the follow-through may not be so good. Our experience in recent years should show that the area of road safety must be focused on and that performance must be continually measured. I am not overly concerned about the duration of the strategy but the new authority is being given responsibility for many matters, including those of a significant nature such as driver testing and instruction. A new authority could easily get bogged down on any one or a combination of those different areas of responsibility. It is important the Oireachtas dictates to the authority that irrespective of whatever duties and functions it has, its principal function is to devise a strategy and implement it. We are within our rights to do that. We would be irresponsible if we were not dictating to the authority what it had to do.
My amendment is straightforward, would not tie anybody's hands but would keep to the forefront the principal objective of reducing the carnage on our roads and focussing on road safety. We must set targets, and constantly monitor performance against them and report on that. Anything less would be irresponsible. I urge the Minister to support the amendment.
The figures for collisions in 2004 are published on the NRA website.
Are there statistics for the number of serious injury cases?
I am just informed——
May I clarify the question? I was referring to the 2004 serious injury figures, which were supposed to be examined in the road safety strategy. I have been looking for them for some time. The figures for 2004 are not available yet. The Minister confirmed in a parliamentary reply that they would not be available before the end of the strategy.
I will make the point again. One of the reasons this important function is being given to the road safety authority is that information is compiled in many different bodies, but nobody takes overall responsibility for it. I believe in setting up the road safety authority we must accept the legislative base is correct and that the people who take on this function are committed to it. Positive public pronouncements by people with a high credibility in road safety have been made about the new chief executive, the resourcing and staffing numbers to carry out the functions of the road safety authority. It would be wrong to tell one part of the staff in the road safety authority that their role is somehow more important than that of other staff. All of the functions of the road safety authority play a part in road safety. There are times when a publicity campaign may be more important, but other issues may become more important as the authority monitor and roll out programmes. I have put a great deal of thought into the issue and have discussed it widely and the way we have framed the legislation covers every function of the road safety authority. I do not wish to go down the road of being prescriptive. I understand the argument being made, but I make the judgment call on which is the better way to go. There will be timeframes on the road safety authority in setting out new strategies and new programmes. This is what the Deputy sets out to do in her amendment, however, she reverses the process by telling the authority what the timeframe should be before it looks at the issue. I disagree with that approach. The road safety authority knows its remit, functions and mandate and we will make a judgment call on what it sets out. More importantly, the public will make a judgment call on the credibility of what it sets out. That will be the most severe judgment that will be made. If this body does not work and function in a way the public accepts, we have made a serious mistake.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Amendment No. 33 in the name of Deputy Olivia Mitchell proposes a new section. Amendment No. 34 is related. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—(1) The Authority shall have responsibility for the management and standards of driver testing in Ireland.
(2) The Authority shall put such structures in place as it deems necessary to ensure that the standard of driving in Ireland is maintained and improved.
(3) The Authority may put such pre-conditions in place as it deems necessary, for candidates who wish to take the driving test. Such pre-conditions may include, but are not limited to, a requirement that candidates undergo a prescribed number of driving lessons before being allowed to sit the driving test.
(4) In carrying out its functions under subsection (2), the Authority shall review and update the driving test and driver theory test so that—
(a) each examination conforms to international best practice,
(b) the driver testing process reflects safe driving practices,
(c) each examination has regard to persons who—
(i) are hearing impaired,
(ii) do not speak Irish or English as defined by the Official Languages Act 2003,
(iii) have literacy difficulties, or, in the case of the driver theory test, difficulty operating a computer, or
(iv) have a physical disability,
and
(d) a detailed report of the results of test, including all of the following:
(i) whether the candidate passed or failed the test;
(ii) where he or she made errors;
(iii) what areas the candidate could improve;
(iv) in the case of a candidate who has passed, what further actions he or she must take to obtain a licence; and
(v) in the case of a candidate who has failed, how he or she can reapply for the test; is made available to each candidate.
(5) On a regular basis, the Authority shall produce and update a drivers' training manual, which shall contain—
(a) the Rules of the Road,
(b) advice on safe driving, and
(c) such other information as the Authority deems necessary.”.
In this amendment, we take account of the members of new communities who do not speak English or Irish and wish to take a driving test. Their needs must be considered so that they will be at no disadvantage when they take the test. The same applies to people with disabilities or who have problems hearing. We hope the new authority will take specific measures to accommodate these people. We raise this issue so that it will become part of the programme of the road safety authority.
It already is and will remain so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—(1) The Authority shall be responsible for the training and quality control of driving instructors.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (3) of this section, the Authority shall assume such functions in respect of driving instructors are conferred on the Minister by, and in accordance with, the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004.
(3) The Authority shall put in place such structures as it deems necessary to regulate driving instruction and driving schools, and shall maintain a register of those who are qualified to give certifiable driving lessons.
(4) Driving instructors shall be obliged to undergo regular quality control testing and retraining at such intervals as may be prescribed by the Authority.".
The amendment refers to driving instructors. I think the Minister stated driving instructors will be listed and the public will know who they are employing. Will the Minister outline his proposals in this regard?
The road safety authority will be designated as an approved body to issue instruction certificates as envisaged in section 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1968, as amended by section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. In accordance with regulations made under these provisions which will provide for the matters referred to in the proposed amendment, other than the regulation of driving schools and the retraining of instructors, subsection (1) of the new section 4 provides that the road safety authority will have functions in relation to the registration of instructors which will be designated in regulations made under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2003 The road safety authority will be an approved body which can issue instruction certificates for the purpose of regulating driver instructor certificates. There is no power in the Road Traffic Acts to regulate driving schools, as the provision in section 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1986, as amended by section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 2002, is intended to regulate individuals while giving driving instructions.
Instructors will be tested at regular intervals and, if found not to meet the required standard, will be removed from the register. It will be a matter for instructors to take appropriate steps to bring their standard of instruction up to the required standards, which will be set down by the road safety authority.
On the difference between requirements on individuals and schools, I will shortly introduce a road traffic Bill, at which time I will examine this issue in terms of embracing it. It is appropriate to the road traffic Bill, which is due in a couple of weeks, as opposed to this Bill. I accept the issue of there now being driving schools rather than individual drivers.
Surely this is the Bill to cater for the matter.
It falls under the Road Traffic Acts and the best opportunity to bring clarity to the matter is in the road traffic Bill. I read this amendment to mean all drivers in a driving school must be certified.
What does that certification mean?
It means the standards would be set by the road safety authority and the schools must adhere to them. Once they have met the standards, there will be follow up spot checks at various times unknown to them in different parts of the country. Not only must schools reach the standard, they must maintain it.
Must each individual take a test?
Yes, on a regular basis.
It is not just a spot check that they must all do.
They must meet the full standards. They will be checked afterwards to ensure they are adhering to the standards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 37 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are consequential on No. 37. Amendments Nos. 37, 53 and 54 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"(a) if requested by the Minister, provide such advice as may be appropriate in respect of any regulatory or other function vested in the Minister under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 relating to vehicles, driver licensing, speed limits, and control of traffic,
(b) if requested by the Minister, represent the State at meetings with or arranged by, international organisations or governments of other states in so far as the meetings relate to matters to which the functions of the Authority relate,”.
The purpose of the amendment to section 6 is to enable the road safety authority to take an active role in the development of regulatory proposals in the areas of vehicle standards and testing, driver testing and licensing, speed limits and control of traffic. While the power to make regulations will remain with the Minister, the road safety authority will be expected to provide the necessary technical and administrative expertise in these areas and to take an active role in the development of regulatory proposals therein.
The amendment will enable staff of the road safety authority to attend EU and other international meetings on behalf of the State. This is particularly relevant in the areas of vehicles standards, driver testing and licensing and road haulage under EU directives. We would all agree with this.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 38 in the name of Deputy Shortall was discussed with amendment No. 31.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—(1) The Authority shall prepare and submit to the Minister, at such intervals as the Minister determines, a comprehensive programme (in this section referred to as a "programme") of measures for the enhancement of road safety and in particular for the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries due to road traffic collisions.
(2) A programme shall be accompanied by a statement of the resources, financial and otherwise, which in the opinion of the Authority are necessary to be expended by a State agency in the implementation of the measures contained in the programme.
(3) In preparing a programme the Authority shall consult with each State agency responsible for implementation of the measures contained in it.
(4) The Minister may approve of a programme submitted to him or her or may request the Authority to make such amendments to the programme as he or she specifies. The Authority shall comply with any such request. The Minister may approve of the amended programme re-submitted to him or her by the Authority.
(5) The Authority shall participate in such structures and in such a role for the oversight of the implementation of a programme as the Minister determines.
(6) In this section "State agency" means the Garda Síochána, a local authority, the National Roads Authority or such other person as the Minister considers appropriate.".
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 38:
After subsection (1), to insert the following subsection:
"(2) It is the principal function of the Authority to devise a road safety strategy, set performance indicators for the implementation of such strategy and measure performance against such indicators.".
Amendment to amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"8.—(1) The Minister may direct the Authority to collect, compile, prepare, publish or distribute to such persons (including the Minister) such information and statistics relating to road safety and the functions of the Authority, as the Minister considers appropriate, for national or international planning, policy research and development, monitoring and reporting purposes and may specify any matter concerning the collection, compilation, preparation, publication and distribution of such data and statistics, as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) The Minister shall consult the Authority, and may consult any other person he or she considers appropriate, before issuing a direction under subsection (1).
(3) For the purpose of facilitating the collection of information and statistics under subsection (1) the Authority may require a person who holds records relating to road safety or matters relating to the functions of the Authority, to give to the Authority such information and statistics in such form (including electronic form) and at such reasonable times or intervals, as the Authority specifies.”.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 39:
In subsection (3), after "specifies." to insert "A person to whom such a requirement is directed shall comply with the requirement.".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 42 was ruled out of order as it involves a charge on the Exchequer.
I am sorry that is the case but the Chairman has ruled.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 43 to 45, inclusive, and 50 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 4, after "members" to insert the following:
"and the Minister shall ensure that not less than 40% of the members shall be men and not less than 40% shall be women".
This amendment relates to the composition of the board. I propose we ensure a gender balance with a minimum of 40% of each gender. While there is a voluntary code in this area, performance in recent years has not been good. Unfortunately, a situation has developed in which women are under represented at State board level. This is an opportunity for the Minister to restate a commitment to the principle of gender balance and ensure the membership of this new board reflects the composition of the general public. I urge the Minister to support the amendment.
I agree with the amendment. How many people will be employed by the new authority?
As I said earlier, more than 300 people. Under section 531 of Sustaining Progress, the Government has outlined its commitments, as Deputy Shortall knows, to securing greater female representation on State boards. Gender balance on State boards will be reviewed with a view to establishing how best to secure a minimum of 40% representation on such boards.
I support the Government's commitment to securing greater female representation on boards. However, it would be inappropriate in the context of the legislative process to specify the gender composition of any board. I ask the Deputy to deal with the matter on that basis. My record on gender issues is good.
Why did the Minister say it would be inappropriate to specify?
The basis on which we are trying to achieve 40% is the right approach across the system, not just on this board but on every board. I will try to achieve 40% representation on this board. On some occasions it may not be possible to do that. There could be various reasons. Sometimes, a board may have more or less. It is the right figure and mix to have if we can achieve them. On any board there could be a number of obvious people irrespective of their gender who should be there. Sometimes that is difficult to do.
In many instances, organisations have nominations for board membership. A problem I have encountered is that many of them put forward male nominees. I went back to say I wanted to keep my gender balance right but the strong view of a prescribed organisation in terms of nominees is that the person is the best for the job. This poses difficulties. I agree with the Deputy in principle.
The other aspect relates to subsection (4) on the composition of the board, which states: "Each member of the Board shall be a person who in the opinion of the Minister has wide experience and competence in relation to roads, road safety, transport, driver education and examination, industrial and commercial matters, local government ...".
It gives the Minister a very free hand in appointing the board. Each person will be hand picked by the Minister without any specific requirements, except those general terms. It is standard procedure for nominating bodies to appoint boards and the different bodies are listed. I am not suggesting the Minister would do so but the provisions of the Bill allow a Minister to pack a board with party or constituency cronies. We need to move away from this practice and ensure those on State boards have relevant competency in the area with which they are dealing. I do not care what a person's political persuasion is, provided he or she is competent and has specific expertise. In the past people were appointed for political reasons and had very little, if anything, to contribute to the job they were supposed to be doing. I am concerned that the Minister will have a free hand in making appointments. At a minimum, we should ensure he states the grounds on which he is appoints people and what their relevant experience is.
Everybody appointed to a board comes under tremendous scrutiny by the media, the Oireachtas, etc. Old ways of doing things have changed substantially. I do not accept the Deputy's point that somebody who happens to come from one's part of the country is a crony. He or she could be a very good person who can clearly do the job.
I did not say that.
It could have been interpreted in that way. I did not think that was what the Deputy was saying. That is why I made the point.
The Deputy raised an interesting point with regard to the board. Two approaches could be taken. One is to give all obvious vested interests representation on the board. After much discussion, I am not of a mind to do this. If clearly defined vested interest representatives are appointed to a board, they bring a perspective which, first and foremost, drives them to protect their own interests. They are not as independent as one might like in standing back and taking a view on road safety that is without fear or favour and does not represent any organisation, and in bringing their own wide experience to bear in freely enunciating their views on road safety as opposed to viewing the issue from the perspective of a particular organisation. In the past we had people who were more concerned with protecting their own interests than in adopting a more holistic approach to road safety. I am not taking that approach. It has nothing much to do with the legislation, but I am taking a much broader approach. I would like to see good competent people who are independent of any vested interest group on the board of the new road safety authority. That is not to say we could not find a mechanism for including groups with a legitimate view in the context of the remit of the authority. I have given this issue much thought in the past few months and a strong view has emerged that appointees to boards should be totally independent who are not bringing the baggage of a particular perspective onto the board.
I agree with the Minister. That is why I suggest we put in place a mechanism to prevent abuse. I accept the Minister's commitment to appointing people with particular expertise or something particular to offer. As matters stand, it is wide open to abuse. I merely suggest that when the Minister appoints people of competence, experience and competence shall be specified by him in the case of each person to be appointed.
I have considered the amendment and I am satisfied that the existing provision in the Bill which specifies the experience and competence required for a member of the board is sufficiently detailed and specific to ensure only persons with the relevant experience and competence will be appointed to the board and that there is no need to specify such requirements in formal detail. It would be very difficult to do so. The members opposite and I know people with a good perspective on a number of issues who do not necessarily have a background in road safety but have a deep interest in driving forward and working with this agenda. It would be very hard to define their competency in advance, apart from saying they meet basic standards of competence. The Bill, as I have framed it, allows for this. To go beyond this would bring us into very difficult territory. Obviously, we must trust the Minister of the day to do this.
The Minister is contradicting himself. He says he knows people who would be suitable.
I said we all do. I have not yet decided on anybody.
I agree with the Minister that there are plenty of people who would be good board members. The Bill states the Minister will appoint people with wide experience and competence in relation to transport, road safety and so on. The Minister has limited himself to this in the Bill. I am merely seeking that he state the competency and experience of each of the board members on their appointment.
Does the Deputy want me to frame it in legislation?
Yes, that the Minister will state the qualifications or competency of the board member.
It would be very difficult to define. If I define something, it could have the unintended effect of ruling out others. We need a broad definition.
All I am asking is that the Minister state what the qualifications for membership of the board are when he is appointing each board member.
Is the Deputy asking me to set out the CV of each person I appoint to the board?
Yes.
If I went down that road, we might end up with a situation where people would say "thanks, but no thanks". If we want somebody on a board and he or she is competent to be on a board, my general position is that knowing, say, he or she is a member of a trade union and what experience he or she has should suffice.
The Bill states the persons appointed must have experience and competence in the area of road safety.
One can interpret that provision in a very broad way. They might have experience in various aspects of road safety.
We do not want the Minister interpreting the Bill in too broad a way such that he can pack a board. When appointing people, he should state what their competency is and why they are suitable for board membership.
I see the contradiction the Deputy is pointing out. I will come back to the matter on Report Stage. It is badly framed.
How many members will be on the board and what remuneration will each board member receive?
There is nothing new or specific about this. They will receive normal expenses. I will obtain the figure and inform the Deputy. It is nothing of note. They will not get rich on it.
Is it envisaged that all board members will be from this jurisdiction?
There will be between six and 11 people on the board.
Will any be from outside the jurisdiction?
I have not yet finalised my view on that matter. I am not necessarily saying I have somebody in mind internationally.
Might it not be a good idea?
It might be beneficial to include such a person. It is not prescribed that all board members must necessarily be from this jurisdiction. There might be an international perspective that would be extremely useful to the board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 10, subsection (4), lines 19 and 20, to delete all words from and including "Civil" in line 19 down to and including "-missioners" in line 20 and substitute "Public Appointments Service".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 11, lines 43 to 46, to delete subsection (16).
This amendment relates to the chief executive officer of the new authority. Subsection 16 provides that in the performance of his or her duties, the chief executive shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy. That is an extraordinary gag to place on any person in a senior post. I do not know if it is a reaction to the various statements made by Mr. Eddie Shaw in recent years.
The chairman will be guided by the same provision. Mr. Eddie Shaw was a chairman, not a chief executive.
I know that. I wonder if people are somewhat angry about the strident criticism made of the performance of the Minister and the Cabinet in the area of road safety. We are appointing people to do particular jobs and then telling them they cannot express opinions on, or raise questions about, Government policies. It is outrageous that a person given responsibility for improving road safety will not be in a position to question or express an opinion on a particular aspect of policy, perhaps in respect of the Garda Síochána. Were that applied to the Minister, he would be singing dumb most of the time. He frequently refers to difficulties with the Garda or other agencies.
I am careful about what I say.
The Minister is not that careful. He sometimes has no choice but to land them in it if a particular situation is indefensible. It is ridiculous to expect a person to head up the improvement of road safety and to gag or prevent him or her from expressing an opinion on Government policy.
A similar provision was included in legislation in 2004 and it is not something newly introduced as a result of recent comments. The person concerned will not be gagged in any way. The chairman and members of a board are in a different position to a chief executive in a company. We are talking about two different roles with two different sets of responsibilities. I do not know of any chief executive in the world who would get away with doing something totally different from his or her board. Such a person would not last long in the job. We see examples of that every day.
It would, in my view, be entirely inappropriate to remove this provision because it would not be appropriate for the CEO of a public sector body or agency to criticise Government policy in the context of the performance of his or her duties. The RSA, as a body, will have plenty of opportunity to feed into road safety policy and, as such, will contribute to the road safety agenda and help shape Government policy in this area. It would be ludicrous to allow for the chief executive of an organisation to behave in that fashion.
Is the Minister saying that such a person will not be permitted to express an opinion on the merits of Government policy?
I would be surprised if a chief executive with whom I was meeting would not be prepared to express an opinion on why and how things should be done. The current chief executive has already expressed to me strong views on issues which need to be addressed. I have no problem with that. However, that is different from a chief executive expressing such an opinion in the public domain. Such a situation would make a working relationship impossible in terms of running an organisation. I am sure the Deputy accepts this.
The Bill states that such a person should not express an opinion on the merits of any policy of Government.
I do not know of any chief executive in the world who would sunder his or her company and expect to remain in his or her job.
The Bill makes no reference to the public domain or anything of that nature. It provides that a CEO shall not express an opinion on the merits of any policy of Government.
We can redefine the provision if necessary.
It is not a matter of what the Minister defines, of what he says to me at this meeting or of what Mr. Noel Brett does. That is the wrong basis on which to approach legislation. We all share the Minister's confidence in Mr. Brett, whom we hope will be effective and successful. However, one does not base legislation on the quality of the individual who currently holds the position or on the Minister's personal views. Irrespective of the office holder involved, legislation must stand up to scrutiny. It is absolute nonsense to include a provision which states that the chief executive cannot question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy.
I understand the Deputy's position. However, that has not, during discussions between us, been my experience of Mr. Noel Brett.
That does not matter. The Minister should leave Noel Brett out of this.
The Deputy made reference to the chief executive with whom I am currently dealing and that happens to be Mr. Noel Brett.
The person with whom the Minister is dealing is irrelevant. What is important is the content of the legislation, which provides that such a person will not be allowed to express an opinion on any Government policy. That is nonsense.
Section 15(15) provides that the chief executive shall, whenever required to do so, give evidence to the committee established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to it on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on a number of issues. Will the chief executive, as a result of this gag, be prevented from giving such evidence? There appears to be a dichotomy in that the chief executive will not be allowed to oppose Government policy under one provision, while under another he or she may be required to do so when appearing before a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I understand that the subsections to which Deputies refer were taken from other Bills. I accept the points made by Deputies Shortall and Connaughton and will return to the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 13, subsection (8)(e), line 2, to delete “2001” and substitute “2005”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 13, subsection (8)(f), line 3, to delete “1993” and substitute “2005”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 13, subsection (5), line 38, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Pensions Ombudsman".
This amendment takes into account that a pensions ombudsman, as opposed to the Minister, now deals with superannuation disputes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 14, subsection (1)(d), lines 37 and 38, to delete all words from and including “authority,” in line 37 down to and including “Board.” in line 38 and substitute the following:
"authority, he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member of the Board.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 16, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) A record of a disclosure under this section or under section 22 or 23 shall be made available in a register which shall be opened to public inspection during office hours.”.
This amendment relates to the disclosure of interests by board members. The provision as drafted is satisfactory but it does not provide that the register shall be available for inspection by the public. I am proposing that a record of the disclosure under this section shall be made available in a register which will be open to public inspection during office hours.
This matter falls under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The information is available. It would not, therefore, be necessary to make this amendment. That is the short version but, if the Deputy wishes, I will read out the entire briefing note.
In the case of a public board with publicly appointed members, would it not be good practice to be in a position to check people's disclosed interests?
It is possible to do so under the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
Yes, if one is prepared to pay the fee and wait two months or however long it takes.
If it relates to an individual, one does not have to pay.
One is obliged to pay.
I apologise, the Deputy is correct. People must pay to access information relating to other individuals but not that which relates to them. However, it is not a substantial amount.
Why not have a register — similar to that which applies in respect of Deputies interests — that can be checked? Will the Minister examine the matter?
The information is available under the Act. Perhaps the Deputy will accept that a balance must be struck. People appointed to boards have a certain right to privacy. They might not necessarily want to have everything relating to them displayed in the shop window. It is sufficient that the information is available and can be accessed.
There are umpteen ways in which a person could have——
The information is available under the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
The Minister must accept that it is not very accessible.
To be honest, many people have said it is too accessible.
There is a delay and a charge involved.
Yes.
This is an important body and there is much potential for conflicts of interest to arise in, for example, the case of people with business interests in driving schools or whatever.
We must be careful of mischievous behaviour in respect of people who might be appointed to boards. I am not suggesting that this is what the Deputy is saying.
I am not.
As a general point, we must be careful that people do not become mischievous in terms of undermining board members. If we start down that road, no one in this country will want to do a public service because it would not be worth it.
That is why it is better to be up front and open about the matter and have a register that can be inspected.
All people who become members of boards must have their tax clearance and other issues up to date. A line must be drawn in respect of a number of these issues. We must be careful. It is my view that it is becoming more difficult to find people to serve on boards. It will be a problem in the future.
If the issue is addressed well——
If people want to carry out a public service, we should encourage them to do so. However, this does not mean that their lives should be laid bare. We are coming to a point where people will not want to serve on boards. It is becoming an issue. For example, onerous conditions relating to taxation, etc., now attach to people. I am not saying that this should not be the case, because it is the correct way to proceed, but we must be careful about jumping off the cliff in respect of these matters. The issue is covered under the Act. It is not as if I am saying that the information cannot be accessed.
Deputy Connaughton inquired about salaries. The chairman will receive €10,157.90 per annum and an ordinary board member will received €6,348.69. No one will become wealthy earning those amounts.
Not if they serve on that board.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
No, it is an important amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 18, subsection (5)(a), lines 20 and 21, to delete all words from and including “Driver” in line 20 down to and including “2004” in line 21 and substitute “Road Safety Authority Act 2006”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 34, after "section 4” to insert “and section 6”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 34, after "out," to insert "advice given,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
Amendments No. 55 and 56 not moved.
Sections 29 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 22, before section 36, to insert the following new section:
"36.—Section 9(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 is amended by substituting for paragraph (a) the following:
"(a) by reason of the commission after—
(i) the entry into force of the Convention, or
(ii) the date on which the Convention has become applicable between the State and another Member State by declaration under Article 15.4 of the Convention,
of a specified offence in another Member State (‘State of the offence') by a person who is normally resident in the State, a driving disqualification is imposed on the person for any period in the State of the offence, and".".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 22, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
"37.—This Act may be cited as the Road Safety Authority Act 2006.".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 58 not moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37 deleted.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 3, to delete lines 7 to 12 and substitute the following:
"AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BODY TO BE KNOWN IN THE IRISH LANGUAGE AS AN tÚDARÁS UM SHÁBHÁILTEACHT AR BHÓITHRE OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS THE ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY, TO DEFINE ITS FUNCTIONS, TO AMEND SECTION 9 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2002 AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONNECTED MATTERS.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 60 to 62, inclusive, not moved.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The select committee stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on 8 March when it will discuss the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Bill 2005. I thank the Minister and members for dealing so efficiently with the Bill. I also thank the Minister's officials.
I thank the Chairman and colleagues.