Brendan Ryan (Labour)

NCT testing is like speed cameras and clamping for parking offences — they are all good ideas to which no one could sensibly take exception. The truth is, however, that in each case there has been an accumulation of anecdotal evidence of individuals in NCT services or clamping acting in a manner calculated to provoke outrage among the public.

I am at a loss to understand why a brand new car, public service vehicle or not, should need an NCT test before it can be used. Apart from the ludicrous situation mentioned by Senator Wilson, there is an entitlement to presume that a new car is safe. I was told by a taxi driver that a brand new Mercedes failed the emissions test at an NCT centre, and, when it was investigated, it was discovered the analytical equipment had not been cleaned for three months and the car passed once it had been cleaned. Small garage owners tell me they use the same analytical equipment as the NCT centres to test the emissions from customers' cars, which then go to those centres and fail the emissions test.

That leads me to believe that something is wrong, that the test centres need to generate volume and turnover to keep the revenue stream flowing. The NCT was introduced in the early days of the economic boom and there was an assumption about the future of car ownership that included provision for a larger proportion of older cars. The country then went on an orgy of car buying between 1997 and 2000, when huge numbers of cars were purchased. Was it then the case that the NCT was not getting enough business and had to introduce tighter standards? Minor precautionary issues suddenly became reasons for failure — a bulb that was unaligned would lead to another €30 charge to have someone check it had been adjusted.

When I have had cars tested, the quality of customer service in NCT centres is very good. They are well run, clean and hospitable places. They contrast with my recent experience in a driving test centre where the largest sign displayed stated that there were no public toilets. The greatest irony about these driving test centres is that whoever accompanies the person being tested cannot wait for him or her in the centre. Provisional licence holders who are legally obliged not to drive on their own are tested in a centre where the person who is supposed to be with them cannot wait. The person cannot get into the car with the tester either so he or she is supposed to go for a walk or not come at all. The contrast between customer service in NCT centres and in a driving test centre is painful. Someone lost the plot and forgot customers are at the receiving end of this service.

The NCT service is looking for reasons to justify itself but I am unconvinced that many accidents have occurred because three year old cars were unsafe. I unequivocally accept that until the NCT was introduced, this State was awash with cars that should not have been allowed to drive in a field not to mention a main road but we have totally changed the stock and quality of cars on the roads. We must ensure the NCT is not simply ratcheting up standards to keep the revenue stream flowing and is doing what it is supposed to — making sure cars are safe and environmentally clean. If they are insisting on standards in excess of that, they are not doing what they are supposed to do. Without too much enthusiasm, because the NCT centres do a reasonable job, I will support the motion.