Mr. Conor Faughnan:

My name is Conor Faughnan and I am a director of and principal spokesman for the AA. I am very pleased to accept the invitation to come before the today to discuss the provisions of this year's update of the Road Traffic Act. The AA is Ireland’s motoring organisation and has been around since 1910, so we have a century of history in Ireland. Our original reason for coming into being was to act in good faith to help responsible motorists and represent their views to Government, and in turn to support policies that ensure the safety, fair treatment and long-term interests of our members.

We are quite a big organisation. In addition to being a motoring organisation, we provide consumer services. We have around 200,000 roadside breakdown customers and we sell motor and travel insurance. We attend to well over 100,000 car breakdowns per year, with 80% of them fixed on the spot. We also try to put information into the consumer's hands. Our AA Roadwatch service, of which Ms Foley is the editor, provides up to the minute traffic and travel data through live broadcasts, online and social media. We have over 90,000 Twitter followers. We engage very regularly in communication with members of the motoring public and given that we have a century of history doing it, we act on their behalf to represent their interests and they tell us what they feel on the issues.

In the last 20 years or so, we have been very active in the area of road safety. I have been there for all that time myself, so I have spent my whole career doing little else. Success has many fathers, but if one looks at road safety policies in general in Ireland over the last ten to 15 years, a key reason for that success has been buy-in from the motoring public. There has been a sea change in attitudes towards road safety over that period of time and the AA has played an important part in championing road safety policies to the motoring public.

We research the beliefs of Irish motorists systematically. We have a degree of engagement with our customers which very few organisations can match. We regularly survey our members and customers by email and get thousands of responses. We ask AA members perhaps 20 multiple choice questions about policy issues and expect over 10,000 completed questionnaires to be returned. We frequently ask them their views on road safety topics and broadly speaking 75-80% of the motoring public buy into road safety policies. They support things like tougher penalties, extra gardaí, and speed cameras. However, there is also a cohort of 15-20% who are cynical. They do not believe it. They are convinced it is a racket and that it is about revenue creation. Whenever we do something about road safety, we must always make a conscious effort to demonstrate good faith. We may never convince all those people, but we must be sure to stay evidence-led and to act in good faith to persuade the doubters.

As the committee knows, the Road Traffic Act must be an evolving piece of legislation because technology and social behaviour change and the law must evolve to keep up. On this occasion, in the 2015 draft, there are a number of key changes. In some cases these are relatively unimportant and technical and are just necessary updates to the law, while in other cases they are a bit more profound. As we read the draft of the legislation, we reckoned there were nine areas of significance. These are in the document we submitted to the committee, so I will not read it word-for-word, but I will say a few words on each area, in no particular order, and there may be questions later.

The first area is drugs and driving. The Bill will allow gardaí to use a mouth-swab or other detection kit in the same way that they use a breathalyser for alcohol. In other words, along with the roadside breath check, there would also be a drugs check. That would be a screening mechanism, and a motorist who tests positive would thereafter be asked to provide an evidential sample, which could trigger a prosecution. From a road safety point of view, that is very welcome. One could have no reservations about it and it has to be a good thing. We know that drugs are being used while driving. The jury may still be out on the data on that, and I know there is some research going on, so it is hard to quantify, but we know it is there. However, we must also point out that the drafting of regulations that flow from this provision in primary legislation will be very important because there are things we must avoid.

It is a problem, technically, at this time. There is no device as effective as the alcohol breathalyser.

I am not an expert in this area but I know from conversations with people such as Professor Denis Cusack, whom I am aware the committee has met, that there are some types of drugs in respect of which trace element can exist after impairment. This is potentially a problem because we do not want roadside road safety checkpoints turning into de facto random drug tests for the population. We must ensure that we are concentrating on impairment caused by illegal or legal drugs rather than on trying to detect the drugs. That must be the focus. The control of illegal drugs is a matter for other legislation rather than road safety legislation. That said, we must ensure we are concentrating on impairment and are only seeking to detect where motorists are actually impaired by drugs. In that context, the AA can unreservedly support the provision.

As the committee will be aware, we are speaking in this regard about two key types of drugs, including legal drugs used on prescription or abused by the user - classically, benzodiazepines and so on - and illegal and illicit drugs. The provision contained in this Bill will essentially allow the Garda to screen for drugs in the same way as they screen for alcohol. On the whole, I believe this is a good measure but advise caution around the drafting of the detail in this regard. It is important we ensure that road safety legislation does not stray out of its territory and seek to address issues that should be addressed under the misuse of drugs legislation. Nevertheless, it is a good provision. Concerns have been expressed by employers about the implications of their having to put in place a drug screening or testing regime for drivers. This might be a concern as regulations are drafted. The drugs issue is one of the key provisions, probably the most significant new provision, contained in this Bill.

Another issue addressed is the use of mobile phones while driving, which is a perennial problem. We do not yet know how to keep up with technology in terms of legislation. It is proposed that under this Bill it will be an offence to use any type of electronic device for a data input exercise. In other words, it does not matter if it is a SatNav, tablet or something not mentioned in current legislation, it will be an offence to use a connected device to obtain information while driving. This will close off loopholes in current law and will probably be a good provision. It is unlikely to be the last word on these devices because the technology is constantly changing. We may have to look again at issues such as voice activated searches for the Internet etc. and whether they are a distraction. The legislation does not seek to outlaw making a hands-free mobile phone call while driving, which is probably pragmatic because it would be almost impossible to implement. Nevertheless, in parallel with the legislation we need to continue with education to persuade people that, even if not technically in breach of the law, regularly engaging in hands-free mobile phone conversations while driving is a bad habit and a poor driving practice. This a good provision in the law that will close off some gaps and improve things.

The Bill provides for the imposition of three penalty points in respect of the driving of a heavy vehicle with a trailer greater than 3.5 tonnes without the proper driving licence. My colleagues in the technical area have welcomed this. It appears that is a little overdue. There is also an important provision around written-off vehicles, which, again, is a consumer protection concern. It will become an offence to drive a vehicle that has been a write-off in a public place, unless it is exempted by regulation. These exemptions will close off the rare but not completely rare case whereby a car is technically a write-off but is physically repaired uneconomically and is now sound on the road. This does happen from time to time. This legislation will allow for that by regulation but it will also provide for much greater control of vehicle write-offs and enable a proper national register of written-off vehicles. While this currently happens as an administrative process, the provision provided for in this legislation will put it on a statutory footing, which is welcome.

Other work needs to be done on this issue, which is outside the scope of the current legislation which, as I said, will not be the last word on this. We would like to see a proper public open-source database which allows any motorist or person to at any time poll a car's registration number and automatically obtain relevant data about that car which already exists, including its mileage which is captured by the NCT, its collision history, its service history, ownership history and so on, all of which information should be freely available. Currently, it is not available because databases do not co-operate and because in many cases people are wary of falling foul of data protection legislation, which to us appears a little silly. I do not know of a legitimate data protection need which would seek to prevent somebody finding out the mileage on my car given that I could sell my house tomorrow and any citizen can find out what price I got for it. To me it seems a little silly not to share information about a car because of data protection concerns. I believe we need to do much more in this space. There should be no reason that information, which we already have, should not be made publicly available. This is a reasonably good provision but cannot be the last word in this area.

The Bill also provides for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the UK.This is a technical change to the law. It is a change to the basis on which that law is founded, from an EU convention to a bilateral arrangement with the UK. This follows on from measures taken by the UK, which are outside our control. It is only a technical provision but it is a continued signal to what is an important continuation of policy. In addition to recognising each other's driving qualifications it is a road safety policy imperative to move towards closer harmonisation with the UK. It would be lovely to have close harmonisation throughout Europe but that is not going to happen for a long time. In the mean time, it makes pragmatic sense to dovetail with the UK, with which we have a similar culture and share a land Border. Also, in both countries driving is on the same side of the road. There are many areas of interaction between the jurisdictions. If I drive into Belfast at 100 km/h, in terms of natural justice, I should not get away with that just because I have crossed an invisible border within the European Union. We have to improve bilateral co-operation with the UK. We need to move to mutual recognition of each other's penalty points systems. Again, this is a perfectly reasonable provision but it cannot be the last word in this area. There is a policy imperative to improve co-ordination between ourselves and the UK.

The Bill includes another provision which, again, tidies up existing custom and practice and law, namely, the sharing of insurance information by insurers. Insurers are already obliged to provide a Minister, the Garda and the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland with details on new policies created and on existing policies cancelled. This legislation makes more specific the nature of the information that can be shared. Ostensibly, this might be seen as setting aside or acting outside of data protection considerations for a transparent, fully understood and good reason. Motor insurers and certain other interested parties have to be able to share information because this will enable them to price accurately and fairly. They will then also know if individuals are choosing to cherry pick from one insurer to another in an effort, perhaps, to disguise a poor accident or collision record. It is in everybody's interest that this is done intelligently. Once again, this cannot be the last word in this area. There needs to be broader and deeper co-operation in the sharing of information. Generally speaking, this is a reasonably good provision.

One of the provisions in this law which is likely to be eye-catching, even from a PR point of view, is that related to cyclists. Cyclists will now be obliged to provide on demand to a garda the same information that a motorist is currently obliged to give to a garda, with application of the same penalties if they choose to refuse to do so. Everybody would accept that this is a sensible idea. Everybody recognises that cyclists, while typical of the general population in that most of are very decent and law abiding, there is no doubt that some are poorly behaved and that there is a perception that there is very little that the Garda can do about this. This provision will strengthen the hand an An Garda Síochána and is probably a good provision. In the longer term we can never arrive at a situation whereby a cyclist is treated the same as a motorist. I am instinctively uncomfortable with penalty points for cyclist offences. We need to recognise that at a deeper level motorists have the greater burden of responsibility. Cyclists do not knock down cars and kill them. The opposite is the case. It will always be the case that the use of a motor car is more tightly regulated and that transgressions in that regard are more severely punished than would be the case in respect of a cyclist. I think that is reasonable.

There is to be a change to the speed limit law to allow for variable speed limits at roadworks, which is sensible. It should go through and be uncontroversial.

It is a measure that is included in the speed limits review published in the autumn of 2013 which took effect last year. It is unreservedly good. It should not be controversial, provided local authorities administer it correctly.

The last new provision which conceivably is eye-catching but likely to be uncontroversial, certainly from a road safety point of view, is aimed at having tighter laws on what are called sulky races - informal races on public roads involving horse-drawn vehicles and typically organised by members of the Traveller community. I appreciate that there are cultural and respect issues about this activity to which we have to be sensitive and I do not claim it is our area of expertise, but purely from a road safety point of view, this is an entirely sensible measure which will mean that races can continue but a local authority licence will be required. Anyone participating in an unlicensed event will be guilty of an offence. This unregulated activity presents an unacceptable risk to the general public. While we desire to facilitate long-standing traditions of the Traveller community, it is very important that we act in the interests of public safety. On that basis, the AA supports this measure.

Broadly, there are some important and more technical measures included in the legislation, the broad thrust of which can be welcomed, but it is very much dependent on careful drafting of the regulations that will flow from it. Otherwise we will find ourselves at a similar committee discussing how to tidy it up in future iterations.