Mr. Noel Brett:

I will try to go through the questions but not in great detail as many of them have been covered. I agree with Deputy Dooley that we should take every opportunity we can to prevent cases going to court unless a motorist insists on a day in court. These cases should not be clogging up the court as they incur huge costs and are a crazy waste of Garda time while they wait around courts. When cases are adjourned then gardaí return to deal with cases on overtime. We need the Garda to do enforcement. If a motorist wants a day in court he or she has the right as a citizen. However, we should use every mechanism available to deal with such cases. In reviewing the penalty points system, if there is a mechanism that can stop the people who put their notice behind the clock and forget to pay it from having to go to court, if they do not want to go, then I would applaud that. It would deliver savings both in the courts system and in Garda enforcement. We need every available garda to be involved in enforcement on the road and not to be tied up in court. Neither the garda nor the driver wants to be in court and the judge does not need them there. The driver has made a mistake and he or she wants to correct it.

In terms of speed limits, there are two actions in the current road safety strategy. One was for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to set new engineering guidelines for the entire country. That has been done. Every local authority is now reviewing its speed limits. There is an issue with which we must grapple in terms of consistency, on which Mr. Faughnan touched, namely, that even within a county one can get different interpretations of the guidelines within different engineering areas.

Guidelines need to be implemented universally and drivers need to be able to know from the road, almost intuitively, what speed they should be doing. They should not be looking around for the limits. The limit of 80 km/h on a boreen or bog road that has rushes growing in the middle is considered the default limit at present. I understand the Department has some proposals to reduce that but it is also in the gift of every local authority to set its own limits for those roads, which needs to happen. It is a very cumbersome process for elected members, a reserved function that takes ages, so we need to do something nationally in terms of fairness and consistency. Every one of us, as a driver, should know intuitively, just by looking around us at the road type and layout and what is happening in regard to pedestrians and traffic volume, what speed we should be doing. Speed limits should be there just as a reminder. I agree with the speaker on that.

I refer to the placement of the GoSafe, privately operated camera vans run by An Garda Síochána. These do 6,000 hours of filming per month and are paid only for that. They are not paid for whomever they catch or do not catch. Approximately 53% of their hours are during evenings and at weekends, to reflect when fatal and serious injuries caused by speed-related collisions take place. The vans have been a fantastic success story. Members may wish to consider inviting the Garda Commissioner to tell them about it in terms of the savings they have made and how they have reduced collisions on our most dangerous routes. This work has freed up a tremendous amount of Garda enforcement - some 6,000 hours. We need to see that enforcement in place, not instead of Garda involvement but as an addition to it. It is a fantastic story and a credit to gardaí in the way they have operated it. It enjoys very strong public support. We are now in a situation where local representatives are writing to us, saying there is an issue in their community and they want one of these vans. That is an example of how local representatives are realising this is a solution for their parts of the country. I have had probably three or four letters from public representatives asking for vans to be moved but, in general, people want them in their communities and realise they add considerable value. It is a good success story.

With regard to collision analysis, I will send this information to the clerk of the committee. Every year we publish road collision data and we are about to publish for 2011. It is based on the report we get from the Garda in regard to every collision. Last year we received 29,400 forms, all of which were analysed. If members are interested in their local areas they can access our website, which has a section on collision statistics where it is possible to select and check any section of road in the country and analyse the collisions that have happened in recent years and their types. That is of great use to people in their own communities.

Deputy Dooley asked about learner drivers who do not display "L" plates or who do not have accompaniment. My view is there should be two penalty points for each offence and this should be enforced. Forcing these drivers into court is not the right way; there should be an automatic awarding of two points, irrespective of age. It is to do with experience. Such a driver is in a learning period and is a novice.

In response to Deputy Harrington, I would echo what Mr. Faughnan said. We must harmonise with Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Ireland is in a good place now to lobby for harmonisation and lead on this in Europe. It may take decades but if one does not start one will never do it. I am particularly concerned about the number of tourists and foreign drivers who come into this country. They must be subject to the same rules as our own drivers.

I refer to driver testing and training. Anybody who is learning to drive now has compulsory lessons and a syllabus. There are 1,900 approved driving instructors operating around the country, all of whom have a FETAC level 6 qualification. The syllabus includes the types of issues the Deputy referred to. That is the new cohort of drivers. The vast bulk of drivers, including myself, have never had this training - that is an issue. Mr. Faughnan spoke about the changes that have happened in driver testing and training. We are on a journey here. A lot has been done but further changes and reforms remain to take place. I would disagree with Mr. Faughnan's view that the test centre in which one takes the test dictates the outcome. A range of factors dictate this. There are economic factors - whether one has access to a vehicle in order to practise, whether one has taken tuition, the quality of same, etc. There may be literacy and socioeconomic issues. For example, I refer to the driver theory test. Every candidate gets the same book, learns the same questions and goes and sits in front of a computer. No other individual is involved. The questions are put at random in front of the candidate who touches the screen to respond. There is a 34% difference between the centres with the highest and lowest pass rates yet no other person is involved. The testing in this country compares remarkably to the high-end of testing outcomes in Europe. I would disagree, therefore, that the result is down to location. Our service is accredited. It is a constant battle to keep consistency of testing. Ours is one of the only testing regimes that publishes its outcomes by test centre, by theory test centre and by NCT test centre. That is the kind of openness we need. People need to see that. However, there are many complex factors involved given that the theory test shows that everybody is on the same field. The more information we can provide in terms of consistency the better. I accept there is a continuous battle in any testing regime, across any sector, to ensure that the right person gets the right result all of the time. It is always a challenge.

Deputy Harrington made some comments on mobile telephone use. This is notoriously difficult to detect. One has to actually see the person and catch him or her in the act. It would be a natural extension of the safety camera and the Garda ANPR systems to start capturing footage in regard to mobile telephone usage and use it as good strong evidence. There is also a requirement to change legislation so that in any fatal or serious injury collision it should be normal investigative practice that both drivers' mobile telephone records are sought. As I understand it, at present one must deal with the Wireless Telegraphy Act, which is very dated. There are many issues around privacy and all of that. However, where a citizen has been killed on our roads, or has had a life-altering injury, I believe it is proportionate that both drivers' mobile telephone records should routinely be requested and checked. If there was mobile telephone use at the time of collision that should be a very significant part in the prosecution. If such legislation were in place and was the practice, coupled with the penalty point system, we would see a marked change in what is now perhaps the most dangerous behaviour on the road, the one that, as Mr. Faughnan's survey shows, irritates the most motorists. It irritates all of us because we are sharing the road with somebody who is not sharing it fairly. I agree with the Deputy as to the quality of evidence.

I refer to adverse conditions such as motorway and night-time driving. There are proposals with the Minister in terms of graduated licensing to the effect that after a person passes the driving test during the following three months he or she would have to take additional tuition with an approved instructor in order to be fit for motorways and night-time driving. There are issues when this happens with novice drivers. In parts of the country, for example, there is no access to a motorway and very inexperienced drivers would have to travel long distances. Night-time driving is easy to do in the winter but harder to do in the summer. We believe it would be much more effective that a person who has mastered the basics and passed a basic driving test would be required to take some very targeted tuition with an approved instructor, going out on the motorway or dual carriageway, doing some night-time driving, and practising and logging these hours. That would be a more effective way to do it when a person is at this stage in his or her driving career.

Deputy Ellis raised a broad range of issues, some of which I have covered. I agree with him about a mechanism to re-educate bad drivers. The threat of having to re-sit one's driving test would probably focus the mind of every one of us in the room, more than a fine would. That mechanism should be there for the most serious offenders.

At present the maximum number of points awarded in Ireland is 12; in the UK it is ten. The systems are not harmonised as they need to be. Mr. Faughnan touched very well on that point.

I refer to the identification of number plates. Somebody may have a defective plate or may have deliberately altered the plate so that it cannot be detected, not only in road traffic situations but for other crimes. As of now, a garda has to detect that, issue a summons, take the person to court, stand up in court and deal with that situation. The court should not have to deal with this. It is an ideal offence for penalty points, one that is directly related to road safety and road use behaviour. I concur with the Deputy in that regard.

We have covered speed limits. Consistency is the big issue here. I would make the point a couple of members have made - when people start talking about being "only a small bit above" the limit we should remember that it is the location in which the offence takes place that counts. Exceeding a speed limit by 7 km or 8 km in a zone with limits of 30 km/h, 40 km/h, 50km/h or 60 km/h, where there are pedestrians and children, can mean one is 10% or 15% in excess. It is about the risk, not about how many kilometres per hour one is in excess. It is about the location where the offence takes place and what that means in terms of risk. There is scope to look, in due course, when the speed limits are sorted out, at some kind of calibrated system that penalises excess. However, we need to relate that to the environment in which the excess happens. For example, a person driving at 67 km/h in a school zone is of much more concern to me than somebody driving at 140 km/h on a motorway.

It is just a matter of identifying the context in which offences are taking place and then trying to deal with that.

All European jurisdictions have different signage. I would love to see the introduction of a European project to establish core signage. I refer here to key safety signs, such as stop signs, junction signs, etc. It would be great to establish the same signage across Europe, particularly in view of the fact that the populations of the various countries are highly mobile. Irish people visit other member states and citizens from the latter travel here. I am of the view, therefore, that there is much more to be done in the context of this matter.

Reference was made to motorists displaying NCT certificates on their vehicles and to more general issues relating to the test. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the NCT as a road safety measure. When it was first launched in 1999-2000, fewer than 8% of cars passed the test at the first attempt. We all remember what the vehicle fleet on our roads was like at that stage. At present, some 54% of vehicles pass the NCT at the first attempt. We have a fantastic fleet but it is ageing. The current age of vehicles in the fleet is eight years and we are in a dangerous place in this regard. People are making decisions with regard to whether they should pay their mortgages, feed their kids, pay a particular bill or service their cars. Each month some 400 vehicles which are subjected to the NCT are given what is called a "fail dangerous" notice. Such vehicles are absolutely unsafe to leave the test centre and must be taken away on recovery trucks. There are very serious road safety issues with regard to these vehicles, and their owners would have driven them to the test centres in that condition. The condition of the fleet is critical. There is a need to ensure that people have their cars tested and, as a result, the NCT is linked to drivers' insurance and motor tax.

In recent years I have noticed that a large number of vehicles are failing the NCT as a result of the state of their tyres, suspensions and various components. People are just not servicing their cars because they do not have the cash to do so. That is a major issue. As a result of this, a greater proportion of fatalities and injuries on our roads are going to come about on foot of the condition of the vehicles in our fleet. We have made huge leaps forward in the context of the condition of the fleet. We must ensure that our progress in this regard continues by incentivising people.

As Mr. Faughnan stated, we need to tackle illegal dumping and similar issues in the arenas in which they are taking place. For example, dumping is a reprehensible crime and those who engage in it need to be hit hard. In that context, I am concerned that penalty points would be seen as an immediate but lesser solution. Dumping is such a serious offence that it must be dealt with at source by means of the correct legislation. There is strong evidence from research carried out at European level that one makes a long-term mistake if one tries to use road safety legislation to tackle other matters. There is a need to keep the punishment relevant for people. I agree that this is an issue of major importance. As a rural dweller-----