Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

She was very perceptive because when I learned to drive, roundabouts were not as common as they are now. I have to admit that when some people travel in the car with me around a roundabout, they do not feel particularly comfortable. One of them is my wife and when I woke up on the date of my birthday in July last year, I had a present of roundabout lessons in order to familiarise myself with how one should drive around a roundabout, with which I was not familiar. I admit to being bad. That is a lesson for many of us that it is necessary for those of us who passed their test many years ago to become more familiar with the changes to the rules of the road.

I am sure the Minister will also address the issue of provisional licences, in respect of which the rules appear to be honoured more in the breach. There is much anecdotal evidence that many are driving around without a full licence on provisional licences. They are meant to have a fully qualified driver with them, but the Minister will be familiar with the fact that many are breaching the rule. It has become a habit. This is an issue on which we should take firm action as a matter of urgency.

The other aspect about which I am slightly concerned is the fact that local authority powers are being centralised in the Road Safety Authority, RSA, which is of dubious value. The fact that ministerial powers are also being passed to the RSA is more worrying. I become concerned when I see State authorities of this type receiving more powers if they do not appear to be accountable. Recently, I have seen a tendency for Ministers to refer parliamentary questions from Members of this House to such authorities. That has been the case, not just with the RSA but often with the NRA also. The change would leave them less accountable. It is important that if these powers are to be delegated - I am not convinced it is a good thing; that is an open question - the authorities ought to be accountable in a meaningful way. Members frequently receive the response to parliamentary questions, particularly in this area, that as it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility, it is being referred to the authority in question. This is a convenient way for Ministers not to be accountable and the authority in question is even less accountable when it comes to asking it questions

This raises the question of whether Ministers should be directly responsible and accountable in parliamentary terms for semi-State bodies and State authorities and answerable in this House in that regard. I say this because they are 100% shareholders in semi-State bodies and, therefore, should be able to access the information in a public way. This should apply where the State is a 100% shareholder, or a majority shareholder. In reply to parliamentary questions Ministers should answer for the bodies in question in an open way; they should not be able to hide behind the fact that it is an authority with a supposedly independent board - admittedly, nearly all of political appointees are not independent - and, therefore, they are not able to give an answer to the particular question. In matters of this nature it is most important that the State does answer questions.

I see no reason the NRA or the RSA should not be accountable, not just to Oireachtas committees, because skilful people can get through such committees very easily by answering questions, but also under freedom of information, FOI, legislation. I was surprised when I discovered this afternoon that the RSA weas not subject to freedom of information legislation. It is one of a growing list of quangos which are not subject to freedom of information legislation for reasons which are inexplicable. They are not subject to freedom of information per se in a blanket way. Why, for instance, is the NTMA, the most powerful financial body in the State and an agency which controls and moves money, not subject to freedom of information? The reason frequently given, not only in the case of the NTMA but also in the case of many other agencies, is that the information it holds or is withholding is commercially sensitive. That is quite true and reasonable, and I accept that. However, not all information held by the RSA, the NTMA, the National Roads Authority or others is commercially sensitive. Only a certain amount of it is. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Road Safety Authority and all State bodies without exception, including the Central Bank and all those bodies which are commercially owned, to be subject to freedom of information provided they could state with reasonable cause the information one requested was commercially sensitive. That would be a perfectly reasonable proviso. One could then appeal the decision to a less partisan body which could decide whether that information was commercially sensitive.

The convenience with which so many bodies get blanket protection makes one suspicious they have something to hide or the Government - this one as much as the previous one - feels more comfortable having an umbrella of State agencies, authorities, institutes and bodies at arm's length, responsibility for which it can disclaim, from which it can detach itself if it wishes, or responsibility for which it can claim if they have any great successes, but which bodies are protected in terms of information which they will not release. These bodies do not need or deserve protection, nor do they want it. They should be proud of what they are doing and have nothing to hide.

I cannot see what the Road Safety Authority would have to hide. Mr. Gay Byrne, who is in charge of it, is a man who is extraordinarily good at conveying good news to the public, and when there is bad news to be conveyed, it should be conveyed honestly and openly. All I can conclude is that there is a kind of in-built and instinctive protection which governs State bodies and authorities with which Governments, as a default position, feel safer than if they were to give some sort of open response to any information which was being required.

See this speech in context