Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who spoke on behalf of the motion. I thank all my colleagues in the Independent Group and all the Opposition Members, including Deputy O'Rourke, for their support. I also thank the Government for accepting the motion. I note that no Government backbenchers are speaking in the debate, which I take to indicate that they also accept the necessity for the motion. I want to be clear on what the motion calls for. It calls for the Government to instruct the RSA to set up an open tendering process for a walk-in service. The move to tender only for an appointment service was explained by the Minister of State in her statement. She said:

The procurement process for the new contract began in January 2020. It was not intended that the new contract, which took effect in June 2021, would offer a non-appointment option. This decision was made based on experience with the previous contract that managing a non-appointment element was difficult.

Therefore, a procurement process had begun and the goalposts shifted as a result of the consultation between the RSA, which was going to provide the contract, and a company which had previously provided it. That sounds very strange to me, especially given that one of the companies seeking to obtain the tender, An Post, was in a position to provide a walk-in service throughout the State. While it is no longer in every village, still every town in the country has a post office. That is really strange chicanery to occur in the middle of a pandemic. I am not saying that the tender is invalid or anything but it is a really unusual admission, almost as unusual as the admission the Minister made last Thursday week to me that this contract had been provided on a walk-in basis only. That came as news to me and to most people in this House.

The motion also states that we should ensure that all NDLS offices accept cash payments. That was repeatedly emphasised by my colleague Deputy Fitzmaurice. During this, we were actually discussing whether it is legal to refuse cash. I am afraid I do not know, but the Central Bank's website states it is legal tender. Businesses such as shops and restaurants cannot refuse cash unless both they and the customer have already agreed on another way of paying. People who walk into an NDLS office have not agreed on another way to pay. A constituent of mine walked in to an NDLS office, did everything right, went to pay and was told it would not take cash. He rang his wife who gave him details of a bank card. He was told that because she was not there, it could not accept that either. He then had to go and make another appointment through this farcical system of making appointments in order to get a driving licence.

It has been made inordinately difficult to get a driving licence. Does the Government envisage the day when someone will be required to make an appointment online or by telephone in order to buy a stamp? I fear that this is the thin end of the wedge. Not much was wrong with the system whereby people went to the local authority office to renew a driving licence in the same way that they renewed their motor tax. Of course, people can also renew motor tax online and many people do, which is a good thing.

However, someone renewing motor tax does not require a public services card. I accept, as the Minister of State said, that the RSA is specified body for the use of a public services card under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. However, the RSA contracts out all its services. Is the company that it contracts out to, which is effectively the company with which people are interacting online when renewing a driver licence, a specified body? If it is not, the entirely unlawful use of State data is being facilitated by this regime.Deputy Harkin said that everything is now contracted out and an obvious question follows from that.

I welcome that the Government is accepting the motion, but I hope it will act on it. Deputy Verona Murphy among others raised the delay in getting a foreign driving licence recognised with people waiting eight to nine months. Of course, Ukraine is not a country whose driving licences we recognise. I have no problem with people from Ukraine or any other country having to do a theory test and a practical test if they come from a country whose driving licence we do not recognise; we need to be sure that people can drive if they say they can drive. However, not alone will they have to do that, but they will have to do all the driving lessons over 12 months and I certainly have a problem with that.

I have no doubt that Ukrainian refugees will arrive here and some of them will hold driving licences. I have no doubt that the State does not recognise those driving licences. I have no problem with any of that. However, it will take them years to get a driving licence here and that will affect their employment prospects. The same is true of people who come from any state of the United States of America, some provinces of Canada and many other states. Nobody could possibly have a problem with requiring people to show they can drive and understand the rules of the road. However, it is inexplicable that they are required to do all the driving lessons and tests that somebody who cannot drive must do. I raised that point with the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, at the start of this debate. I recognise that it is not mentioned in the motion, but it needs to be addressed and I hope the Government will come back to us on that.

I greatly appreciate the support from all colleagues across the Opposition and the fact that the Government accepts the motion. However, I question what accepting it actually means. The motion requests that a new tender process be set up for a walk-in service, that cash be accepted in NDLS offices and that the requirement for online applicants to provide a public services card be discontinued in circumstances where that service is contracted out by the RSA. People are not providing their public services card to the RSA, but are providing it to a private company that may not be covered by the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. I would welcome clarification on that point.

See this speech in context