Mr. Noel Brett:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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