Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Like most of its proposals, the Government will not divulge the secret until the last minute. We have large numbers of people waiting for driving tests, some of them up to 14 and 15 months. This is not a new phenomenon. It has happened before on several occasions and a sticking plaster or fire brigade action has taken place on every occasion. On one occasion we had a write-off of all tests and everybody got a licence regardless of whether they could drive. We now have a temporary measure to introduce emergency powers, as it were, and semi-privatisation with bonuses to encourage driver testers. While I do not know how the bonus system will work, I presume it will encourage the testers to test more quickly or to test more people. However, it is proposed to reduce the number of people on the waiting list for the foreseeable future, in other words, the next two years. I presume it will ultimately achieve what was intended in the first place, which is to clear the backlog before the general election.

As far as I can see everything that is being done at present is to clear the decks for the next general election and much clearing remains to be done. To address the issue of driver testing we have the same Government that produced the Red Cow roundabout, the tunnel that only takes small trucks and the electronic voting machines that will not work and cost a fortune to be stored. These are indicators of what has happened in the past. I do not see how this proposal will resolve the problems we are faced with.

Given the numbers of people seeking driving tests at present, it was not today or yesterday it became obvious that we needed to address this area. It has been obvious for some years. It would have been simple to introduce additional testers at the time. As it happens, the number of additional testers will not make a ha'p'orth of difference in terms of significantly increasing output. The economy depends on the ability of people to get to work. Looking at the traffic jams on the roads I wonder how the unfortunate commuters restrain themselves and do not take the law into their own hands, although I do not suggest they should do so. In a growing economy like ours, one would have expected it would have been possible to apply for a driving test and be called within a few weeks. This can be done in most other countries and I do not know why we are so special here that we cannot do so. Many of the problems stem from the practices that have become established over the years. For instance the number of tests carried out per day could be increased. I do not see why people should have to stop testing at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock, when there is still a fair part of the day left. Even if it means introducing shifts of testers, that should be possible. There is nothing extraordinary about it, and one need not be a rocket scientist. I cannot see why testers should not operate at night. After all, a fair proportion of driving takes place then. There are serious doubts regarding whether, in some circumstances, people who have been tested and passed have enough experience of road use. What experience have those who were passed arbitrarily, with no test, because of a past backlog? Since a great many accidents occur at night, it should be possible to devise a system whereby a certain proportion of driving tests could take place then. After all, 50% of people do a certain amount of driving takes at night. Those of us who work in this House probably find that we drive more at night than during the day.

What bugs me most is that this has arisen three or four times in the last ten years. There are long lists of people waiting for driving tests, and I cannot understand why no one has learned from that and decided that it might not be such a bad idea to increase the number of testers in line with the need that presents itself. The population is rising, and demographic trends should have been sufficient to establish the need for extra testers so things could progress in a normal way.

I am also concerned at the bonus system. If the criterion is set in relation to how a driver is tested, it should not require a bonus to encourage anyone to carry out the test. I wonder about the semi-privatisation and why, at the end of the removal of the backlog, we are to revert to the old system. Does that mean that in two or three years there will be another backlog and a requirement to introduce a similar Bill?

Let us return to an issue about which we should be concerned. We have a high rate of traffic accidents, and I fully understand that it is impossible to eliminate them all. Accidents will happen, and we should try to eliminate the circumstances in which they take place as much as possible. In many situations, they are a result of bad driving, inexperience, an inability to judge the road conditions and relate that to speed and so on. The list goes on, and for some unknown reason, between midnight and 6 a.m. we experience a high number of tragic accidents, many of them fatal. Research must be conducted to identify the causes, which clearly include bad driving and bad and unsafe roads.

How many times have we had the experience that one comes to a bend or curve in the road and finds, as one tries to navigate it, that the road surface is rough or that one has to move from one side to the other to avoid potholes? Perhaps one sees a sign stating that one is at an accident blackspot. As I have said before on similar matters, that means nothing more than that several accidents have taken place, many of them fatal. In such circumstances, one hardly needs to be a rocket scientist to work out that one can do two things. One can identify whether in every case the fault was that of the driver. I am not so sure that, if one has 20 or 30 accidents in one location, driver error is always to blame. There are other factors to examine and eliminate as far as possible. We must examine driver qualifications, and ultimately also those of the testers, and the extent to which the road or road surface contributes to accidents, given the need to reduce road traffic accidents and especially fatalities as much as possible.

I wonder whether, under this proposed system and regarding the need to encourage increased output, the test will not be as rigorous as previously. Will it be universally applicable, with the same standards and requirements applying across the country? If there are 1,000 people on one waiting list and 500 on another, will that automatically mean that, given the Bill's thrust, where the longer waiting list presents itself, the testers will be less rigorous? I would like that answered by the Minister. I have a funny feeling that tendency will be there, given the pressure to reduce the waiting list. People must be getting very accustomed to waiting. We now have waiting lists to enter schools, for housing, as my colleague will readily verify, for hospital treatment and for driver testing. We have virtually become the home of such lists, a rather undesirable accolade. There are waiting lists everywhere. We will have waiting lists to enter a tunnel that cannot accommodate its intended traffic, and on the M50, for the traffic that cannot get up or down it on a Friday afternoon or any other day. Deputies should see it for themselves. We are in the era of waiting.

Perhaps the Minister might clarify in his reply whether there will be universal application of the standard required of a driver. Will each area get the same treatment, or will there be attempts to speed matters up in certain areas to achieve the target before the next general election, an important date? My colleague, Deputy Carey, like everyone else in the Houses is very concerned about what might happen between now and the next general election.

There is nothing new in the board of the authority. We live in the age of such authorities, which are not accountable to this House and for which Ministers will not be accountable to it. Every day that passes I receive replies stating that the Minister has no responsibility to the House on various issues. I have no doubt that we will be hearing that in future. I do not accept that general rule, about which I have always protested. The Minister should be answerable to the House for every issue which arises under his or her Department and which is paid for under the Department's Vote. There is no other arena in which he might be made responsible or the public might get answers to questions. There is nowhere else for members of the Opposition to go to get an answer to a simple question other than tabling a question to the relevant Minister. Unfortunately, recently we have moved ever further from that. The theory is that it is good for government, but it is bad for it. It allows a siege mentality to develop that prevents the Government from asking itself questions, something that it should do. Regardless of which parties are in power, it is never in the interests of a Government to be economical with the degree to which a Minister is responsible to the House in respect of any or all of the legislation he or she has passed, even where such legislation provides for the devolution of powers to an external authority or body, which has increasingly been the practice in recent years.

We should all do what we can to improve the standard of driving on our roads. I welcome the fact that special emphasis has been placed during this debate on safe driving. Although all new drivers must now sit a preliminary theory test before receiving their first provisional licence, there is still insufficient emphasis on this aspect of driver proficiency. When I was involved in the insurance industry many years ago, I went to a good deal of trouble to identify how drivers could be better instructed off the road in simulated situations. There should be much greater emphasis on this type of instruction.

New drivers can glean many useful tips from more experienced motorists. I once saw a programme on British television which illustrated the danger signs for which motorists should be alert. These included parked cars on either side of the road or the appearance of a football in the vehicle's path, for example. Some of these danger signals have been used in Irish television advertisements. Less experienced drivers may not be as alert to these warnings as someone who has been driving for longer. Although the speed limit in most built-up residential areas is generally 30 km/h, experienced drivers find it is not usually possible to attain that speed because they must always be alert to the danger of a child or pet running into the path of their vehicle.

When instruction is given to learner motorists, greater emphasis should be placed on the ability to read the conditions of the road and to react quickly in particular circumstances. We must provide better certification of the ability of new drivers by ensuring we have a universally acceptable and sufficiently rigorous testing system that is based on the necessity that the newly certified driver has plenty of experience on and off the road. This is the situation for pilots who must train on the ground in a simulator for a long period before they are allowed into the air. This aspect of training should be utilised to a far greater extent in the area of road safety and driver testing.

See this speech in context