PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Together with the Proceedings of the Committee relating
to the Report and the Minutes of Evidence

Standing Orders under Section 60(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 have provided for the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee. It is the statutory function of the Public Accounts Committee to consider the accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General laid before the Assembly.

The Public Accounts Committee is appointed under Standing Order No. 55. It has the power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time. Neither the Chairperson nor Deputy Chairperson of the Committee shall be a member of the same political party as the Minister of Finance and Personnel or of any junior minister appointed to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Committee Members were appointed by the Assembly on Monday 24 January 2000. They will continue to be Members of the Committee for the remainder of the Assembly, unless it orders otherwise. The Chairperson Mr Billy Bell and Vice-Chairperson Ms Sue Ramsey were previously appointed on 15 December 1999. The full membership of the Committee is as follows:

• Mr Billy Bell (Ulster Unionist Party, Lagan Valley) (Chairperson)
• Ms Sue Ramsey (Sinn Fein, Belfast West) (Deputy Chairperson)
• Ms Pauline Armitage (Ulster Unionist Party, East Londonderry)
• Mr Roy Beggs Jnr (Ulster Unionist Party, East Antrim)
• Mr Mervyn Carrick (Democratic Unionist Party, Upper Bann)
• Mr Seamus Close (Alliance Party, Lagan Valley)
• Mr John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)
• Mr David Hilditch (Democratic Unionist Party, East Antrim)
• Mr Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)
• Ms Jane Morrice (Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, North Down)
• Mr Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at archive.niassembly.gov.uk/accounts.htm

All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee, Room 242, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, BELFAST, BT4 3XX. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 028-9052-1532. The Committee's e-mail address is: michael.rickard@niassembly.gov.uk

Introduction

Our Principal Conclusions and Recommendations

Northern Ireland's poor road safety record and the action being taken to reduce
the number of fatalities and serious injuries

Whether Road Safety Education is adequately resourced, co-ordinated and targeted

Whether enforcement is effective and properly targeted

Whether the current arrangements for Driver and Vehicle Testing are effective and
are contributing to improvements in road safety

Whether road engineering schemes make an effective contribution to reducing
fatalities and serious injuries

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT

EVIDENCE (Wednesday 5th July 2000) (1/99-i (1999-2000))

WITNESSES

Mr Stephen Quinn, Accounting Officer, Department of the Environment,
Mr Ronnie Spence, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development,
Mr Felix Dillon, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment,
Mr Brian Watson, Chief Executive, Driver Vehicle Testing Agency and
Mr Colin James, Chief Executive, the Roads Service.

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General

Dr Andrew McCormick, Treasury Officer of Accounts

1. Memorandum by the Department of the Environment

TOP

1. The Public Accounts Committee met on 5 July 2000 to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's report "Road Safety in Northern Ireland" (HC10, Session 1999-2000). Our witnesses were:

Mr Stephen Quinn, Accounting Officer, Department of the Environment

Mr Ronnie Spence, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development

Mr Felix Dillon, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment

Mr Brian Watson, Chief Executive, Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

Mr Colin James, Chief Executive, Roads Service.

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG)

Dr Andrew McCormick, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel.

2. The C&AG's report considered the progress made in improving Northern Ireland's Road Safety record since the Northern Ireland Audit Office last reported on the subject in October 1993. In particular the report concentrated on the implementation of road safety measures identified in the Road Safety Plan for Northern Ireland and their contribution to meeting the year 2000 target of reducing fatalities and serious injuries by one-third, compared with the average for 1981-1985. These measures fall broadly into the categories of education, enforcement and road engineering. In taking evidence, the Committee concentrated on a number of issues raised by that report. These were:

• Northern Ireland's poor road safety record and the action being taken to reduce the number of fatalities and serious casualties;
• Whether road safety education is adequately resourced, co-ordinated and targeted;
• Whether enforcement is effective and properly targeted;
• Whether the current arrangements for driver and vehicle testing are effective and are contributing to improvements in road safety; and
• Whether road engineering schemes make an effective contribution to reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

TOP

3.1. We are concerned that the target set in 1989 for reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads by the end of the year 2000, is unlikely to be achieved. The Committee has concluded, in view of some of the decisions and actions of DOE over recent years, that road safety was not given the highest possible level of priority needed to achieve the target.

3.2. We find it unacceptable that, at the time of our hearing, DOE had not produced a new road safety plan setting out the strategies and policies to be adopted to deliver improvements in Northern Ireland's poor road safety record. In our view the plan should include a target for road accident casualty reduction that must be set at a level which will significantly reduce the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK by 2010. The Department will be expected to demonstrate that such a target is as challenging as possible.

3.3. The Committee has concluded that the Department's reasons for reducing the number of Road Safety Education Officers from 16 to 11 were not based on any objective assessment of the competing priorities of other road safety policies or wider policies within the Department. This represented a gross failure to recognise the importance of road safety education for children and other vulnerable road users. We welcome the decision of the Minister of the Environment to reverse this judgement and increase the number of Road Safety Education Officers to 21.

3.4. The development and successful implementation of an effective road safety strategy requires genuine joined-up government and one department must be seen to be clearly in the lead. With this in mind the Committee expects the Road Safety Review Group to exercise a more pro-active co-ordinating role, covering the whole spectrum of road safety activity in Northern Ireland.

3.5. The Committee recognises that enforcement of traffic regulations is primarily the function of the RUC and the Courts. However, DOE has a vital role to play in ensuring that effective systems of penalties are in place. We strongly support the introduction of higher penalties for more serious offences and note that these proposals will be drawn to the attention of the Home Office. The Department should bring forward proposals for consideration by the Secretary of State where it considers that tougher penalties would help address the exceptional problems in Northern Ireland.

3.6. We are concerned that enforcement of traffic laws is being hampered by a lack of investment in new computer technology and inaccurate records. We recommend that the necessary systems be introduced at the earliest opportunity. The Department should inform the Committee of the target date for this.

3.7. We welcome the improvements that are being made to the driving test and note that consideration is being given as to whether drivers should be trained and tested on their ability to control a vehicle at speed.

3.8. The fact that there are 63,000 unlicensed vehicles in use on Northern Ireland's roads, the majority of which are over MOT age, has significant implications for road safety and is a serious indictment of enforcement. We welcome DOE's acknowledgement that this is completely unacceptable and recommend that the systems required to address this problem be developed as a matter of urgency.

3.9. Accident remedial and traffic calming schemes have the potential to make an important contribution to improving road safety. We welcome Roads Service's decision, on receipt of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report, to revise its procedures for allocating resources to this important area of work. We recommend that the application of these new procedures should be closely monitored to ensure that priority is given to the most deserving schemes.

TOP

4. The C&AG's report records that the target set by the Minister for the Environment in 1989 was to reduce the total number of people killed or seriously injured on Northern Ireland's roads by one-third, compared with the average for 1981-1985, by the end of the year 2000. Although encouraging progress has been made towards this target, we are very concerned to learn that deaths and serious injuries have begun to increase again in the first half of 2000. There were 81 deaths by the end of June 2000 compared with 64 in 1999 and there were 381 seriously injured by the end of March 2000 compared with 317 for the same period in 1999. It now seems unlikely that the target will be achieved. The Committee has concluded, based on some of the decisions and actions of DOE over recent years, that road safety was not given the highest possible level of priority needed to achieve the target.

(1) C&AG's report paragraphs 1.1-1.3 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 13, 29 and 30.

5. The report records that DOE intended to publish a new plan early in 2000, setting out the strategy to be adopted to deliver a new road accident casualty reduction target by 2010. We find it unacceptable that, at the time of our hearing, this has not yet been done. The Department said it wanted to wait for publication of the GB strategy in March before making proposals to Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland. However, we cannot accept that the Department would not have had access to the thinking in Great Britain which could have informed the development and production of a plan in parallel with Great Britain. In our view the Environment Committee should take an interest in the preparation of this strategy.

(2) C&AG's report, paragraph 4 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 13 and 14.

6. We questioned whether, in light of the poor road safety record in Northern Ireland, the Department would be setting a new casualty reduction target similar to, or higher than, the 40 per cent set in GB. The Committee was told that proposals had not yet gone to Executive Ministers but, given the road traffic conditions in Northern Ireland, a 20 per cent reduction would be as challenging. In our view this target must be set at a level which will significantly reduce the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The Department will be expected to demonstrate that it is as challenging as possible.

(3) Minutes of Evidence, pages 19-20 and 30.

7. When asked what the total spend was for the promotion of road safety across all relevant bodies, the Department was unable to tell us. We are surprised that such an important figure has never been calculated before. In response to our questions, DOE later submitted written evidenc^e giving details of road safety resources for 2000-2001, the total of which was approximately £44 million. We consider that the expenditure on road safety should be made available to the public in future. This would provide the Assembly with a much clearer picture against which it can monitor overall resources committed to road safety and assess the priority which this problem is being accorded by Government.

(4) Minutes of Evidence, page 20.

8. It is our view that, with the wide range of Government agencies responsible for different aspects of road safety, this problem must be tackled more coherently than in the past. The development and successful implementation of an effective road safety strategy requires the close co-operation of the wide range of bodies involved. The Committee is convinced that, if there is to be genuine joined-up government in this area, one department must be seen to be clearly in the lead. With this is mind the Committee expects the Road Safety Review Group to exercise a more pro-active co-ordinating role, covering the whole spectrum of road safety activity in Northern Ireland.

TOP

9. The C&AG's report records that the Department has a statutory duty to make provision for road safety education and training in Northern Ireland. We noted that the number of Road Safety Education Officers had been progressively reduced from a total of 16 in 1991 to its present level of 11 despite consultants' recommendations that this could have an adverse effect on child safety. The Department told us that the cuts were budget driven and there was a whole range of funding pressures. Mr Spence, who was the Accounting Officer at the time the decision was taken, explained that they "were desperately short of people, at that time, to implement new measures on the waste strategy and waste management; we were short of people on the historic buildings and monuments and the water pollution sides".

10. In our opinion this explanation represents a gross failure to recognise the importance of road safety education for children and other vulnerable road users. We find it surprising that no cost benefit analysis was prepared for this decision. Given the cost to the economy and the cost to families when children die on the roads, the amount involved in maintaining the number of Road Safety Education Officers was not high. This was put at £178,000 and in our view, if the Department had set its priorities sensibly, it should have been possible to find this sum within the substantial budget available to DOE. We welcome the decision of the Minister of the Environment to reverse this judgement and increase the number of Road Safety Education Officers to 21.

(5) C&AG's report, paragraphs 2.1-2.12 and 2.17-2.27 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 13, 16-18, 25 and 29-30.

11. We consider it important that the Department of Finance and Personnel should ensure that soundly based decisions involving, where appropriate, investment appraisal are taken on funding priorities, particularly those which cut across departmental boundaries. We welcome acceptance by the Treasury Officer of Accounts that there is a need for further guidance on this.

(6) Minutes of Evidence, pages 14, 25-26 and 28.

12. Our witnesses told us that the single most important variable to explain Northern Ireland's poor road safety record, is that road users have less positive attitudes and behaviour than road users in other parts of the world. In our view this emphasises the vital importance of road safety education as a means of highlighting the risks involved and encouraging better behaviour. This underlines the extraordinary nature of the decision to cut the number of Road Safety Education Officers. For the future we recommend that the Road Safety Review Group should undertake a strategic review, involving all providers, to assess how education can be improved. In particular, there should be a clearly defined role for Road Safety Education Officers to enhance the road safety message through the national curriculum.

(7) Minutes of Evidence, pages 17, 20-21 and 27.

13. In its evidence the Department highlighted that the key to improving road safety was bringing about attitudinal and behavioural changes. With this in mind the Department has supported a practical driver-training course for students over 17 years of age, similar to schemes operated by local authorities in Great Britain. We were told that the Department is also piloting a rehabilitation scheme for drink/drivers and considering other schemes where drivers found guilty of serious breaches are faced with the consequences of their actions, including speaking to the families of victims. The recent increase in the number of Road Safety Education Officers will enable it to promote these and other driver improvement schemes. These are welcome steps and we recommend that the Road Safety Plan should incorporate such initiatives. We would also encourage the Department to develop more initiatives of this type to target serious offenders.

(8) C&AG's report, paragraph 2.12 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 25 and 27.

14. Voluntary organisations can also play an important role in delivering the road safety message. However, we note that consultants commissioned by DOE to examine the role of the Road Safety Council in Northern Ireland, reported that much of the Council's work did not have an apparent cost-effective road safety benefit. Recommendations made for improvement have now been implemented but we recommend that the work of the Council and other voluntary groups should be monitored to ensure that they make an effective contribution to road safety and provide value for money.

(9) C&AG's report, paragraphs 2.34 and 2.36 and Minutes of Evidence, page 18.

TOP

15. The Committee recognises that the enforcement of traffic regulations is primarily the function of the RUC and the Courts. However, in our opinion there is a clear need to have effective systems of penalties to combat the less positive attitudes and behaviour of road users in Northern Ireland. In this respect we consider that DOE and the Road Safety Review Group have a pivotal role to play. We are appalled at the nature of the evidence presented in the C&AG's report, particularly the examples of persistent offending identified in the case studies, excessive speeding and the non-compliance with seatbelt laws. We consider that there is scope for improving the application and effectiveness of road traffic law through greater liaison with the RUC, Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court Service and the Magistrates' Association. We welcome the steps being taken by DOE to evaluate the effectiveness of the penalty points legislation, but in our view, formal objectives and performance indicators should have been put in place before the scheme was introduced.

(10) C&AG's Report, paragraphs 3.9-3.13 and 3.15-3.17 and Minutes of Evidence pages 13, 19, 22-23, 24-25, 26 and 27-28.

16. We welcome DOE's acceptance of the suggestion that the introduction of graduated penalties for more serious offences should be considered and note that this will be drawn to the attention of the Home Office which is currently undertaking a review of penalties and offences. DOE also told us that excessive speed is one area that will be looked at as to whether it should attract further penalties. Concerns about the deterrent effect of the current seatbelt laws, especially with regard to the wearing of belts by children, will also be reported to the Home Office. DOE told us that its policy is to maintain parity with penalties in Great Britain but we consider that, in view of the scale of the road safety problem in Northern Ireland, we should not be constrained by national arrangements. The Department should bring forward proposals for consideration by the Secretary of State where it considers that tougher penalties would help address exceptional problems here.

(11) C&AG's Report, paragraph 3.16 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 24-26 and 27

17. We are concerned at the evidence that the RUC's efforts to target enforcement have been hampered by the lack of investment in new computer technology. We are also concerned that its enforcement effort is impeded by inaccuracies in DVLNI's register and the lack of IT to process penalties. We have been told that DVLNI and the RUC will keep this aspect under review to ensure that the number of drivers escaping penalty is kept to a minimum. We support the need for a proper geographic information system to provide timely, accurate and reliable information for the identification of accident blackspots and for the design and implementation of a fully automated system within the RUC's central ticket office. Such systems would greatly enhance enforcement activity and, in particular, allow greater use of camera technology. We recognise that there are considerable costs involved in designing and implementing such systems. However, we note that funding could be provided through fines and the recovery of administration costs from offenders and that such a proposal is being considered in Great Britain. In view of the importance of adequate resources for policing we fully support the extension of these arrangements to Northern Ireland and recommend that the necessary systems be introduced at the earliest opportunity. The Department should inform the Committee of the target date for this.

(12) C&AG's report, paragraphs 3.4, 3.13-3.14 and 3.18-3.19 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 21, 23 and 27 and Appendix 1.

TOP

18. We noted that the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster (HC 26, Session 1993-94) expressed surprise that driving test pass rates were higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. A subsequent review in 1994 was highly critical of the test standards here, indicating that there were grounds for serious concern. We note that most of the recommendations from the 1994 review have been implemented but pass rates remain higher than in Great Britain. Our witnesses told us that there may be a number of reasons for this. For example, since the introduction of the theory driving test, Northern Ireland continues to get better pass rates than in Great Britain where there is an identical objective test. This would suggest that Northern Ireland candidates prepare themselves better and this may translate into a better performance at a practical level. Another factor might be that restricting learner drivers to 45 mph in Northern Ireland could give rise to a slightly higher pass rate compared with Great Britain where this restriction does not apply. Nevertheless, we recommend that DVTA should subject itself to periodic independent reviews to ensure that testing standards are maintained.

19. We were told of the improvements that are being made to the theory and practical tests. For example, the driving test is now some 10-12 minutes longer and covers a wider variation in routes. The 1994 review noted that many more faults may have been evident if the candidates had been required to drive at more realistic speeds. The Department accepted that not being tested at speed would have had an impact on the number of accidents on our roads. When asked what efforts were being made to address this issue, DOE told us that consultation is underway to consider whether the 45 mph restriction for learners should be removed and whether the use of more dual carriageway driving should be included as a more rounded test of ability.

20. We are aware that these proposals would have an impact on the "restricted" driver scheme (R plates). When asked about the effectiveness of this scheme, the Department told us that there were doubts about its utility and research was inconclusive about the benefits. We are concerned about the lack of preparation for driving at speed and note that this will be reviewed as part of the current consultation exercise.

(13) C&AG's Report, paragraphs 4.8-4.16 and 4.23-4.28 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 16 and 22-23.

21. The fact that there are 63,000 unlicensed vehicles in use on Northern Ireland's roads, the majority of which are over MOT age, has significant implications for road safety and is a serious indictment of enforcement. We welcome DOE's acknowledgement that this is completely unacceptable and note the action which is being taken to address the problem. We look to the Department to monitor the effectiveness of measures such as wheel-clamping and suggest that they initiate discussions with the RUC on how enforcement can be improved. The necessary IT systems should be developed and implemented as a matter of urgency. We note the proposed introduction of an MOT disc but initially display of this on windscreens would be voluntary. We recommend that compulsory display should be introduced as quickly as possible and should also be extended to include insurance discs. We would welcome an indication from the Department when they expect this to be done.

(14) The C&AG's Report, paragraphs 4.6-4.7 and Minutes of Evidence, page 23.

TOP

22. It is evident that accident remedial and traffic calming schemes have the potential to make an important contribution to improving road safety, particularly in locations with a poor road safety record. We welcome Road Service's decision to revise its procedures for allocating resources to this important area of work following the Northern Ireland Audit Office report. We recommend that the application of these new procedures should be closely monitored to ensure that priority is given to the most deserving schemes.

(15 ) C&AG's Report, paragraphs 5.11-5.12 and 6.4-6.9 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 14-15, 18-19, 24 and 28.

23. We are disappointed that the contribution made by these roads schemes to the strategic target of reducing fatalities and serious injuries has not been properly assessed. We welcome the Chief Executive's assurance that Roads Service will be giving further consideration to refining its methodology. It is important that Roads Service should be able to demonstrate that funds are being spent effectively so that wider comparisons can be made on allocations between, for example, accident remedial and traffic calming schemes and other road safety related expenditure. We urge DOE to develop a methodology within the broad area of road safety which recognises costs and benefits in a consistent way to enable wider comparisons to be made. It is important that there is more transparency in the factors which influence these decisions.

(16) C&AG's Report, paragraphs 5.17-5.22 and 6.10-6.11 and Minutes of Evidence, pages 21-22.

24. It is evident to the Committee that there is scope for improving the collection of accident information to inform the road safety strategy. This was accepted by Roads Service and we look to them to pursue such methods as greater co-operation with insurance companies and the use of a geographic information system at the earliest opportunity.

(17) C&AG's Report, paragraphs 1.4-1.5, 5.8-5.10 and 5.22 and Minutes of Evidence, page 29.

TOP

Members present:
Mr Billy Bell in the Chair
Ms Pauline Armitage
Mr Roy Beggs Jnr
Mr Mervyn Carrick
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Donovan McClelland
Ms Jane Morrice
Ms Sue Ramsey

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General was examined.
Dr Andrew McCormick, Treasury Officer of Accounts was examined.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report on Road Safety in Northern Ireland (HC 10) was considered.

Mr Stephen Quinn, Accounting Officer, Department of the Environment, Mr Ronnie Spence, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development, Mr Felix Dillon, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment, Mr Brian Watson, Chief Executive, Driver Vehicle Testing Agency, Mr Colin James, Chief Executive, the Roads Service were examined.

TOP

*****

Members present:
Mr Billy Bell in the Chair
Mr Roy Beggs Jnr
Mr Mervyn Carrick
Mr Seamus Close
Mr John Dallat
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Sue Ramsey

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General, was further examined.

The Committee deliberated.

*****

Draft Report (Road Safety in Northern Ireland), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Para 1 to 2 read and agreed to

Para 3 postponed

Para 4 to 9 read and agreed subject to amendment

Para 10 to 11 read and agreed to

Para 12 read and agreed subject to merging with paragraph 17

Para 13 read and agreed to

Para 14 to 15 read and agreed subject to amendment

Para 16 read and agreed to

Para 17 read and agreed subject to merging with paragraph 12

Para 18 read and agreed subject to reference to DOE response received 12.09.00

Para 19 read and agreed to

Para 20 read and agreed subject to amendment

Para 21 read and agreed to

Para 22 read and agreed subject to amendment

Para 23 read and agreed to

Para 24 read and agreed subject to amendment

Para 25 read and agreed to

Para 3 read and agreed subject to changes to be made to reflect amendments agreed in paras 4-25.

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the Assembly

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the Assembly.

*****

TOP

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Taken before the
Public Accounts Committee
Wednesday 5 July 2000

Mr Billy Bell in the Chair
Ms Pauline Armitage
Mr Roy Beggs Jnr
Mr Mervyn Carrick
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Donovan McClelland
Ms Jane Morrice
Ms Sue Ramsey

MR JOHN DOWDALL, Comptroller and Auditor General, further examined.

DR ANDREW MCCORMICK, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel, further examined.

MR STEPHEN QUINN, Accounting Officer, Department of the Environment, MR RONNIE SPENCE, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development, MR FELIX DILLON, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment, MR BRIAN WATSON, Chief Executive, Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, MR COLIN JAMES, Chief Executive, the Roads Service.

The Chairman: This is a very historic occasion, and I am quite sure you are delighted to be with us this morning. You are all very welcome.

I know you will agree that, in view of the importance of road safety for everyone in Northern Ireland, the enormous cost and the suffering involved in serious accidents, it is entirely appropriate that we should be taking this as our first subject. Because of the wide range of activities involved, we have two Accounting Officers here for the benefit of the Committee, and they will both be answering questions.

The Committee recognises that the enforcement of traffic regulations is primarily the function of the RUC and of the courts but we will be asking you some questions about those items.

We are constrained by time because we have a lot of questions so I would ask you to make your answers as brief and concise as possible.

I want to ask you three questions. My first question is for Mr Quinn. In the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 'Road Safety in Northern Ireland', figures two and three on page 20 show Progress Towards the Year 2000 Target. Can you give us figures for 1999 and the figures for this year to date? Also, do you anticipate that this target will be met?

Mr Quinn: The figures for 1999 are as follows: One hundred and forty one people were killed; 1,509 were seriously injured and 11,799 were slightly injured. Overall, one might take the view that that is slightly better than 1998. Will you repeat the second part of your question?

The Chairman: Do you anticipate that the target will be met?

Mr Quinn: That it is not assured, because although 1999 was better than 1998 on the figures for those killed and seriously injured, the first half of 2000 has not been as good. There were 81 deaths by the end of June 2000, compared to 64 in 1999 and there were 381 seriously injured by the end of March 2000, compared to 317 for the same period in 1999. It is fair to say that the second half of 2000 will have to be a good deal better than the first if the target is to be met precisely.

The Chairman: Paragraph 4 of the executive summary indicates that the Department of the Environment intends to publish a new strategic plan early in 2000. Has this been done, and could you tell me what measures it contains?

Mr Quinn: It has not yet been published because we were waiting for the GB strategy, and that was not published until March 2000. We wanted to take that into account when formulating a strategy and making proposals to Executive Ministers.

Those proposals have not yet gone to Executive Ministers so I am hesitant in anticipating what they might be. Clearly there will be a target set, probably relating to the numbers of people either killed or seriously injured up to 2010, and there will be consideration of a wide range of measures relating to education, enforcement and engineering.

The Committee has probably noted that Minister Foster yesterday announced - following on from the Agenda for Government announcement on Thursday - that the number of road safety education officers would be increased from 11 to 21. In that sense, the new road safety plan will get off to a flying start.

The Chairman: That was welcome news from Mr Foster. However, you did say that the plan would be published in early 2000, and this is now July 2000, the second half of the year. It is unsatisfactory - and I take your point about the reasons for it - that the plan was not published early in the year.

The case studies of persistent offenders on page 50 of the report make astonishing reading. It is incredible that serious offences can be committed time after time. The individuals involved are clearly a real danger to other road users. What is your view, and what can be done to prevent this sort of appalling behaviour?

Mr Quinn: I agree with your assessment, Mr Chairman. It illustrates that, in a very small number of cases, there are people who are incorrigible, despite, whatever it is, 34 life bans, 28 life bans, 18 life bans, periods of imprisonment and quite substantial fines. Short of introducing sharia law, it almost does not matter what the law says. However, these cases are outliers and untypical of the general run.

Considering what might be done leads us to the framework of penalties and offences embedded in the law. By and large, Northern Ireland has maintained a framework on a par with that in Great Britain, leading us to the issue of mutual recognition, which the report also raises.

The Chairman: Other members will probably want to pursue that matter later.

Mr Quinn: I should like to add a brief postscript. The penalties imposed are of course a matter for the courts. We seek simply to influence the framework of penalties and offences in the law, whose administration is their responsibility.

The Chairman: I appreciate that point. I have no more questions for you, Mr Quinn, but I have one for Mr Spence. Let us look at case study E on page 75, which deals with the traffic calming measures in the Holyland. I note that no request had been made for any scheme in this area, yet it cost almost £650,000 at a time when available resources were limited. How can you satisfy yourself that best use was made of resources, and the best value for money achieved in this scheme, which was not requested?

Mr Spence: It is fair to say that such schemes are novel in Northern Ireland, but there is now quite considerable demand for more like them. The Holyland scheme was particularly large, involving detailed consultation with the local community about what was needed. The benefits from the scheme are self-evident in the reduced number of accidents in the area following it. However, these schemes are generally a new area for Northern Ireland, and we must try to learn lessons from them. Perhaps Mr James, the Chief Executive, would like to add to that.

Mr James: While there was no formal request to us, our staff were extremely concerned at the very high number of accidents. Indeed, in the period from 1987 to 1993, 48 accidents were recorded in the Holyland area, six of them serious, and one fatal. Since we carried out that scheme, whose results we have monitored, there have been only five accidents, all of them slight. We attempted to deal with a very serious problem, and from the point of view of accident reduction, what happened is a success story.

The Chairman: Thank you. My final question is for Dr McCormick. On page 28, paragraph 1.21, we are told that the estimated economic cost of road accidents in Northern Ireland is £574 million. I should like to know how the Department of Finance and Personnel ensures that these costs are taken into account when deciding on the priority given to accident prevention.

Dr McCormick: Yes, Mr Chairman. The priorities for spending are ultimately determined by Ministers. The Department of Finance and Personnel, in preparing recommendations on allocations of resources, takes account of a range of information including economic evaluation of all the spending issues. At the highest level, priorities for the period in question were set by Ministers in terms of law and order, strengthening the economy and things like that on a broad level.

After the election the new Government came in with a new set of priorities. Looking specifically at the issues affecting road safety, the position is fragmented. Spending on road safety can take different forms. There are the aspects in the report concerning education, which falls to the running costs budget of what is now the Department of the Environment. The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and the Roads Service have responsibility for different aspects of prevention. That leads to many different levels of prioritisation that are somewhat fragmented at the moment. Attention needs to be given to how an issue, which cuts across the responsibilities of a range of Accounting Officers, Departments and organisations can be improved. That is something which will be brought forward for further consideration by the Ministers in due course.

Ms Ramsey: I was interested in the last couple of comments about the traffic calming schemes. In a report published in November 1998 called 'Moving Forward - Northern Ireland Transport Policy Statement', one of the Department's plans was to make it easier for people to walk by implementing programmes for traffic calming measures and increasing the use of 20 mph zones in residential streets.

I was interested because, it appears to me that the criteria for traffic calming schemes change from one area to another. I would like your comments on the budget allocation method for these schemes, referred to in paragraph 5(12), page 66, of the Road Safety report.

Mr Spence: Traffic calming measures are very popular, and we are swamped with approaches, for more schemes, particularly from community groups. Getting the agreement of local people about what is necessary is very time consuming and the schemes cost money. There is always a problem in balancing how much you spend on traffic calming, how much you spend on basic maintenance and how much you spend on accident prevention. The Roads Service would love to have a lot more money to spend on traffic calming.

The Department is trying to develop a new approach to transportation, to give greater priority to pedestrians in urban situations, particularly in residential areas and town centres. That is a nice, aspirational statement. Turning it into reality requires money. We have to prioritise as best we can within the resources we have, looking at each application as it comes forward and deciding where the greatest benefit can be achieved.

Mr James: The primary purpose of traffic calming is to reduce accidents. However, it has other advantages, such as reducing the speed and volume of traffic in an area, improving the environment and bringing general benefit to the residents living there - it is our most popular product.

We have a staggering 1,500 requests in the Belfast area alone for traffic calming schemes. At current rates of average costs, these would amount to some £45 million. We are currently able to spend £1·5 million per year on traffic calming, so that shows the relationship between the supply and demand. To date we have carried out 200 schemes in Northern Ireland, and it is reckoned that these have resulted in 211 fewer accidents. This year we plan to undertake a further 57 schemes. In recent years we have been increasing the amount of money spent on traffic calming, and we are probably spending twice as much on it as we did a couple of years ago. That is as much money as we can put into it at the moment.

Ms Ramsey: I accept that there are requests from every area for traffic calming measures, but the Holyland is a classic example where there were not numbers of requests for traffic calming measures and you went ahead and did the work, although I am not disputing that the Holyland deserved these measures. To what extent are less-deserving schemes undertaken because of the present method of budget allocation?

Mr James: There was concern in the audit report that our method of sharing out the money, of giving a starter of £100,000, was not the most equitable method. We took immediate notice of what the audit report said and stopped that immediately. Therefore, in the current financial year we are no longer using that method of allocating money to traffic calming. The same criticism was made of our starter of £150,000 to each of the divisions for accident and remedial work. We stopped that immediately as well, and we brought in a new scheme to try to get a more equitable method of distributing the money.

Ms Ramsey: Do you take local council requests regarding traffic calming schemes into consideration? What changes do you propose to make in light of the report from the audit office?

Mr James: We are very anxious to balance a central distribution of money methodology, which is designed to be fair and equitable, with the clear need to get involvement at local level. One of the statutory responsibilities of the Roads Service is to consult with the councils about its forward programme. Therefore it would be inequitable for us to say that everything is decided for Belfast and that is the way that it is going to be. We are trying to get a sensible balance between an equitable distribution of resources and local input through local councillors and elected representatives.

We are moving towards that with our latest change in methodology. I take the point that it is important to get local views on board. While we have specific criteria for making judgements between schemes, we make allowances for local considerations and views. If two schemes are equal, say, in engineering terms, we would want to take on board local views on which scheme should be carried out first.

Ms Ramsey: What changes are you hoping to make?

Mr James: We have stopped allocating money on the basis of upfront sums, and we have brought in a new methodology that shares out the money on the basis of accidents, road lengths and other more objective criteria. I hope that answers the question.

Ms Ramsey: At paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 one reads that in 1993/94 the Public Accounts Committee expressed surprise that driving test pass rates were higher here, and a review in 1994 was highly critical of the test standards and indicated that there were grounds for serious concern. Most of the recommendations have been implemented, but I note from figure 13 on page 57 that the pass rates remain higher here than in England. To what extent are you satisfied that you are now testing to the appropriate standard, given our high accident rate?

Mr Quinn: I accept the point that there is a differential which must be highlighted and explained. The Driver Standards Agency made in 1993 and again in 1999 a number of recommendations which the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency implemented - Mr Watson can elaborate on that point later. We have just received their report. In the sample of goods and passenger carrying vehicles covered by the study they did not find any cause for concern. However, in a few cases it was found that a small part of the sample of car and motorcycles passed by our organisation would have been failed according to their standards, and vice versa. The net effect was, therefore, very marginal.

Since the introduction of the theory driving test, Northern Ireland continues to get better pass rates than in Great Britain where there is a virtually identical objective test. That would suggest that Northern Ireland candidates prepare themselves better, and so do better on the test. One would hope that that better performance at the theoretical level would translate into better performance at a practical level. That might go some way towards explaining the continuing differential, which has narrowed somewhat over the years. Mr Watson may want to say more on that point.

Mr Watson: The report highlights a number of areas where following the DSA report we took immediate action to improve the situation. That has had some impact on the pass rate which has since dropped. It is still higher, of course, than in Great Britain. Mr Quinn has outlined some of the reasons for that. In Northern Ireland you will be aware that learner drivers are restricted to the 45 mph speed limit. That requirement does not apply in Great Britain where learner drivers can drive up to the normal speed limit on the road.

The DSA, when completing their first report, highlighted the point that the speed restriction in Northern Ireland may be a factor in explaining the slightly higher pass rate in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a much smaller region compared with Great Britain. If one looks at some of the regional pass rates in Great Britain one will find a different pass rate than for the average for UK as a whole. For example, in Scotland the pass rate is just over 50% as opposed to the GB average. There are variations in other regions of Great Britain.

Ms Ramsey: You mentioned "R" drivers. This takes me to my next question. Do you think that because our candidates are not tested at speed in their driving test that this has in some way an input into the number of accidents on our roads.

Mr Watson: That was the conclusion of the DSA who looked at this issue. They felt that because candidates doing the driving test in Northern Ireland were speed restricted, they could not be tested at the higher speeds. Many will be aware from the report that it gave an indication that we planned to make some changes to the driving test from November last year. Indeed, they were introduced in November. The test is now some 10 or 12 minutes longer than it previously was, and because of that, we can cover a wider variation in routes. We use dual carriageways where possible. Of course, even on dual carriageways the driver is still restricted to 45 mph. So they are not really being fully tested at the speeds which are appropriate to varying road conditions.

Ms Ramsey: What efforts are being used to ensure that learner drivers are not only learning to drive at speed but they are able to control the vehicle at speed?

Mr Watson: Mr Dillon may want to expand on this point. I recently received a consultation document from the Department in regard to proposals that are being considered for changing the 45 mph speed limit.

Mr Dillon: On 3 July we issued a consultation letter in relation to the proposal as to whether or not we should remove the 45 mph speed restriction for learner drivers, and also whether the use of more dual carriageway driving should be included. If these proposals were implemented a more rounded test of ability would be available as is currently the case in Great Britain.

If, depending on the outcome of that consultation, it was decided to remove the 45 mph restriction for learner drivers, that would clearly have implications for the R-driver scheme. It might not seem sensible to restrict newly qualified drivers to 45 mph after testing them at the higher level. That would be the subject of a separate consultation exercise.

Mr Beggs: I welcome you to the Committee. I hope that the additional public scrutiny will benefit the road users of Northern Ireland.

I address my first question to Mr Quinn. Paragraph 1.20 tells us that young drivers and motorcyclists between 17 and 34 are almost three times as likely to be killed in road accidents as people in the age group 35-54. What you are doing to reverse this trend?

Mr Quinn: The most obvious and recent example of what we are trying to do is the 'Slow Down Boys' advertising campaign. I should make it clear that that was addressed primarily, but not exclusively, to the 17-25 age group, because they are the most likely to be killed or seriously injured, particularly in cases of excessive speed. The 'Slow Down Boys' campaign was developed precisely to target the fact that the less mature driver is a greater road safety risk than the more mature driver. It has had a quite substantial impact. We have already had some feedback from our public relations consultants to the effect that the campaign is getting a very high recognition level and that the message is getting through to younger drivers. Of course, that can only be tested in the event: will they drive more carefully, will they drive at lower speeds, will they have fewer accidents? We think that that is a good example of the way we are trying to respond to that particular concern.

Mr Beggs: Picking up on the issue of motorcyclists, paragraph 2.6 says that the road safety plan envisaged that road safety education officers would visit every motorcycle dealer once a year, but that owing to lack of officers it has not been possible to do that. Given that that is in the road safety plan, and given the increasing injuries shown in figure six on page 27, why did you decide to cut the number of road safety education officers from 16 to 11?

Mr Quinn: The first, obvious thing to say is that nobody regarded that reduction with any enthusiasm, neither Ministers nor the Department nor any of the people who rely on the services of those officers. It was a budget-driven thing. The audit report brings that out very well. The road safety education officers are paid for out of the departmental running costs budget. To repeat some figures that I have also offered the Environment Committee, the running costs budget went up by approximately 8% over the last 5 or 6 years, while total Northern Ireland public expenditure increased by 20-21%. Anything that has to be bought out of the running costs budget was likely to be under much more budgetary pressure than public expenditure at large. The road safety education officers were a victim of that downward pressure on the running costs budget. The running costs regime was an expenditure policy devised by UK Ministers and applied to Northern Ireland. It was not devised by Ministers in Northern Ireland or uniquely to be applied to it.

Mr Beggs: You mentioned Great Britain. In the report it states that the figure of 11 education officers in Northern Ireland is way below numbers in Great Britain. Proportionately, we should have 17 or 18.

In paragraph 2.13, we are told that road safety education was directed primarily at the safety of children as pedestrians and cyclists. However, figure 7 on page 35 points to an increasing trend in injuries to child car passengers. What have you done to address that?

Mr Quinn: I may ask Mr Dillon to come in on this. I am not sure if we have taken any specific initiative in that context, since the issue of child passengers may not have emerged with sufficient clarity, although, as you have pointed out, the increase has been happening for a number of years.

Mr Dillon: As you will appreciate from the report, the main focus of road safety education is on children as pedestrians and cyclists, and the major increase in child casualties has been with those who are car passengers. There could be a number of reasons. It could simply be a case of traffic growth leading to more accidents, or be connected with seat-belt wearing or the school run. The main causes of road accidents are drivers' attitudes and behaviour. Our general thrust to improve this should therefore also impact on the safety of children as passengers, particularly seat-belt wearing.

Mr Beggs: I know what you are saying, but the graph shows a clear upwards trend from 1993. It has not emerged only in the last year. I shall return to the road safety plan, where you said that you wished to visit every pre-school playgroup annually. However, the report states that that has not been possible because of officer shortages. You say that there is a need to do something, but statistics clearly show an upwards trend, and I do not understand why. You say in your figures that only 61% of rear-seat passengers wear their safety belts. Given all that information and the fact that children and young mothers are very receptive to educational information about their safety, why have there not been officers to visit every pre-school playgroup?

Mr Quinn: I should like to add a gloss to the figures. Between 1989 and 1999, while the number of slightly injured children went up by about 27%, the number of seriously injured went down by 40%. That is not in the report, for it is from a separate set of statistics^. The number of children killed remained broadly static, so the graph disguises at least one benign trend.

However, I shall return to your basic point. The reason the Department did not have more than 11 RSEOs is that Ministers determined a certain level of provision for running costs on which the Department had to manage.

Mr Beggs: What was the DOE's budget at this time?

Mr Quinn: I do not know, but I should think it was somewhere between £150 million and £200 million at the time.

Mr Beggs: You are saying that, because of pressures on the budget, you have had to cut the number of road safety education officers to 11. What was the next lowest priority in your Department? What could have been cut instead?

Mr Quinn: The report states that the RSEOs were cut to protect the roadside enforcement activities of the transport licensing and enforcement branch, so that might have been the alternative victim.

Mr Beggs: Do you not agree that the Department is broad-based and that there is a wide number of choices? Indeed, given those two choices, most representatives would choose to educate children and prevent accidents rather than put the emphasis purely on enforcement. Was there not a wide range of alternative savings that could have been made?

Mr Dillon: I should like to add something to the point about enforcement officers. They play a key road safety role as well. Ultimately, the decision on where the cuts were made came down to Ministers. However, my understanding was that there was a choice between the immediate benefits of road safety enforcement, for example ensuring that goods-and passenger-carrying vehicles on the roads were safe, and the perceived longer-term benefits of educating road-users. It was not a choice that any of us would wish to make. At that time Ministers came down on the side of the immediate benefits of road safety enforcement.

Mr Beggs: We all know of the major announcement yesterday. Did the fact that you were appearing here today have any bearing on departmental support for the Minister's decision?

Mr Quinn: No. I can say that unambiguously. The Minister, Mr Foster, and the Department have been making a case for additional road safety education officers since early in the days of devolution.

Mr Beggs: With respect, I asked whether it had a bearing on departmental support? I know fine rightly that there is support among politicians and our Ministers. Did the fact that you were being brought here to be accountable for your actions increase the Department's support for this?

Mr Quinn: When the case for extra money for road safety education officers was being made we did not know we were going to be scheduled for the PAC. I can give you a categorical assurance about that, but, to add gloss to the point, new DOE is a narrower Department than old DOE, and we may be able to give to the road safety budget a higher priority than would be possible in a Department with a wider portfolio and more competing pressures.

The Chairman: Mr Quinn, when you were answering Mr Beggs's second question you quoted from a set of figures not in the report. Can the Committee have sight of those figures at some stage^?

Mr McClelland: I want to go back to the question that Mr Beggs was asking about the decision to reduce the number of road safety education officers from 16 to 11. The DOE has said that it wanted to re-direct road safety expenditure towards increased enforcement work by the transport licensing branch. I have been slightly surprised by some of the comments this morning. First, Mr Quinn said that it was budget driven. Secondly, his colleague said that it was to give immediate benefits. I am suggesting that we would have expected some sort of cost-benefit analysis to have been carried out. Given the response of Mr McCormick earlier on the cost of fatalities and serious road accidents, at first sight it seems to me that absolutely no concept of cost-benefit was applied to this problem. An arbitrary decision was taken either by a Minister or by a civil servant. It seems that something was given more priority than something else because of so-called, and I quote, "immediate benefits" when a cost-benefit approach should have been taken. Mr Quinn, would you like to comment?

Mr Quinn: As you know, Mr McClelland, this goes back some years, and I have not had access to all of the papers relevant at the material time. I suspect that you are right in the sense that a detailed, highly formalised, cost-benefit analysis of the options was not done. I will surmise now that that was because of methodological difficulties and the pace at which public expenditure decisions tend to be taken by Ministers and Departments. I do not think that I would dispute the basic premise of the point you are making.

Mr McClelland: I stay on this point of cost benefit and refer you again to page 41 and the comments referring to the work of the Road Safety Council. The second paragraph on page 42 says

It seems to me that very little attention is paid to the cost benefit of prioritising when decisions are taken by Ministers or senior civil servants.

We all realise that in an imperfect world we all live within budget constraints. What I am seeking from you is the method of decision making, the method of prioritising between competing road safety issues. Has the Department applied itself to some sort of methodology for making a decision based on cost benefit?

Mr Quinn: Well, to take the narrow point first regarding the Road Safety Council. The Department - and I was not there at the time so I am not claiming credit- commissioned an external scrutiny of the operation of the Road Safety Council. The Department should be given some credit for doing that and acting on the results.

I think it has proved difficult for the Northern Ireland Administration, and public service administrations in general, to create a methodology that enables them to compare the inputs and outputs of a very diverse range of functions, services, and policy instruments. While taking your general point that we should, as best we can, illuminate these choices as objectively as we can, there may well be fairly substantial methodological problems.

Mr McClelland: Could I develop that by asking you if regional Divisional Managers adopt consistent criteria when making decisions? In my capacity as an elected representative for an area that tends to straddle two regional areas, I would contact the Divisional Manager of region A and ask him what priority he would give to an issue such as road calming, and I would be given a set of answers. As my constituency takes me into region B, I might ask the Divisional Manager there for road calming measures and it seems that, at times, there are no consistent criteria between areas as to what should be prioritised.

Mr Quinn: Traffic calming is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

Mr McClelland: I am not specifically talking about traffic calming. I am talking about the degrees of autonomy road Divisional Managers have in deciding priorities? Is it really up to the regional manager to make his own decision, and if not, who makes the decision for them?

Mr James: Yes, I covered that earlier, but I will elaborate on it again. We are very anxious to try and get as much equity and uniformity as possible into the equation, while taking local views into account.

Since seeing the audit report we changed our methodology for sharing out the money, and we tightened up our general procedures to ensure more consistency in decision making between divisions. We accept our past actions were not as good as what we hopefully will be doing in the future. We have accepted that criticism and we have tried to correct matters.

I hope that, in future, when you question a Divisional Manager there will be more consistency between two apparently similar schemes. In the case of traffic calming, we have a points system and a pro forma that will be used across the Province. That has been designed to bring as much objectivity as possible into the equation so reasonable comparisons can be made between schemes in different parts of the Province.

Mr McClelland: If I could go on a slight tangent and into something raised earlier, that is the seeming discrepancy in the penalty points system. What channels of communication exist between the Department, the legal professions and magistrates to inform them of your ideas and feelings on penalty points as far as motoring offences are concerned?

Mr Quinn: If we had a policy concern about the framework of offences, penalty points, or anything of that nature we would inform the Home Office, which is the lead Department in the U.K on that issue. On a local basis, the difficulty was - and it was accurately described in the report - that the courts have applied some penalty point decisions incorrectly.

We did some additional research on that. We extended the analysis that the Audit Office did, which was from October 1997 to September 1998, up to March this year. We found that most of the errors happened in the earlier part of the operation of the scheme. As time went by, the error rate reduced. Overall, taking the period from October 1997 to March 2000, we found that the error rate was less than 1%.

Clearly, that is a matter for how the Court Service administers the penalty points scheme. We propose to make our analysis available to the Magistrates Association. They will be aware that that analysis is available to them, and they can deploy it as they see fit.

Mr McClelland: This may be an unfair question, but is there a method of improving that? Do the Home Office and the Court Service take heed of your Department's recommendations?

Mr Quinn: I hesitate to make recommendations as to how the Home Office or the Court Service carry out their administration. If we identify an objective concern, and one that is, as in this case, based on analysis rather than opinion, I would have thought they would want to take it on board.

Mr Carrick: Reference has already been made to setting targets. I refer you to page 10, paragraph 4, and the fact that the Department of the Environment intended to publish a new plan early in 2000 setting out the strategy to be adopted to deliver the new road accident casualty reduction target by 2010. Given our poor road safety record in Northern Ireland, will the Department be setting a similar or higher target for the year 2010? Do you feel that the 40% reduction in Great Britain is one that is appropriate to the circumstances and situations that we have in Northern Ireland?

Mr Quinn: Going back very briefly to the Chairman's initial point about the timing of the Northern Ireland plan, one of the reasons why we thought we would issue it in early 2000 was that we thought the Great Britain plan or strategy would be available in the latter part of 1999. That was not the case and had a knock-on effect on us. I just want to register that point briefly.

With regard to the Great Britain target, the targets ultimately set will be a matter for Executive Ministers to decide on the basis of analysis and advice that we and other Departments provide. As a general principle, it would be better to have a target relevant to Northern Ireland conditions rather than simply to assume that a target fashioned in the context of Great Britain conditions should simply be read across. We have lower traffic densities but higher traffic growth, which means that our drivers tend to drive more quickly. As a result of that, we tend to have more accidents and more serious accidents. There are quite distinctive characteristics in the Northern Ireland region, and our plan and targets really should to take account of local knowledge and conditions.

Mr Carrick: I accept that. Does your research show a target level that you would be recommending?

Mr Dillon: This is all being currently considered in the context of the development of the new road safety plan. The equivalent target for Northern Ireland to the 40% reduction in Great Britain may surprise you. Statistically, a 20% reduction would provide as much a challenge in achieving. That is because the road traffic conditions in Northern Ireland militate against higher figures. On average, we have twice the rate of road traffic growth in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. People here drive faster as a result. We tend to have higher levels of car occupancy and do higher than average mileage. As a result, when there are collisions, they tend to be more severe and there are more occupants of the cars injured. Trying to maintain a level playing field with Great Britain is extremely difficult in those circumstances. The statistical projection would be that 20% would be as challenging.

That is a bit of background information that we use for the purposes of developing the new road safety plan, and making recommendations to Ministers as to what would be an appropriate and challenging target for Northern Ireland.

Mr Carrick: Is that 20% over the same 10-year period to 2010?

Mr Dillon: Yes.

Mr Carrick: Mr Quinn, in reference to paragraph 4 of the executive summary, I note that there are a number of bodies involved in road safety in Northern Ireland, and that the Department of the Environment is taking the lead in preparing a comprehensive road safety plan. Can you tell us what the total spend is for the promotion of road safety across all the relevant bodies?

Mr Quinn: I do not have that figure to hand, Mr Carrick, but maybe we could provide the Committee with a note on it^. There are some insights into that interspersed throughout the report - for instance, at the moment we have 11 road safety officers, but the Minister, Mr Foster, has announced that that will increase to 21. The report also says that there are 355 officers and personnel in the RUC Traffic Branch, but I do not have to hand the expenditure that the Roads Service would apply distinctively or hypothecate to the issues.

Mr Carrick: Do you not think, Mr Quinn, that that was an important figure to be in possession of as we wrestle with the road safety problem? I take note and appreciate that you will supply the information. I thought that because of your co-ordinating role, that is one figure you would have had.

Mr Quinn: Perhaps Mr Dillon is aware of the likelihood of that kind of analytical information being available because of the preparation of the new plan?

Mr Dillon: I am not aware that a figure of that nature has ever been calculated. It would be an extremely difficult figure to draw a boundary around because - although I hesitate to stray into the territory of the Department for Regional Development - traffic-calming measures are not the only piece of Roads Service expenditure which is relevant to road safety. In some respects it could be said that everything we spend is relevant, but that might be stretching the estimate too far. What I can say is that when the current road safety plan and the new one being developed set out their targets for activity levels, they did take account of what the agencies thought they could contribute over the period. It is a figure which fluctuates from year to year, not least in terms of enforcement, which is a critical element, but also according to the operational priorities of the police.

Mr Quinn: If I could just add a brief point, Mr Carrick. If one considers how the RUC enforce road safety, it is not just Traffic Branch, but also the deterrent effect of other RUC personnel who simply do things relevant to road safety in the normal course of their duties. That figure would be virtually impossible to capture.

Mr Carrick: We would be interested in the follow-up of your research into this particular matter. Moving on, Mr Quinn, could I refer you to figure 3 on page 20. This indicates that the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries in Great Britain is 39% and 45% respectively, compared to 18% and 29% in Northern Ireland. Can you explain why Great Britain is able to achieve better results than Northern Ireland?

Mr Quinn: Yes, we have been advised by the Transport Research Laboratory of some of the factors that have a bearing on those results - a few have already been mentioned. For example, at present Northern Ireland has lower traffic densities, which means that people drive more quickly. We also have, as Mr Dillon has said, higher car occupancy and more two-vehicle collisions. Although we have higher traffic growth, we have not reached the point where congestion starts to have a counter effect on the number of accidents.

Another point that has not been brought out sufficiently in the answers so far is the real problem at the nub of this: Northern Ireland road-users have less positive attitudes and behaviour than road users in other parts of the world. If you are looking for the single most important variable to explain why Northern Ireland has a poor road safety record, that is it.

We in the Department of Environment, or the RUC, as an enforcement agency, or the Department of Regional Development as the roads agency, can pull a number of levers, but the critical variable is the attitude and behaviour of road users, be they drivers, passengers, pedestrians or motorcyclists. The Transport Research Laboratory indicates that is the critical variable.

Mr Carrick: Finally, Mr Quinn, coming back to enforcement again, on page 48 of the report B14, we learn of the inaccuracies in the driver and vehicle licensing register, one of the consequences of which was that approximately 4,000 motorists escaped penalties in the first year. What is being done about this and how many more motorists have escaped penalty points since October 1998?

Mr Quinn: The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) does what it can to make sure its register is up-to-date. In any economy where cars are being bought and sold and owners move house, the register will be a little out of date. Additionally some of the 4,000 may have been drivers from the Republic of Ireland or Great Britain, who would not be, by definition on the Northern Ireland register, that still does leave a substantial residual problem.

The DVLNI is introducing statutory off-the-road notification, which will place a clear onus on a car owner to notify the DVLNI when he either moves house or sells his car. That ought to have a positive effect, as should the introduction of the vehicle ownership scheme as is currently in operation in GB. There, if a policeman stops a vehicle, he is entitled to ask the driver if the details on the registration book are accurate. If such a scheme were introduced in Northern Ireland, the register could be cleared up and made more accurate. Such initiatives are being considered by the DVLNI to try to deal with this substantial problem.

Mr Close: To revisit the issue of accident remedial measures, specifically looking at page 67, paragraph 5.17, I am struck by the terminology and the emphasis that appears to be on accident reduction rather than casualty reduction. I draw a distinction between an accident and a casualty. You can have an accident which is a mere shunting, but in a casualty situation you are dealing with hurt, pain and grief to a human being. It does not seem to me that that is given the same level of priority by the Department which is constantly examining accidents. Is money being spent in the right way? You should be trying to reduce casualties as opposed to accidents?

Mr Spence: The basic point is the severity of the accident. When an accident takes place, the number of people injured depends on a range of factors, the speed at which the accident took place, whether the driver and passengers, if any, were wearing seat belts, the condition of the car and so on. Mr James might be able to answer how the priorities for accidents are assessed.

Mr James: On a point of information, when we say "accident" we mean "injury accident"; we do not mean an accident not causing an injury. Automatically we only count injury accidents. The criticism can be that we are not trying to take into account the severity of an accident, and the audit report has recommended that we examine, for example, what Kent County Council does.

We have had a look at what Kent County Council does, and as a result of that, we think that we should be giving further consideration to try to refine our method of doing this. But we did note however, when we looked at Kent County Council we noted that they are not doing anything different from us, although they are thinking of doing something different. In the light of that, I think that there is some mileage in our doing further investigations to see if we could refine our method of looking at this.

Coming back to the point the secretary made, the bottom line is that when an accident takes place the severity of that accident may have absolutely nothing to do with the type of engineering works that the Roads Service has carried out, for example, making a right-turning lane. The accident could have been caused by the fact that the road was wet, the driver was not wearing a seat belt, they were driving too fast or they were not driving with due care and attention. You could have exactly the same accident, and in one case someone could be killed, but in another they could have only a very slight injury, and anything that we had done to that road would have made no difference to the outcome. We always have to bear in mind that there is this considerable difference between an accident and a casualty.

Mr Close: You have to have the information. In other words, do you not agree that you would need to have this type of severity index and relate that to particular areas where accidents are happening to ensure that you are getting proper value for money in resources and expenditure?

Mr James: Yes. We have accepted your point and the point made in the audit report that we should do more investigation to see if we can modify our methodology to try to take into account the severity of accidents.

Mr Close: So we can expect to see changes there?

Mr James: As a result of that work and having examined what happens across the water where they tend to be slightly ahead of us in developmental work, yes, it is quite possible that we will change our methodology. I cannot say today that we will change our methodology, but we are actively looking at the comments that the audit report has made. We have already made contact with a number of authorities, and we are trying to gather information.

Mr Spence: You can not get away from the point that the severity of the accident was caused, for example, as a result of the driver's being drunk. It was not caused because of the nature of the road junction. That is a factor that we have to bear in mind. I agree with Mr James, however. We have to refine how we prioritise our spending.

Mr Close: The drunkenness of the driver is a factor, but there could well be others. We need to concentrate on those matters.

Let me move on to page 74, paragraph 611. This is an issue that has been touched on previously - traffic-calming measures. The point that I would make here - and again it relates to the answer that I have just received - is that things are happening as a result of this audit report, and this is a very good example. Of the case studies that are referred to on pages 74 and 75, one of them refers to 1991 and the other goes on to 1997. If there had not been an audit report in the interim, I get the impression that the Department was perfectly satisfied to sit back and let things drift along. There was a degree of complacency. It required an audit report to get them to say, "This is what we must change." In reply to an earlier question with regard to these case studies, that was the answer that was given. Changes were going to be made as a result of the audit report.

I would like to see more changes taking place as a result of information that you are gleaning to demonstrate to us that there is no complacency with regard to the number of accidents and deaths on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Mr James: It would be entirely wrong to suggest that the Roads Service engineers are not out looking at best practice right across the United Kingdom and abroad and bringing that best practice into both accident-remedial and traffic-calming technology. It would be completely wrong, because my staff are out doing that. In some of the cases that were brought up in this report we were already ahead of the issue, and we were doing it anyway. So it would be wrong to think that we just sat back and made no changes until the audit report came along. That is an entirely false impression. We welcome the audit report because any advice we get is helpful in continuous improvement.

Mr Close: And as a result of what we are hearing this morning, we would expect to see even greater improvements. Do we have that understanding?

Mr James: Yes. However, my point is that Roads Service engineers are continuously trying to do this task better. We have made a number of changes. For example, we had already spotted a problem with our computer system - which was quite correctly criticised in the audit report - and we were putting it right. The problem would have been corrected irrespective of the audit report.

Mr Close: You know the old comment about blaming computers - garbage in, garbage out. We will not press that point. Page 60 of the report concerns the R-plate scheme. How effective is that scheme?

Mr Quinn: Research shows that its utility is pretty doubtful, and that is why we are consulting on whether a 45 mph limit ought to be retained within the context of the driving test. If the conclusion is that it is inappropriate to retain it in the driving test context then it does not make sense to retain it for a driver for the first year of their experience following the test. In the light of experience it is fair to say that there are doubts about its utility.

Mr Close: Would you say it has failed its test?

Mr Dillon: If it were on trial in Scotland the verdict would be - not proven. We cannot say that it has not had any effect, but we cannot say that it has had a positive, beneficial effect either. That was the outcome of a study carried out for us by Queen's University.

Mr Close: Why do you think it was not used in Great Britain?

Mr Dillon: That is not clear. In Great Britain it is unlikely that the scheme would be introduced nationally given the role of local authorities in road safety. I know, from anecdotal evidence, that some local authorities have looked at and introduced schemes involving the R-plate, P-plate, or some other indicator of a novice driver, but without the 45 mph restriction. I cannot be sure why Great Britain has not introduced it; it may be that they considered requiring people to drive at a maximum of 45 mph, regardless of the road conditions, was not the best thing to do in the interests of road safety in their particular circumstances.

Mr Close: Would you agree that they totally missed the point in the attitude of young people who have taken their test? I have taken time to speak to a number of young people and I would be interested to know if any representatives from Roads Safety and the Roads Service have done likewise.

Young drivers cannot wait to get out of the R-plates. Ask yourselves why? They say it is so that they will not be restricted to 45mph. When one relates that attitude to the number of casualties and deaths of young people through their inability to control a car at speed, it indicates - if we are serious about the matter - that the test needs to examine young people's driving ability at higher speeds using skidpans. If we are not serious, we will continue to faff about on the deaths of young people, which continue to increase.

Mr Quinn: We are consulting on that issue from 3 July. We agree with you on that point.

Mr Close: With respect to the change in legislation brought about by the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, introduced on 1 October 1997 - I am referring to page 61 - which changed the number of penalty points for failure to display R-plates. Have there been any steps taken to assess its effectiveness with respect to young people?

Mr Dillon: You mean disqualification on the accumulation of six points in a two-year period?

Mr Close: Yes.

Mr Dillon: The jury is still out on that issue. That is part of the general tracking we do on the effects of penalty points. I do have any specific information on that issue.

Mr Close: Is that currently being monitored?

Mr Dillon: Yes.

Mr Close: When can we expect some results?

Mr Dillon: As far as we have results available, in what has been a reasonably short time span, we would expect to include them in the new road safety plan later this year.

Mr Quinn: Some market research evidence indicates that the penalty points advertising has had a positive impact on attitudes and behaviour, or at least on claimed behaviour.

Mr Close: May I ask you to turn to page 53, paragraph 4·6. I was astounded when I read that we have 63,000 unlicensed vehicles in use on our roads, the majority of which are over MOT age. That is a serious indictment on enforcement. Have steps been taken since the report's publication to improve upon that terrible statistic?

Mr Quinn: It is an awful statistic and vehicle excise duty evasion, which results in a loss of revenue, is at a completely unacceptable level in Northern Ireland. We are taking action by way of statutory off-the-road notification and the vehicle ownership scheme. Additionally, the key to this is on-the-road enforcement by the RUC. We do not have the powers or the resources to undertake on-the-road enforcement of unlicensed vehicles. I do not want to point the finger at the RUC as I have read the Chief Constable's recent report and counted the number of active interventions that were made on road safety matters - around 342,000 interventions of one kind or another were made. These interventions involved someone being stopped by the road and issued with a fixed penalty or a warning or whatever. There are 355 officers in the Traffic Branch, and one assumes that the police have a broader deterrent effect. Nonetheless, the Department would not attempt to claim that 63,000 unlicensed vehicles is an acceptable number.

We have in recent years introduced wheel-clamping, which was an option that was not previously available to us on security advice. It is a massive problem, not only in revenue terms, but also in road safety terms.

Mr Close: Could better information be gathered, through computer linkages, for example enabling more effective and immediate action to be taken.

Mr Quinn: The Driver Vehicle Testing Agency is undertaking computer development which is highly relevant to this and on which Brian Watson will comment.

Mr Watson: For some time now we have been working on two systems. One will effectively replace and modernise all our vehicle testing equipment. This will be linked in such a way as to enable access to more detailed records, knowledge and information about the vehicles on the roads.

In addition we are also modernising the vehicle testing and driving test booking arrangements, which involves a major contract and procurement exercise. This will improve the information on vehicle test owners and drivers in Northern Ireland. That information along with the result of MOT and driver testing will be passed electronically to the Driver Vehicle Licensing NI which will assist the enforcement effort. Also, as part of the new vehicle test process, we are planning to change the method by which we give a vehicle test certificate. As referred to in the report, we are changing to a disc format rather than the normal sheet of paper that we issue currently. We are doing this because it helps our process but also because discs can be displayed on windscreens. Initially that will be on a voluntary basis. As the equipment begins to roll out over the next two and a half years, we hope that this will become compulsory.

Mr Close: Since it is going to take two and a half years to have this operational, is there any possibility of linking it to a compulsory display of insurance discs on windscreens, as happens in other places?

Mr Watson: Because of the vehicle testing process, this has not been an issue. I know that Driver Vehicle Licensing NI has been looking at an insurance link related to renewing the road tax licence.

This is still in the early stages of development and is not a complete database for insurance information. I believe that that is currently underway.

Ms Morrice: I apologise for being absent for the first 30 minutes - I was attending another Committee. I should like to focus on speed. As you said, Mr Quinn, drivers tend to drive more quickly in Northern Ireland. The figure on page 47 shows that excessive speed is by far the most common offence and major cause of fatal accidents. I should like to know how your Department is taking forward the recommendations laid down in paragraph 3.16 regarding the consideration of graduated penalties for more serious speeding offences.

Mr Quinn: I said earlier that we have more or less maintained parity with Great Britain with offences and penalties, mainly for policy reasons, but also to facilitate mutual recognition in the future. The Home Office is undertaking a review of penalties and offences in Great Britain as part of its recently published strategy, and we will make an input to that. We intend to draw attention to the specific consideration of graduated penalties for such offences, but we cannot predict the outcome.

Ms Morrice: Given what the Chairman said about multiple offenders, how will you make sure that that is effective?

Mr Quinn: Do you mean the offences and penalties imposed?

Ms Morrice: Yes.

Mr Quinn: Clearly, our interest in road safety means that we also have an interest in ensuring that an effective framework of offences and penalties is in place, and we shall seek to influence the Home Office on that. However, offences and penalties are a reserved matter. In other words, the Department of the Environment cannot decide to impose criminal penalties on the citizens of Northern Ireland without reference to the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues.

Ms Morrice: I see from paragraph 1.14 that drink-driving is also a major cause of fatal accidents. What specific actions have you taken to address speeding and drink-driving?

Mr Quinn: Recent years have seen the introduction of the penalty-points scheme which, as you know, came in much earlier in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland. That was brought into effect from October 1997, and the previous figure you referred us to shows the extent to which speed in particular has been highlighted as a penalty-point issue. Points awarded for speed absolutely dominate the pie chart to which you refer. We have also focused on these things through our advertising campaigns. You will be aware of "Slow Down, Boys", which is quite a recent one. Before that, there was "Flowers" and "Limits", which dealt very specifically with drink-driving. We have had a very strong emphasis on excessive speed and drink-driving as thematic points of our public-relations strategy for some years, and we try to run campaigns on them annually.

Ms Morrice: We have discussed penalty points and advertising, but what about a reduction in speed limits? For example, a young boy was killed in the village of Derrylin in 1993, since which time the residents have asked that the speed limit be reduced from 40 to 20 miles per hour. However, nothing has been done, not even the introduction of pedestrian footpaths.

Mr Quinn: Speed limits are a matter for the Department for Regional Development.

Mr Spence: I know the Derrylin case because I received representations about it. We receive a large number of representations from people in villages and urban areas, all wanting more traffic-management schemes.

Ms Morrice: This is unsurprising if people are killed.

Mr Spence: There is now interest in the concept of home zones, where there is a 20 miles-per-hour speed limit. Clearly this is going to be a growth area. In all those cases you are trying to balance the possible impact on traffic accidents with the need to ensure that through traffic can move smoothly. The judgements are very fine ones. I know that Mr James's staff are out all the time discussing with local councillors and local representatives their views about what is needed. Increasingly we are doing more in this area. It is very difficult to weigh up that balance in each case.

Mr James:. I think the Secretary has covered 99% of the issues here. Just to mention that we have been looking at 'New Directions in Speed Management, a Review of Policy' published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions earlier this year. Its conclusions were that current speed management policies in England and Wales are effective. As the Secretary indicated there is a continuing need to refine and look at speed limits in different parts of the Province, and we will continue to do that.

We also suspect that through our increased traffic calming activity more and more areas will come under the blanket 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. Statistics suggest that that will result in a significant reduction in the number of people who are seriously injured. That work is ongoing. We are also discussing with the police the possibility of establishing fixed speed cameras and how we can co-operate with them in that. The statistics show that the percentage of people who pay attention to speed limit signs is not as high as it ought to be. Therefore, enforcement becomes a very big issue.

Ms Morrice: You seem to be concentrating on enforcing the speed limit on motorways where there are fewer fatal accidents. It would be more appropriate to ensure that the speed limit is adhered to in the cities and villages.

Mr Dillon: Speed and drink-driving will be key themes of the new road safety plan, which we are working on and hope to finalise later this year. It will take account of what is effective from emerging evidence of research work from Great Britain and its Road Safety Strategy, which was published earlier in the year.

Ms Morrice: I want to look at the issue of persistent offenders. Could the Road Safety Review Group monitor the effectiveness of legislation and the penalties imposed by the courts? Should you not be dealing with the sort of examples revealed on page 50, Figure 11, which is quite staggering. Driver 'C', for example was given 18 life bans and is still driving on the roads. Can you explain this?

Mr Quinn: The risk is that a framework of penalties and offences are created to fit these cases rather than the general population. These people are incorrigible. We can draw these to the attention of the people who are responsible for setting the penalties, but I doubt if the conclusions drawn would be applied to offenders in general. I think it is more important to get an effective system of offences and penalties that deters or influences the general road user.

It is easy to sympathise with the view that these people should have been more severely dealt with. From a road safety point of view one wonders why that was not the case, whether the courts were exercising their discretion or constrained by the framework of penalties available to them.

Ms Morrice: Last week, there was a highly publicised case about a joy rider who killed three people and who, we are told, had 109 convictions and had committed 50 road traffic offences. The magistrate in that case said that his hands were tied on the sentence he could pass. Is your Department going to be able to do anything about this?

Mr Quinn: We will certainly provide input to the Home Office review of offences and penalties, and perhaps, that is an appropriate point to draw to their attention. I suspect they will try to address themselves to typical offenders rather than exceptional ones.

Ms Morrice: You call them exceptional offenders but they can cause death on our roads.

Mr Quinn: And perhaps we ought to be able to send these people to jail for twenty years. Perhaps, that is the type of thing we should be raising with the Home Office.

Ms Morrice: You say that perhaps that is the type of thing which should be raised. What type of thing will you be raising with the Home Office?

Mr Quinn: We will certainly be raising the issue of graduated penalties for excessive speeding, which the Audit Office report mentions.

Mr Dillon: It is an intention of this review to look at more severe penalties for the more serious types of road traffic offences.

Ms Morrice: How severe?

Mr Dillon: That will be teased out in the review, but serious excessive speed is one area that will be looked at as to whether it should attract further penalties. I would add another point. Those cases are clearly examples of where punishment in itself does not work. It is critical to get at the behaviours and attitudes of people who use the roads in that way.

We are currently piloting a rehabilitation scheme for drink drivers, and we are expecting to find that the increase in the number of road safety education officers will enable us to look at - and I think it was a recommendation of the audit report - driver improvement schemes. Under these schemes, instead of prosecuting drivers found guilty of serious breaches of speed limits, they are faced with the consequences of their actions, which include speaking directly to the families of victims or to victims themselves. We hope to introduce that type of thing in the context of the new road safety plan.

Ms Morrice: Obviously, it is incredibly important to change the culture of drivers who believe their rights are above those of other road users so as to preserve the human rights of pedestrians and cyclists.

Mr Dillon: A pilot exercise on driver improvement schemes, which is currently taking place in Lincolnshire, was featured on a recent television programme. When people were faced with the consequences of their actions their attitudes coming out of the driver improvement class sharply contrasted with those they had displayed going in.

Ms Morrice: I want to refer you paragraph 5.18, which refers to the competing demands for road safety funding. For example, whether funding accident remedial schemes makes a more effective contribution, than for instance, road safety education. You referred quite a few times - as we all have - to joined-up Government. These schemes span two Departments, and I have noticed in your interventions that you hesitate to tread on other departmental toes. Surely, departmental toes should be trodden on very firmly to ensure joined-up Government on this matter.

Mr Quinn: I agree. I hesitated to comment on the operational priorities and activities of organisations about which I did not have information. I cannot tell you how the RUC Traffic Branch operates in detail. I agree with the general point, and I think that Mr McClelland made the same point when he talked about comparing the benefits of road safety education, traffic calming, and the addition of ten officers to the RUC traffic branch. That is worth looking at. However, I would make the mildly cautionary point that identifying and quantifying the benefits of such different activities and outputs is methodologically quite difficult - but well worth trying to do.

Ms Morrice: I would like to ask Dr McCormick what guidance DFP has issued to Departments to ensure that soundly based decisions are made on funding priority? How does DFP guide Departments, particularly when that involves the policy objective cutting across departments?

Dr McCormick: The Department of Finance and Personnel has a reputation for being known to tread on toes from time to time. It is very important that there is guidance on handling cross cutting issues. This is very timely, in that we are in a spending review this year where the emphasis at UK level has been on the range of cross-cutting issues. There have been 15 studies in which there has been the concept of pooled budgets and where several Departments would have joint responsibility for action on a particular theme.

We need to consider that as we move into the spending review in the autumn, to ensure that where an issue affects more than one Department, that can be taken into account and dealt with. There is a corollary in terms of accountability; a recent revision of the Accounting Officer memorandum by the Treasury made it clear that where items of expenditure affect more than one Department, the Accounting Officer should ensure that account is taken of the impact on other Departments, as well as on their own direct responsibilities. That was promulgated by the Department of Finance and Personnel in May. There are issues arising here on the idea of joined-up Government. There is further work to be done, both in terms of planning for spending and in terms of giving account for spending. That needs to be developed, and there are opportunities in the context of devolution for that to happen.

Ms Armitage: I know Mr Spence and Mr James from former years. You are both looking extremely well, so this easy work must be agreeing with you. On page 26, the issue of people not wearing their seat belts is discussed. Paragraph 3.10 says that this offence only attracts a £20 fixed penalty. I believe that has been the fixed penalty for a number of years. Is that a sufficient deterrent, given the significant contribution that seat belt wearing would make to reducing the severity of injuries?

Mr Quinn: That is certainly a policy point worth considering carefully. Think of the amount of attention that has been given to seat belt wearing. I am old enough to remember Jimmy Saville and "Clunk Click - Every Trip". To find so many years later that a substantial part of the road user public, particularly passengers, is still reluctant to use seat belts is very worrying. We have run seat belt campaigns recently to try and raise the prominence of that issue. That is another issue that needs to go into the Home Office review, and we will be highlighting it in that context. When you read it as the Audit Office has presented it, in juxtaposition with the other offences, it does raise a real policy point about whether that is the appropriate level of penalty.

Ms Armitage: Do you have any figures on the number of deaths due to back seat passengers not wearing a belt?

Mr Dillon: No. We do not have figures as precise as that. We know that of the 92 vehicle occupants killed last year, 30 were not wearing a seat belt, and in a further 20 cases it was not clear from the circumstances of the accident whether they had been wearing a seat belt. It could be as many as 50 people, out of 92 killed in vehicles on the roads last year, not wearing seat belts. We have much lower seat belt usage in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. I can give you some comparative figures for rear seat passengers. In a survey last year, 62% of rear seat passengers in Northern Ireland wore their seat belts, as opposed to 76% of rear seat passengers in Great Britain.

Ms Armitage: The other thing that concerns me is the number of children who are not actually belted in, either in a child seat or a car seat. What is the legislation? Your child is your most precious possession, and yet I drive behind cars with children sitting or standing in the middle. There should be a law that parents must belt their child into a car seat. Where do we stand on that? Is there a penalty for it? There should be a very high penalty for that.

Mr Dillon: I am stretching my understanding here, but as far as I know it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that children under 15 years of age, or perhaps it is 14, are belted up in the car. Therefore the driver would attract the penalty, but as you say, that does not stop it happening.

Ms Armitage: You are full of buts. I would rather hear something positive that you could do. It is obvious that parents do not actually belt their children in or take responsibility to have a child seat for them. A child of 18 months cannot say "Mummy, buy me a child seat", but someone should be telling mummy to buy a child seat.

Mr Dillon: There are legal requirements on people ferrying children in cars to have them belted in. Enforcement of those legal requirements is a matter for the Police. Whether the penalty for not doing it is sufficient is an issue that we are going to be addressing as part of the Home Office review.

Ms Armitage: How many parents have been fined for not having their children belted in?

Mr Dillon: I do not have statistics in that degree of detail.

Ms Armitage: Do you not think it is important enough?

Mr Dillon: I am sorry, I do not have the statistics. The RUC is the source of those statistics. We can ask for them and let the Committee have them, although I am not sure if they have them in that detail^.

Ms Armitage: Would you consider applying the £20 fixed penalty? My other question relates to page 24, paragraph 1.10 - pedestrian deaths in Northern Ireland of 100,000. Can you explain why this figure is so high in Northern Ireland? What lessons have you learnt which can be applied to redress this?

Mr Quinn: I think the classic causes are excessive speed and drink and driving, and, to a degree inattentive pedestrian behaviour. It goes back to the crucial variable of road user attitudes and behaviour. Northern Ireland road users are not as responsible as road users in other parts of the world. This is what we are trying to influence by advertising, by road safety education, by enforcement activity and by setting up a framework and implementing policy and law which encourages more responsible attitudes and behaviour.

Mr Dillon: We know that drinking and walking is an increasing cause of pedestrian fatalities, and we have launched advertising campaigns trying to persuade people to take more care. It is very good that cars are left at home, but we are also trying to ensure that individuals take more care of themselves, and this includes encouraging other people in the party making sure they get home safely.

Ms Armitage: In which age group are these pedestrian fatalities? If they are largely young people, is more education at school required?

Mr Dillon: I think that the majority of pedestrians killed and who are under the influence of drink are of the younger generation.

Ms Armitage: Do you assume that that is the main reason?

Mr Dillon: Yes. We intend to increase the number of road safety education officers, to enhance the pedestrian training of children in schools. This was recommended in the Audit Office report.

Mr Quinn: Last year, 40 pedestrians were killed in Northern Ireland of whom 13 were children under sixteen. Of 292 serious injuries, 114 were children, so they make up a substantial proportion of the pedestrian casualties killed and seriously injured in Northern Ireland.

Ms Armitage: Do you consider the answer to be a concerted drive on education?

Mr Quinn: As Mr Foster has announced there will be more education as soon as possible.

Mr Dillon: This will be aimed not just at children but at drivers as well.

Ms Armitage: Paragraph 3.12 on page 48 comments on the effectiveness of the use of penalty points and cameras. How successful has that been?

Mr Quinn: Development work of a conceptual nature has been done by our statisticians. They are aiming to measure the average speeds recorded by offenders before and after the introduction of the penalty points system. I think cause and effect of this kind is very difficult to establish. It is possible to get helpful indicators which give you a better than intuitive feel for whether the policy is working.

Actually saying that a particular measure has a particular outcome is very difficult, because it is mediated through road user behaviour and attitudes. But I think that there will be ways and means of monitoring the penalty points scheme in a way which tells us significant things about its effectiveness.

Mr Dillon: May I just add that there is an annual road safety monitor which is part of a wider survey in Northern Ireland. For the year 2000 the monitor showed that 63% of drivers claim that they have changed their driving in some way since the introduction of penalty points. That is a combination of the points and the advertising strategy that we have for it. And there is some evidence now that the effects of that are starting to wane so we may need to reinforce that.

Ms Armitage: I know that cost is not everything when it comes to road safety, but is the cost of the penalty scheme high? Is it effective? Do we know that yet?

Mr Quinn: The cost is primarily to the Court Service and, as the audit report made clear, that was, at an earlier stage, a constraint on the scheme's being introduced. It was not that the old DOE had to administer it. It had to find the resources to give to the Court Service to administer it, which was a constraint. I do not have any precise information, but I know that it is now so resourced, though there is some anecdotal evidence that the central ticket office of the RUC is feeling the strain from the volume of penalty point cases coming through.

Ms Armitage: Yes. I wondered about that, but can you give me more detail on that at the minute.

Mr Quinn: No. We could ask the RUC to comment, but it is an operational matter and a question of operational priorities for the RUC.

Ms Armitage: You cannot judge everything in safety terms only; you still have to think if what you are doing is cost effective or whether the money could be better used elsewhere.

Mr Dillon: One of the things that might help is if we were able to introduce a Northern Ireland scheme that has been piloted in Great Britain to use additional fixed penalty fines to pay for the cost of enforcement. That would relieve some of the pressure because all of the agencies involved could potentially benefit from that.

Ms Armitage: That is what I had in mind.

The Chairman: At the beginning of the session I asked you to be as concise and as brief as possible in your answers. You have responded to this and I thank you for that. As a result we have about 10 minutes left. I know that Mr McClelland would like to ask a question on the last issue raised.

Mr McClelland: I am glad that we have got on to the issue of pedestrian deaths and particularly the deaths of young people as pedestrians. Is there any relationship between those deaths and the provision of footpaths, pedestrian pavements, et cetera, specifically in rural areas close to schools.

My next question concerns the provision of pedestrian, pelican and zebra crossings. I understand that there is a complicated mathematical formula used when deciding whether to provide a crossing or not. Do you think that that is an efficient way of deciding whether a village or town requires or deserves a crossing?

Mr Spence: I think those are largely questions for the Department for Regional Development. We are under a lot of pressure to have increased road safety provision adjacent to schools particularly in rural areas but also in urban areas where there has been a pattern of accidents resulting in a lot of local community pressure for additional pedestrian crossings and so on.

Mr James: I am aware of a number of cases that have been referred to me where it has been necessary to argue for a pavement from a village to a local school. Obviously where we can do that we will. You are absolutely right. We do not want children walking down a road unnecessarily, but we are always going to be constrained by budgetary considerations. I cannot escape that because, as you are aware from the other recent audit report, the auditors pointed out that I have only half the amount of money for structural maintenance that I need. That is pretty true of all the Roads Service budgets. We have a big budgetary constraint here, but we try to be as helpful as possible, bearing in mind that road safety is our number one priority.

You are right on the issue of crossings. There is a mechanism to decide whether a crossing should be put in or not. We take into account the balance between keeping the traffic flowing on the road and moving people across the road safely. We weight the analysis to take account of vulnerable pedestrians. If, for example, there are a lot of young schoolchildren or elderly people, then it will be weighted to give extra priority to that. It is difficult to say anything more in general, but we are concerned about doing the right thing.

The Chairman: Every member of the Committee wants to ask a question during this period, so we are constrained for time. I ask both Members and witnesses to be brief.

Ms Ramsey: I am interested in your last point. You said that there are criteria for traffic calming, especially with reference to pedestrian crossings. My area must not be on the map. In your answers you talked about consultation and forward planning. You said that engineers are constantly out looking at ways to improve traffic calming and road safety. Earlier, you mentioned the Holyland. We had a traffic calming campaign in our area at the same time that the Holyland got what it did not ask for. I am not knocking the traffic calming measures there. You said there were six serious accidents in the Holyland, one of which was fatal. At the same time we had over six children killed in my area over a two to three year period and we still did not get traffic calming measures. Are different criteria applied to every area, or, to be cynical, is it that a lot of traffic calming managers live in the Holyland or that it is a more affluent area than the one I come from?

Mr James: The Holyland case goes back a number of years. It is more important to look at what is happening now. I can give the Committee a copy of our traffic calming assessment form. I was trying to reinforce the point that our assessment shows the wide range of issues that are taken into account: vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists, car volumes, whether it is a village or residential area, school playground or street involving shops, libraries, hospitals, health centres, the width of the pavement. A wide range of issues are taken into account in a points system to try to bring some degree of objectivity and uniformity to decision-making. The Holyland was one of the first and indeed the largest scheme done by the Roads Service. It was very much a pioneering scheme. A lot of lessons were learnt which have general applicability. It is more important to concentrate on what happens today. I hope that what we have in place now gives that degree of equity that we are all looking for.

Ms Ramsey: My point is that it seems easier to get traffic calming measures in the Belfast division than in the Downpatrick division. Are there different criteria?

Mr James: That should not be the case.

Ms Ramsey: In reality, it is the case.

Mr James: I would have to be shown the two examples. It is very difficult to speak about this theoretically. Our objective is to be equitable, not inequitable.

The Chairman: I understand why my Deputy Chairperson is asking this question. She and I represent the same area on Lisburn Borough Council and sometimes we scratch our heads at the decisions, but I take your point and you have answered the question satisfactorily.

Ms Armitage: You gave a figure of 11,799 people slightly injured. That seems very high. Is that right, or have I made a mistake?

Mr Quinn: That is right.

Ms Armitage: When you say slightly injured, are those people who have had to attend accident and emergency? I am wondering about finance and the hospital situation. How slightly is slightly?

Mr Quinn: It is a designation given by the Police who attend an accident. "Slightly injured" includes people who did not attend an A&E department and also those who did not discover that they had whiplash until several days later. One does not have to attend an A&E department to qualify for that designation.

Mr Carrick: I do not think that you answered my first question about page 48, paragraph 3.14 of your report: how many motorists have escaped the penalty points since October 1998?

Secondly, there is a perception among councillors that there must be a fatality before the Department introduces measures to ensure road safety. The Holyland traffic calming measures seem to be an exception, as they are the result of a proactive approach, not a request. Can the Department assure us that it can dispel this view and that it will adopt a proactive approach to road safety?

Mr Quinn: I will answer the first question, Mr Spence the second. We are not aware of any further data collection exercise to update the figure of 4,000. I will enquire about the matter^. That was a special data collection exercise done by the Audit Office for this report.

Mr Spence: The second question is about how we prioritise road safety measures. Perhaps Mr James could explain the present position.

Mr James: It is very similar to the answer I gave a few minutes ago on traffic calming. There is an objective points system which is designed to bring some equity to the matter. Could you repeat the question?

Mr Carrick: My experience in local government has been a frustrating one in that, when we ask the Department about road safety, we get the impression that there must be a fatality before there is any movement - it has to become a black spot before any action is taken.

Mr James: This is a very big problem, because the issue of fatalities is deeply worrying and very serious. However, a one-off fatality can distort the picture. If the victim had been wearing a seatbelt or had not been drunk, he might not have died. The investigating engineers take these factors into account in deciding what to do next. If there is a pattern which we feel engineering works could correct, we would carry out appropriate engineering works and measure their success.

Fatalities can occur for reasons other than the layout or conditions of the road. It is important to bear that in mind.

Mr Beggs: I would like to return to the question of the reduction of educational officers. Was the accounting officer happy about the switch of funding at the time of the reduction? If not, did he ask for ministerial direction?

Secondly, what is the Department doing to improve the co-ordination of information on accident statistics between the RUC and insurance companies, for example? I have personal experience of coming across a series of accidents on bends involving the ambulance service and the police. Only after I had obtained the statistics from the local policing service and presented them to the Roads Service were the urgent improvements brought into effect. Are you planning to introduce a Geographic Information Service so that accident statistics would automatically accumulate, making the need for action obvious without public representatives or individuals forcing the issue?

Mr James: We do record accident statistics given to us by the RUC. One of the criticisms in the Audit Report, quite correctly, was that our computer system was not much good. We were in the process of replacing it, and we have a new one now, which has geographic information system capability. I totally agree with you that until we bring that geographic information system capability in alongside our existing methodologies we will not get the full benefit from the system. We do plot them annually.

Part of the problem may come down to priority funding rather than to our having ignored a particular place. There is potentially quite a considerable demand for these schemes, and we have not got the money to do every one of them immediately.

Mr Spence: It is probably improper of me to answer the question about the Accounting Officer position, but I was the Accounting Officer at the time that decision was taken. There are very difficult issues when you have a finite amount of money and nearly every part of the Department is under-resourced. We are desperately short of planning officers. There was an announcement this week that some more money has been found to employ more planning officers. We were desperately short of people, at that time, to implement new measures on the waste strategy and waste management; we were short of people on the historic buildings and monuments and the water pollution sides. There was a whole range of pressures on the Department. All an Accounting Officer can do, and this applies in every Department, is say to the political head of the Department "Here is the amount of money we have; here are the pressures; and here are the consequences of doing fresh things." It is not a situation in which it is appropriate to ask for a direction, and in that case I did not ask for one.

Mr Beggs: What was your recommendation to the Minister?

Mr Spence: We would say to the Minister "Here are the consequences of living within this sum of money, and there will have to be reductions here. We will not be able to employ extra people to do this; we are going to have to take three years to do this project instead of one year." You point out the political choices to the political head of the Department. The Minister then has to take the decisions and defend them. It is not unique to the Department of the Environment or to the Department for Regional Development; it is a problem that every Department faces.

Ms Morrice: I am very interested in these political choices. I will quote you "Three people killed every week at the cost to the economy of £574 million". You are saying that there is a finite amount of money and that you are constrained by budgetary considerations. Did nobody tell the Minister that it was costing him more not to put money into traffic calming measures or speed limit reductions? Why did no one tell him that?

Mr Spence: You have to ask "Why were those three people killed"? Was it because one of them was drunk, because one of them was tired and fell asleep, or because one of them was not wearing a seat belt?

Ms Morrice: Historic buildings are not going to fall on people. I do not know of people who have died from that, or from water pollution. There are mothers and fathers out there, very frustrated by these sorts of responses, when there are children who have died on the roads. We have to take this seriously and realise the cost to the economy and the cost to families.

Mr Spence: That is why very difficult choices have to be made.

Mr Close: I find this incomprehensible. We are dealing with death, and particularly the death of children, as has already been mentioned, and specifically with the reduction in the numbers of road safety education officers. You can see from the graphs that as their number was reduced, so the number of child casualties went up. The cost of increasing the number of road safety education officers mentioned in the report was something like £178,000. To have that compared with some shortfall in funding for planning or historic buildings does not bear comment.

You cannot put a value on the death of a child. I thought and hoped, and Mr James referred earlier to this, that road safety would be our number-one priority.

I feel that society would say "Alleluia" to that. But to compare it with planning, historic buildings, or whatever is a gross failure to recognise the seriousness of the issue. When one looks at the report, the figures and the targets, there is no positive proof that the Department is succeeding in demonstrating that road safety is its number one priority. In fact, anyone who looks at the figures would say "You have failed", or collectively, as a society "We have failed." However, your Department is supposed to be putting things right.

The worst year on record for deaths on the road was 1998, when 168 were killed. Targets were set to bring these numbers down. This year's figure, if extrapolated to the end of the year, indicates that unless there is a miracle, there will not be a snowball's chance in hell of achieving the target. Every statistic one looks at, the situation in Northern Ireland is worse than the rest of the United Kingdom. In my opinion that represents failure.

I would like to emerge from here today with a guarantee that there will be an improvement in the situation when your Department comes back. I anticipate that you will be back, because this is one of the major issues in Northern Ireland. We need to be assured that there will be improvements in order that we can provide such assurances to the public. It is not obvious from reading the report that there have been improvements in the situation.

Mr Quinn: The assurance I would offer Mr Close is the attention and priority that has been given to this issue, within a few months of devolution, by Executive Ministers and, in particular, by the Minister of Environment, Mr Foster. An announcement from the Minister referred to the fact that we are doubling the number of road safety education officers. Northern Ireland will have proportionately more road safety education officers than in Great Britain. We also have an additional £250,000 to spend in the current year on road safety advertising - a 33% increase on the existing budget. It is a substantial response by the Department and by the Minister of Environment and also by the Executive at large to the problems raised. I hope that the Committee are reassured that this issue is getting the priority which it warrants.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much for attending. Mr Quinn, you said that you would provide us with some further information. In relation to the figures of child accidents, a point raised by Mr Beggs. Could we also have information on the total amount spent on road safety by all Agencies? Other areas discussed were the statistics on prosecutions for failure to ensure that children are wearing seat belts and enquiries on the number of motorists who have escaped penalty points since October 1998. We would be obliged if we could have that information which will help us prepare our report^.

TOP