Mr. Noel Brett:

I will outline the Road Safety Authority's position. Ireland has been given good legislation from this House during the past decade. We have performed well in terms of roadworthiness compliance and testing and we have a good system in place. The RSA was concerned about some issues in the initial proposals. The first related to annual testing for private cars. There is a strong case for testing cars over ten years of age. There is a safety case, an economic case and an environmental case. I simply cannot stack up a case to argue for testing annually of cars of six, seven, eight or nine years of age. I am pleased that the Commission has now dropped that proposal as obligatory. The financial burden on motorists in the country would have been unacceptable for a poor return. As a result of degradation and salt damage to brakes, pipes and chassis parts in cars over ten years old, one can make the case, but in Ireland I cannot make the case for testing cars between six and ten years and therefore I am pleased that the status quo will remain for Ireland.

I listened to some of the discussion on motorcycle testing with Deputy Ellis earlier. The jury is out on this issue in Ireland. We have a small number of motorcyclists here. We do not have the type of scooters found in Belgium or on the Continent. Of the fatalities that occur, virtually half are caused by another motorist. Typically they look but fail to see the motorcyclist. I am not finding in collision investigations that it is component degradation or metal fatigue or failure. At this point I cannot stack up an economic argument for motorcycle testing. We have a good motorcycle fraternity and there are good service workshops in the country. We need a little more education for motorcyclists and other road users and we need to use the existing road traffic legislation. An Garda Síochána can enforce the law in the case of a defective motorcycle at the roadside. I do not believe we need the economic burden or the burden on the taxpayer at this stage of formal motorcycle testing. Notwithstanding the fact that other European countries have it - Maurice Treacy noted that 15 countries have it - they have a rather different profile of weather and motorcycle use and a different way of living.

I do not believe there is a case at this point for testing small private trailers. I am referring to small two-wheel trailers that a small farmer or private citizen might have. There is adequate provision in road traffic legislation to enforce the condition rules, lighting rules and marking rules and that is fair enough.

There has been some discussion about agricultural tractors. The position of the Road Safety Authority is that for a typical agricultural tractor there is adequate road traffic legislation to deal with lighting, tyres, brakes and such things. I do not believe the State should invest in test centres for testing small agricultural tractors. I do not believe we should put that burden on citizens. There is adequate road traffic provision and policing available to deal with that. I fully support the position that vehicles predominately used in agriculture, forestry and fisheries should be exempt and should be dealt with as part of routine road traffic policing.

More generally with agricultural vehicles, for example, the larger tractors that are used in quasi-haulage at higher speeds and might even be used on motorways, we must have a way of ensuring that they are safe if they are carrying heavier loads at higher speeds. I would rather see more information from the Commission in terms of the evidence for testing of those vehicles and what is tested.

A big JCB fast-track or a big John Deere is a completely different type of vehicle which behaves differently and may not be suitable to be tested in a test centre that tests trucks and coaches. Much more information is needed before a decision can be made. From the point of view of the Road Safety Authority I wish to make it clear that with regard to the typical small agricultural tractor such as a John Deere, Case, David Brown or Massey Ferguson, we do not believe there is anything to be gained by testing any of those. However, we are very concerned about vehicles which are capable of higher speeds, carrying greater weights, travelling frequently on higher speed roads and mixing with public traffic.

The mileage issue is a matter for the National Consumer Agency. There are two issues of concern. A person who buys a vehicle with clocked mileage thinks the vehicle is much younger. This is a value for money issue. The other issue is that if the buyer thinks the mileage is true he or she may not replace the components such as the timing belt and may incur subsequent costs or issues. I am particularly concerned about vehicles imported from the UK and overseas which have been clocked. The National Consumer Agency has been very active in taking a number of cases. We support the policy of dealing with this as a consumer issue rather than as an NCT issue. However, the NCT test captures the mileage for every vehicle. There has been some discussion with the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that future purchasers might be able to access that information to have information on the mileage history of the vehicle. That is a summary of the situation but Ireland has done well. We want to see much more evidence.