Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Huge strides have been made in recent years in regard to safety on our roads. This year and last year, however, for the first time in a number of years, we have seen an unfortunate rise in the number of deaths on our roads. It is a well-worn statement that one life lost is one too many, and we must always strive to reduce road fatalities and the potential for the accidents that cause them.

Major strides have been made in the past decade with the introduction of the penalty points strategy, which had greater success than even the Government of the time had expected. This success was due, in part, to the ability of penalty points and the attached fines to modify the behaviour of Irish road users. Practices that were commonplace in the 1990s are frowned upon and shunned today, which has meant drivers now use the road in a safer and more secure and careful manner.

The strength of the deterring effect of penalty points was down to two things, in the main - one, that the public saw the administration of penalty points as fair, and, second, because they had sufficient reason to believe they would receive penalty points if they flouted the law. These two essential planks of the penalty points system's effectiveness have been severely damaged over the past three years, and this issue has not helped the matter. The mistake of not removing the requirement for a valid NCT and dangerous parking from the list in previous legislation, making them exempt from fixed charge penalties, was just that - a mistake.

I have many issues with the Government and the politics behind many of its policies, which extends to this Department, but it would be wholly unfair to not understand that mistakes are made and human error is always a danger. This Bill was debated in the House and this issue was not picked up by anyone. I must state that this speaks to an issue in the way Bills are drafted and presented to the Dáil. On more than one occasion I have read Bills which were before the House and which required sitting down with two or three previous Bills in the same vein, going back and forth to decipher what each new section meant. I have had some experience of reading legislation in the last few years and have become more accustomed to this practice, but it remains a difficult and sometimes confusing endeavour to really try to get a firm understanding of the effect of each section.

This is made all the more difficult when we consider that a reference might not have been made which should have been made. This issue could only have been identified by the drafter, given the current way we deal with legislation. Providing expertise in the drafting of Bills rests with the Department and checks and balances are essential. We must look to present legislation which is easier to work with and to consider all the implications it might have on previous Acts in the same category. How this is done is another question, of course.

The failure to commence the other section in question was another case of human error, which we must work to avoid at all costs but which will always be a possibility. In recognition of this, I would like to express my appreciation of how the Minister has handled this. I am sure we will probably lock horns again in the near future but, in the last week, the Minister has acted swiftly and with consideration for the Opposition and the desire across the board to see this issue fixed. With 78,000 people affected from 1 August to 3 December, and with 49 licences suspended and the possibility of many more, the Minister had to act quickly once this problem was identified and understood.

The Minister met with transport spokespeople from the Dáil and the Seanad. I would ask that this engagement become more commonplace and certainly be continued for the duration of the outworking of this Bill. I would ask the Minister to agree to update the spokespeople and the committee in the new year on other issues.

For many members of the public it is very difficult to take the time to make an in-depth analysis of these somewhat complicated issues but it is important that this remedy is seen to be fair and proportionate. Confidence in the penalty points system has been damaged by scandal in recent times. Most people strongly believe that some people, by way of influence or a good connection to a member of the Garda, can make penalty points disappear - whether we like it or not, that is what most people believe. There is a case for transparency and fairness in the administering of the scheme, not scrapping it as some might argue.

This is especially important in the context of a policing organisation which has weathered three years of harsh austerity. Cuts made by this Government have meant fewer gardaí, fewer vehicles and fewer stations but, all the while, more responsibility for road safety is laid at the door of the Garda.

They have clearly worked extremely hard to fill the gaps caused by this lack of resources, but they cannot be spread so thin and continue to be effective. Less capacity for gardaí to do their job means more people continuing to drive dangerously on the roads and more people who should have been banned remaining behind the wheel. This is clearly why we have seen an upturn in road deaths in the past two years. Without proper resources, we cannot return to the success of previous years. I do not believe we have reached a threshold. There are still people flouting the law and endangering lives. We can do better; the key is to give the correct supports to the Garda to do its job.

I also want to raise issues concerning the NCT. Vehicle safety is as important as safe driving. I do not dispute that drivers must have a valid NCT to drive, but there is a problem when it is not so easy to undertake an NCT test within a short period of time. We raised this issue when the Bill was discussed previously. The Minister has said that waiting times are not a problem, but this is not borne out by the experience of the people I speak to. I have been told of people waiting for a test appointment for two, three, four or five months. This is far in excess of the 11 days the Minister cited, although that might be the case in some test centres.

The NCT centre in Ballymun has a fixed time period for conducting each test, and workers are instructed to complete the tests in that time. However, that time period has been reduced recently. I am concerned that this quicker turnover of cars could lead to health and safety issues. The Minister said that if tests could not be provided within 28 days drivers would be offered a free test, but the number of free tests has been very low. I wonder if people are being offered these free tests - I have not heard that they have - or if they do not know that they should ask for them, which might explain the low figure.

The NCT and the definition of dangerous parking are two issues that the legislation has not dealt with properly. It is not clear to ordinary citizens what we mean by "dangerous parking". We need to get the message out and explain this further. I am not clear on what is meant by the phrase. I realise that when people park they could cross over a line or enter another square, but it is unclear what is meant by this. We need to get the message out more.

In the past, I mentioned the GoSafe vans and issues with regard to where and how they park, such as inaccuracies in terms of where and how they parked and where and how their cameras were set up. Do we need to look further into these areas? We are aware that judges have quashed penalty points and that cases have been thrown out of court for various reasons. Has a proper analysis been done of this? Have we looked carefully enough at the issues to ensure we will not see other problems down the road in regard to these vans? Two serious anomalies have been identified in this Bill, but we may yet face a legal challenge, despite the fact the Attorney General's advice is that the Bill should be robust enough to withstand such a challenge.

We will not oppose the Bill, as road safety is so important. The Minister mentioned an addition to the Bill from the Seanad in the context of a case taken recently. Will he elaborate on that addition? I understand he is saying this is to safeguard the integrity of that case, but that the enactment of the legislation does not prohibit others from challenging it. I ask the Minister to comment on this in his response.

See this speech in context