Mr. Ray O'Leary:

We have had some outline conversations on it, but I think he wanted to first look at the report from the RSA to see what outcome we want to achieve. We have had some initial conversations because if we start, for example, affecting the definition of mechanical vehicle, there will be knock-on effects. I hate to say it but an awful lot of consolidation would be needed afterwards as it crops up in many places across the system. We have had initial conversations about what might be implied but we have not gone into the details because before working on what our input would be, it is necessary to have a clear idea of what we would consider a desirable outcome. We will look at the proposed legislation from Fianna Fáil, as well as what elements are needed and whether this might be taken forward, with the necessary updates and amendments.

We would start with the high-level policy stance and then work down, in terms of what is both appropriate and workable, bearing in mind the overriding objective of road safety.

I noted in conversations on this issue that a colleague advised me, because sometimes this issue is raised in the context of innovation, there is hardly another country in Europe that is more innovative in transport than the Netherlands. It has consistently been one of the leaders in intelligent transport systems and connected, autonomous and shared mobility. The authorities in that country have, following some tragic incidents, a very clear stance that safety must never be put at risk for the sake of innovation. If that is the Dutch line, it is not a bad line to be adopted by the Irish authorities. I am always a great believer in looking outside the Anglophone world. For example, all too often we tend to look to those who share the same language even if it sometimes takes more work to look at the others.