Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Probably like other Deputies, before considering the Bill, I examined the latest horrendous death and casualty figures on the roads, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring, may have referred. I understand the figure currently stands at 188 deaths in 2014 - the comparable figure this time last year was 181 - with 40 pedestrians and 11 cyclists having been killed. These are really shocking statistics because if there was a disaster involving air or rail transport in which 188 people died, the House would be talking about it for weeks. A public inquiry would be held and major action taken, yet, year in and year out, unfortunately, it appears to be acceptable to have these numbers of casualties. Moreover, it must be stated that, on the Minister's watch and that of his predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, the position has deteriorated in respect of the number of casualties. In tandem with the new chairperson of the Road Safety Authority, former Deputy Liz O'Donnell, and its new chief executive, Members must try to reduce seriously these numbers because they are simply horrendous. Again, in a point to which I will refer, one should think of the terrible effects on the families and friends of each one of those 188 people, as well as on those others who were seriously injured. This is a point to bear in mind when considering the Bill and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

In a way, this debate should not be happening and it should not have been necessary to have it because Members effectively are meeting in emergency session to correct lacunae in road traffic law. The legislation should have been right from the outset and the Minister has a responsibility to the House for that fact. He is directly responsible to Members in being obliged to correct these two matters today. Moreover, his predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and the former Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, also bear a heavy responsibility for the necessity to bring forward this legislation. That said, Members are now in this position and I support the Bill because it offers important protection for road users. As I understand it, it addresses two loopholes in road traffic legislation as it relates to the penalty points system. The first concerns the validity of penalty points for the offences of using a vehicle without a valid NCT and parking in a dangerous position. I note that the Minister's intention in section 2 is to correct references in road traffic legislation about the applicability and endorsement of penalty points for these offences.

As far as I understand it, the Bill also seeks to ensure that those offences which are now fixed charge offences are deleted from a list of exemptions of offences upon which driving licences would be endorsed with penalty points upon payment of a fixed charge. As I understand it, section 2(1) of the 2002 Act will be amended, in effect to delete references to the two above offences, as being exempted.

The first gap we are correcting relates to two very important offences. The recent flurry of people applying for NCT appointments appears to highlight that. I have some sympathy for the cases outlined by Deputies Mulherin and Penrose in terms of how the test operates in their areas. In the case of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe and I, we have the Ballymun facility which operates in an efficient way. People have said, for example, that they wold like to have their NCT before the three-month period. Deputy Penrose is correct that if one has made a genuine attempt to get one's NCT it should be proof that one is trying to have the test carried out. That is an area the Minister could seriously examine to see how we could make it more efficient, in particular in terms of allowing people to have an early NCT.

Parking in a dangerous space is another issue. Any of us who were councillors prior to becoming Deputies recall that such an issue came up a lot, for example, outside supermarkets and schools. It is important the issue is remedied.

The second loophole relates to correcting the effect of section 8(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 2014 because this amended section 2(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 and made reference to sections 37 and 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 in substitution for section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, but because the sections of the 2010 Act have not yet been commenced the endorsement of penalty points upon payment of a fixed charge would not be valid.

Again, I welcome the legislation in correcting the loopholes but I must reiterate my strong concerns because we should not have to be in the Chamber again to correct the legislation. I understand the loopholes came to light during a High Court challenge by a motorist who had received a number of penalty points and when an inquiry was made about the endorsement of the penalty points by the motorist's solicitor, it transpired that the legislation was defective or infirm.

I note that the second loophole which the Minister seeks to address in the Bill specifically refers to section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. As the Minister is well aware, I have called for the enactment of section 44, which provides for the so-called third payment option. I made such calls a number of times in the media. Under this mechanism, a person who is served with a summons for a fixed charge offence will have a final opportunity to pay a fixed charge, of an amount 100% greater than the original penalty, not later than seven days before the court date on which the charge is to be heard.

As the Minister is also aware, the PARC Road Safety Group, brilliantly led by that great citizen and road safety activist, Ms Susan Gray from Donegal, has consistently campaigned for the enactment of section 44. I understand PARC raised the matter with the Minister. I also understand the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, met with members of PARC in June of this year and committed to enacting section 44. I am informed that making section 44 operational requires the allocation of resources to an Garda Síochána to update its IT systems to recognise the creation of a new structure in the penalty points system. I was told that at one of the Minister's meetings with PARC in September that it was said to the multi-stakeholder group under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality that €6 million would be provided to update the Garda IT systems. That has been sought for many months. The courts also needed to update their systems. I understand they were quicker off the blocks in doing that, but some issues still arise in terms of the Garda system. If the necessary resources are available the Minister must ensure they are drawn down. That should allow for the system to be updated. However, it appears there are further delays in making the necessary changes. I would like the Minister to explain the reasons for the delay in the enactment of section 44 in his response. Mr. Bob Olson, of the Garda Inspectorate carried out a major report for the Government on fixed charge processing and he highlighted section 44 as one of the elements the Minister must address.

I am often asked why fixed charge notices are not delivered by registered post. Deputy Penrose outlined brilliantly the reason we need plainly written legislation steeped in common sense. Instead of the rigmarole in court, if one commits the offence, one should take the points and improve one's driving. That is the whole idea of penalty points. Why can we not have registered post in order that there would be no question over the delivery of fixed charge notices? It seems bizarre that such an approach was not taken.

As our barrister colleague, Deputy Penrose, said, the problems with the road traffic legislation, which the Minister is now attempting to rectify, highlight the need for a consolidated road traffic Act. I think the Minister referred to that in his introductory remarks for which I was unable to be present. Everyone knows the legislation on road traffic is complex. On many occasions in recent decades, because of the complexity of road traffic legislation, it has been shown to be easily open to challenge by an intelligent solicitor in a court. That is also a factor in the ongoing unacceptable level of bad driving and ultimately deaths and casualties on Irish roads. On numerous occasions in the Dáil, including during my time as transport spokesperson for the Labour Party for a number of years, I called for the consolidation of road traffic legislation. The current situation whereby there is a large number of Road Traffic Acts, dating back to 1961 according to supplementary information provided by the Minister, makes matters too complicated and messy. It makes it very difficult for us as legislators and policy makers for the future, for practitioners in the courts and for ordinary citizens to understand.

I wish to commend the Minister on one initiative since he has taken up this portfolio, namely, a proposal which I also advocated for many years, including during my time on Dublin City Council and as transport spokesperson in this House. The previous Deputy referred to people being outside the Pale. I am one of those who, like him, comes from a county council cottage, but we also had cattle. I am a country Dubliner. Deputy Dowds knows the area very well as he represents my native land. I can see both sides of the equation. A long speech was made last night about setting cities against country areas. To me, that is pointless politics. We are all people regardless of where we live. Someone such as I who had a rural background but lives in an urban area represents everybody. It is a fundamental thesis of social democracy and socialism that no matter where one lives, one should get exactly the same level of service. That is why I do not begrudge a cent to Westport United in any way. I know quite well that brilliant town in the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Ring.

See this speech in context