Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies for their contributions this afternoon in what has been a constructive discussion of the Bill. I was struck by the tone in which all Deputies addressed the matter. There was open criticism and questioning of why this change is needed, as I would expect, but it took place within a framework of support for the objective of road safety legislation as well as an acknowledgement that this issue is rather different from many of the other issues to which we devote time in this House.

Let us consider the array of different issues and challenges with which we engage. Making our roads safe and the peace process in Northern Ireland are unique in this regard. They are two areas of political engagement in which people seek to approach the discussion and structure their policy approach in a very different manner and tone. These areas command a different approach. They have been supported in different ways by various Governments of different complexions over the years. Given the various comments that I have heard this afternoon, it is evident to me that the cross-Dáil consensus to make our roads safer is as strong as ever, and the way in which this Bill has been approached demonstrates that.

Many different questions have been put to me and I will respond to them presently. One of things that makes those of us in political life stop and think sometimes is the question of how to make politics, and the way we engage with issues on behalf of the people we represent, better. From the discussion this afternoon I am certain that road safety law and legislation is one such example, because people genuinely approach the issue in a different way. As the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I do not take that for granted. It is not something I expect from Deputies or Senators. It is something that has to be worked upon to ensure it continues. Indeed, I am committed to doing my part as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to ensure it continues.

My colleagues have put various points of detail to me in respect of the legislation and I will respond to each in turn. Five common areas were touched on by almost all Deputies in their contributions, and I will touch on each of them. These were the areas of common concern or focus and I am keen to recognise that.

The first theme picked up by several Deputies was the notion of the unfairness of the penalty points system and the view that it is being used by agencies of the State to collect revenue or earn money. This charge was levied particularly in respect of the GoSafe vehicles, about which there has been an understandable level of focus recently. I am keen to be clear on the point. The GoSafe vehicles cost the State a good deal of commitment and funding to run and maintain. Far from being in any way about revenue collection, the only purpose of these vehicles and the associated strategy is to find another way to make our roads safer. We locate these vehicles in places where there is a history of road safety incidents, collisions and accidents.

Another charge levied against the penalty points regime is the notion of unfairness and the idea that in some way penalty points are meant to target people. One statistic is worth reflecting on in this regard. Some 70% of all penalty points levied on people, particularly through the fixed charge system, are accepted. I am not making the extrapolation that everyone accepts them because they are fair - that would be an unreasonable deduction to make. However, I contend that one of the reasons we see such a level of acceptance, particularly in respect of fixed charge notices, is the widespread understanding and acceptance that penalty points have played a vital role in making our roads safer. The Minister of State, Deputy Ring, outlined the history of where we were.

It is bad enough that a life per day was being lost on our roads. Not so long ago there were far more lost. While nobody wants penalty points, their breadth and implementation have made a very important contribution to making our roads safer.

Many colleagues raised the operation of the NCT centres, particularly after the changes that took place in the penalty points regime in respect of the test. It is not a case of a new charge being created of driving without an NCT certificate. That sanction was changed to give people the option of not going to court but paying a fixed charge and incurring three penalty points. There was always an offence, but the nature of the offence changed when we changed the law in that area. The bigger change that has created some of the difficulties Deputies referred to is the amount of advertising by the RSA when that change happened. It communicated this change very strongly and changed public awareness of the offence. Figures made available to me for the week commencing on 24 November show that 25,000 car tests were carried out. Of those, 9,000 were late or very late. A total of 1,450 were tests that should have been carried out in 2013. That figure is one of the reasons this change in the nature of the offence, as opposed to the creation of an offence, will play a role in making vehicles, and therefore our roads, safer. That said, I am aware of Deputies’ concern about this matter. I continually check the average waiting time. The most recent set of figures indicates that the average waiting time is between 12 and 13 days. A total of 65 new testers have been trained and will be ready to go into the NCT centres. Tests will be carried out up to and including Christmas Eve. Some centres where there have been difficulties are taking measures to ensure that more services can be made available. In response to the issues many Deputies raised this evening, I will again discuss this matter with the RSA to see what can be done to ensure this system is brought in effectively and fairly.

The third theme Deputies raised was the change in the requirement for people with a learner permit to have a driver with them. This is not a new offence but it attracts penalty points. Deputy Fitzmaurice put to me the idea that Dubliners make law and are not very aware of its consequences in different parts of the country. Deputy Broughan rebutted it very well. I am very aware of the consequences of this law in all parts of the country. Like many Dubliners, I am one step removed from the rural life on which Deputy Fitzmaurice and others have commented.

This year 28% of people who lost their lives on our roads were between the ages of 16 and 30. That figure is equal to 53 lives. I feel I am obliged to consider measures that will reduce that figure and that changing the sanction to include penalty points will bring down the number of lives lost on our roads, particularly those of young people. It reflects the fact that people who are on a learner driver’s licence will not have the same level of experience as people who have their full licence and may have been driving for longer. I believe this is the correct measure but, as with any measure I bring in, I will always keep it under review to make sure it is achieving its objective. I accept that this will require a change in the behaviour of people in some communities.

The final theme articulated by several Deputies was the notion of retrospection and its consequences in the law. Deputy McNamara is approaching it in a deeply principled manner because of his concerns about what it could mean for people who incurred penalty points between 1 August and the time when I became aware of the issue. He used certain language out of fear that we would create an environment in which the State has a degree of tyranny over its citizens. He said creating new offences is no way to run a country.

See this speech in context