Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support the Bill in principle but I have concerns, some of which may be addressed on Committee Stage. However, others can only be addressed if there is a proper enforcement regime. I read the Bill digest, which is always helpful, and I was shocked to find that 32% of commercial vehicles tested at road side checkpoints in 2011 required immediate action. Commercial vehicles were involved in approximately 20% of fatalities while a high number of accidents resulted in serious injuries. The larger the vehicle, the greater the risk of injury. Such injuries can be life changing and that must be borne in mind. Changes that are made in the interest of road safety must be thought out and we should generally support them.

According to the Bill digest, there is evidence that a disproportionate number of Irish registered vehicles fail road side checks in the UK and, anecdotally, the same is the case on the Continent where there is a high level of compliance. This is because there is a high risk of being caught and losing a business or an income. Compliance together with enforcement of the legislation are the two key issues. The fact that hauliers were detected in Britain shows that there is higher level of enforcement there than in Ireland. I agree the current system, which is fragmented, cannot lead to consistency and it is necessary to have a central database to track variations in compliance levels and test outcomes in different parts of the country. Without data, that cannot be measured whereas it is very important it is possible to measure it.

There is apparently limited roadside enforcement by gardaí and infrequent multi-agency enforcement measures. Indeed, I have been watching out for multi-agency measures, for example, in regard to the taxi system. I have been in taxis recently and, to be honest, I do not know who passed them. I got into one taxi where the door would not close and there were appalling and obvious defects. When dealing with very large vehicles while there is an inadequacy in terms of enforcement and of compliance, given there is an obligation on the people who own and drive these vehicles, clearly, they are posing an unacceptable risk to other road users. The fragmentation is not helpful and, therefore, the centralisation of supervision is a reasonable proposal.

We all remember the high-profile "Prime Time" programme on the NCT, which pointed to a less than satisfactory situation, although that is something of an understatement. Given that experience, it will be essential this process is highly supervised and regulated. Nonetheless, I cannot understand how it is to work. I presume there will be private sector involvement and that there may well be a competition or a tender process. However, it would be useful if the Minister outlined how he sees this applying in practical terms as it is important we see that picture. If it continues to be the case that people go to garages to undertake their tests and, at the same time, come back to the same garage to have their tyres repaired or carry out whatever repair the vehicle requires, there is a conflict of interest. There is also a potential conflict of interest in terms of local authorities keeping the show on the road in terms of commercial rates and all the rest. All of those kinds of issues have to be part of the consideration of this issue.

The idea that 158 operators are supervised by 30 bodies is the kind of fragmentation we have been used to in this country and it is not an efficient way to operate. However, I have concerns, as I had in my experience with the National Roads Authority, that this will be impenetrable for a person trying to get information from the Road Safety Authority and there will be no democratic oversight. Those kinds of issues are very important when one is taking powers away from the local authority. There needs to be oversight for an agency such as the RSA, for example, by parliamentary question. While the RSA has been doing a very good job, there is always the potential for that job not to be done as well as we would like, and it is important we have this available to us.

While I am supportive of this initiative, I note the commercial vehicle licensing element of the local authorities' role, which is done on an agency basis for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, is quite small in terms of motor taxation and the provision of general licences. There is a valid concern in that we hear every week of another function that will not be carried out by the local government system. I am in favour of radical reform - I really mean radical reform - of the local government system. I do not want to see it done by stealth, however, but in a thoughtful way, so I am concerned that we are seeing this kind of chopping away of functions without some sort of a vision. I accept this is a separate matter but it is important to say it.

The point made by a previous speaker on the centralisation of medical cards was not a good example. If we are to centralise something, we must be certain that when a telephone rings, somebody is there to pick it up, that people are treated in a professional manner, that the least amount of bureaucracy is involved in complying and that it is made easy for people to comply. The last thing we want is to create problems for people who are already struggling to keep a business going. Of any sector, the road haulage industry has been one of the most prone to businesses failing over the years, and it is important we keep in mind that where people are trying to be compliant, we help them to be compliant.

The local authorities currently have officials involved in identifying and authorising testers, and it appears this function is done on a part-time basis in many local authority areas. Can we be told if this function will be retained or transferred to the RSA, or will it be subsumed into other functions within the local authority system? This question does matter.

It appears some test centres carry out tests for heavy goods vehicles but not for light goods vehicles. If we are going to centralise the process and make it simple, it is important this issue is dealt with. While I suspect it will be, there is inadequate information for me to be sure this will be the case.

There is always a presumption that people can do everything online but there will have to be some thought about people who do not want to do their business in that way. The other point is that if we are taking this process away from the local government system and it is to be centrally organised, will people have to rely on the postal service or apply online, or will they have a reasonably convenient local office to which they can go? Again, I ask the Minister to draw attention to how this will function in practice.

The Bill refers to tachograph offences. I believe there are many offences in regard to people not complying with tachograph rules but we do not know because we rarely see anyone being checked. In the past 12 months, I saw perhaps two major checks involving the Customs Service, the Garda and social welfare officials, and not necessarily in regard to heavy goods vehicles. When one goes to other countries, in particular the UK, one is conscious of the traffic corps being on the roads the whole time, of people being pulled in and all the rest. This legislation will only be as good as its enforcement.

Ten years ago the National Roads Authority undertook an analysis - perhaps not a very nice one - in regard to how much a fatality cost. It came to the conclusion that a figure which could be put on it for the purposes of undertaking a cost-benefit analysis was approximately £1 million. We can see, therefore, that a higher level of compliance will result in a financial benefit, as well as a benefit to the people who will not end up subject to these road accidents.

I was surprised when I saw the plastic-style driver licence was first initiated in the early 1990s. Europe has moved about as slowly as the iceberg that the Titanic hit. Within the next ten years we will have this plastic card but I cannot understand why it will take that long. It is astonishing how slowly the process moves for such a logical, small thing.

I want to focus on the issue of Garda numbers given Ireland has a very lop-sided distribution of Garda resources. I met the assistant commissioner, who told me each division operated on the basis that what one has, one holds. The counties around the cities that have grown in recent years - I am not only referring to Dublin - have a disproportionately low number of gardaí per head of population. My county, Kildare, is the worst nationally with one garda for every 660 people, approximately half the national average. If the rest of the country was policed to that standard, we could let go 5,000 gardaí. Naturally that would be ridiculous but that is the level of service we are getting. The distribution of gardaí will be important if there is any chance of the legislation working as intended.

Although there are many positive aspects to the Bill, one note of concern is that it gives a good deal of power to the Minister to bring in regulations and secondary legislation. The absence of democratic oversight is dangerous and the wrong way to proceed with this legislation. I would prefer to see more detail in this legislation. It may be that some detail can be incorporated by way of amendment on Committee Stage but it is concerning.

I had always understood that one was considered innocent and not guilty by assumption. Another provision of concern in the Bill is the suggestion that if one does not produce certain documentation, one is presumed to be guilty. I am somewhat concerned about this and I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

See this speech in context