Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2021: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, line 7, after “number” to insert “or their passport”.
This relates to suitable forms of identification for the purpose of making a vehicle licence application. I am seeking to include passports. As drafted, the subsection provides that, where a person does not already have a driving licence, a learning permit or a foreign driving licence, only a personal public service, PPS, number suffices as a suitable form of identification when applying for a vehicle licence. While I appreciate that a PPS number is different from a public services card, there was overreach in the requirement for a public services card to access services. Given the process for accessing passports, a passport should be accepted as a suitable form of identification instead of pushing someone to have to provide a PPS number, particularly in light of the history around this issue with people being incorrectly pushed to provide public services cards when applying for driving licences.
I cannot accept the amendment. This proposal would add a passport to the possible details that could be captured with vehicle ownership records. I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, but it would not work. We are trying to capture identifiers - a driver number, if available, or a PPS number if there is no driver number - so that we can link vehicle ownership records to existing or future driving licence records. This will help us to ensure that, for example, fixed-charge notices are delivered to the correct addresses. The driver number, if available, will give us a direct link to the existing driving licence record. Where a person does not have a driving licence record, he or she will not have a driver number, but if we capture the PPS number and the person later obtains a driving licence, we will be able to make the link.
Collecting a passport record would not help us, because we do not have anything to link it to a driving licence record. There is also the fact that, as written, the amendment would mean capturing the passport, not the passport number. Even if we had a way of linking passport numbers to the driver licensing records, the amendment would not work.
I am satisfied that we have adequate cover through the use of driving licence numbers and PPS numbers in the Bill. This will help to ensure that people receive fixed-charge notices, penalty points and disqualifications, as appropriate.
I accept the Minister's point about passport numbers. It is a valid point, but I reserve the right to table an amendment on the matter on Report Stage. A passport is a form of identification that can be used in obtaining a driving licence. The Minister spoke about looking for a driving licence number, but it is not a requirement that someone have a public services card in order to obtain a driving licence. He or she can apply for a driving licence based on a passport. It is an acceptable form of identification for the driving licence, which is regarded as an acceptable form of identification under the Bill.
Given the valid point about passport versus passport number, I will not press this amendment, but I will return to the matter with a variant on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5
Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 10 and 12 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 10, to delete line 32.
Members will be aware that one of the matters dealt with in this Bill is the legislative underpinning for a motor insurance database. This is a project that was developed over a long time. The aim behind it is to provide a resource to combat uninsured driving. Uninsured driving is a menace. Drivers who drive while uninsured are typically guilty of other road traffic offences and are a danger to the public. The cost of uninsured driving ultimately falls on law-abiding citizens through higher insurance premiums. This database will enable the Garda to identify uninsured drivers more easily and get them off our roads. Legislation was first put in place to underpin this database in 2010. At that time, the full outline of what the database would look like and what would be needed to underpin it in legislation, was far from clear. As a result the 2010 legislation was very vague. It was amended in 2016 and to a further small degree in 2018 as the project developed and there was a clear idea of what would be needed. Some of the provisions were commenced in 2019 and details of a large number of policies have been uploaded to the database. However, to complete it we need further amendments, which are included in this Bill. The Bill addresses three principal areas relating to the database. First, it adds a new section 56A to the Road Traffic Act 1961 to require provision of certain information by clients to insurers when taking out motor insurance. The reason is that as insurers will have to provide certain information to the database, they will need to be able to acquire it from the client. Second, it updates provisions to comply with the general data protection regulation, GDPR, which came in after the most recent substantive amendments to the provisions in 2016. This involves providing clarity on what data can be shared, with whom and for what purposes. I wish to acknowledge the constructive engagement from the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in developing these provisions.
Finally, it creates provisions to capture the details of vehicles held on fleet policies. These are policies covering a range of vehicles that may join and exit a fleet multiple times over one year. It is essential to keep track of these changes. It is in the interests of both the public and fleet owners for this to happen. Some Members may be aware that some road haulage operators have said they are being unfairly targeted here, which is not true. There are many holders of fleet policies, not just hauliers and they are all being treated alike. I am sure that on reflection, they would want to be sure that their vehicles, like any others, were kept up to date on an insurance database used by the Garda to ensure their insurance is in place.
Today, I am proposing three amendments to finalise and refine the measures already in the Bill. First, I am introducing a definition into the Road Traffic Act for the term, "vehicle identification number". This is because the term will be used further on in the other amendments. Second, I am proposing to substitute the new section 56A as it stands in the Bill. The changes are not enormous, but it is much simpler to replace the whole section 56A than to make multiple small amendments. The same is true for the third change, where I am proposing to substitute section 78A. The principal changes relate to the fleet policy issue. The new version of section 56A will specify the information, which a fleet owner or motor trader will need to supply to the insurer in order that the insurer will be able to provide that information to the database. However, a fleet owner or a motor trader will also be required to supply details of their drivers and vehicles directly to the database. In the case of standard policies, this information will also be provided by the client to the insurer, who will then provide it to the database. The reason for asking that it be provided to the database directly by the fleet owner or motor trader is that vehicles, drivers and fleets can change through the year. This information needs to be updated as appropriate. This is the most efficient way to do it, and is in the interest of fleet owners. After all, they do not want to be in a position where one of their vehicles is not up on the system and appears as being uninsured or where a driver is not registered as covered. In line with UK legislation, we are also allowing that vehicles held for up to 14 days will not need to notified to the database, only those held for longer. In section 78A we are updating the requirements on insurers to provide the data, which they will have regarding fleet policies. Members may also wish to note that in both section 56A and section 78A we have dropped references to the driver number on driving licences issued prior to January 2013. This is because such licences would have been valid for a maximum of ten years and are therefore no longer in circulation.
I will speak to a couple of these and indicate that there are a couple of areas where I may reserve the right to bring amendments on Report Stage, should these amendments be successful. I imagine they will be. I also have a couple of questions for the Minister. He has already partly answered one of them in relation to the question of a fleet. I was wondering where that fit in terms of haulage and hauliers. I think it is a step forward to have proper accountability when it comes to haulage fleets. It is my understanding that a haulage company with a fleet of vehicles is not under fleet in the excluded section. Rather, it is the case that a haulage company would come under the requirement for every individual using a vehicle to be named in the insurance. Will the Minister clarify that? I will not stray very far but an area I have long highlighted concerning toll roads is the fact that many large vehicles often take smaller back roads to avoid paying tolls . We have seen significant consequences in Slane, County Meath, and other places with accidents arising from that. I have often called for measures that would require owners of the vehicles in haulage companies to set up an annual toll road payment, rather than it falling to individual drivers, who may or not choose to pay tolls. Making it an obligation would be a really sensible safety provision. I think it is good that we are putting an insurance obligation on the owners of vehicles, regardless of who is driving. We should similarly look to an obligation in respect of an annual toll road payment to ensure against the creation of perverse incentives for individual, possibly self-employed, drivers to leave toll roads and take more dangerous back roads. I am signalling that as an opportunity. It is an issue I might return to on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 12 is creating a new database. I appreciate the Minister mentioning that he has had engagement with the Data Protection Commission but I would like to see the outputs of that engagement in terms of protections. The Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland, MIBI, will be the named data controller and there will be data protection officers. I also appreciate there will be a review after 18 months but one of the key things will also be an advance data protection impact assessment. Will the Minister clarify if plans have been made for the setting up of a data protection impact assessment with regard to this new database? What other protections or safeguards are there to ensure compliance?
I also want to signal something else because I may bring amendments in respect of it on Report Stage. The new section 78A(11) states that the information may be made available to the recipients as specified in one place, but also "to such further recipients as may be specified in the regulations for such further purposes as may be specified therein." Again, one is talking about a data protection impact assessment in terms of the database but also a data protection impact assessment in terms of the regulations. In general, I am always cautious about signing over anything where we refer to such further purposes as may get decided or to such further recipients as might be specified. That is just a little vague. The one thing we know with data protection is that it is always better to be clear about who might receive the information and for which purposes and that we do not have a situation where things might be added without them being properly screened.
Does the Minister have answers to those questions relating to amendment No. 10? It would also be useful to get more information on amendment No. 12. I may also bring some amendments.
There seems to be some sense behind the Senator's suggestion on how we address the issue of large vehicles avoiding tolls, which brings traffic to areas we do want it in. However, it is not for this piece of legislation, which relates to the insurance rather than the toll management systems. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is to the advantage of hauliers to be treated like all other fleet owners. As I recall, any company or organisation with more than five vehicles is described as a fleet. Many hauliers might have only one or two trucks and that will not apply but where it does fit within the definition of "fleet", it is absolutely appropriate that the database be updated in the way set out here.
On the data protection issue, this does provide for designated data controllers and GDPR legislation then applies a whole range where one is designated as being the authority with responsibility for managing it and it sets out the whole series of what is required including the date of birth, the policy number, the period of cover and so on. It is setting out what some of that information is, so it is providing an up-to-date approach. As I said in my introduction, it is applying GDPR principles in how we do this.
The replacement section 78A(11) introduced by amendment No. 12 would make the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland, MIBI, subject to regulations made by the Minister. We want to have access where data protection inputs are required and where those regulations are put in place to meet data protection rules. This amendment is, as I said, providing for us to be compliant with the GDPR. I think the Senator might agree when I say the GDPR has been one of the most progressive pieces of European legislation and put some good regulatory controls in place. Our own Data Protection Commissioner has obviously been very involved in the drafting of these regulations to ensure we are compliant with the European legislation.
I might come back on the hauliers issue at a different point.
On data protection, specifying what the information is one part of it but specifying who is accessing the information and for what purposes is the other part. The GDPR is not simply about being clear what the information is but being clear what purposes it is used for and who is accessing it. We might have the same information gathered but the information does not belong to a body. The MIBI may have that information but it does not own it as it is still the information of others. Instead, the bureau has use of that information for certain purposes and that is why I am looking at that little bit of ambiguity. I am happy to engage in between Stages with the Minister because I will be crafting some amendments for Report Stage and do not want to craft any unnecessarily. I am looking for clarity around what is envisaged in that because it is just a little loosely worded at the moment. That is fine. I am sure we will come back to it on Report Stage and I am happy to engage in between if that is useful.
The Senator is right that who gets access is equally important to what the information is. The amendment requires the Minister to set out regulations in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“and
(iii) by the insertion of the following definition after “vehicle guarantor”:
“ ‘vehicle identification number (VIN)’ means the alphanumeric code assigned to a vehicle by the manufacturer in order to ensure proper identification of every vehicle;”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 24, 39, and 72 to 74, inclusive, are related and may be discussed by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 12, line 8, to delete “23B.” and substitute “23C.”.
There are a large number of amendments. They have been grouped together for convenience because they are all essentially technical and do not change the substance of the Bill. Many simply correct typographical errors, misspellings or wrongly repeated words. In a few cases they change the numbering of sub-paragraphs to match current practice. For example, section 5(j)(i)(I)(cc) will become 5(j)(i)(I)(ca). None of these amendments involve any change to the substance of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I welcome Senator McGahon's guests to the Public Gallery. They are Evan Fitzpatrick, Aaron Dunne and Aoife Moriarty from Dundalk. They are in transition year and are on work experience. They are very welcome to our Public Gallery and to Leinster House.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 12, line 31, to delete “23C.” and substitute “23D.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 12, line 40, to delete “23D.” and substitute “23E.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 13, to delete lines 18 to 22 and substitute the following:
“(g) in section 33—
(i) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Road Safety Authority is deemed to be and have been the issuing authority for the purpose of this section with effect from 1 January 2007 and every act done or purported to have been done by the Road Safety Authority in the performance or purported performance of the functions of the issuing authority under this Act on and from that date and prior to the coming into operation of section 5(g)(i) of the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 shall be, and be deemed always to have been, valid and effectual for all purposes.
(1B) The functions of the issuing authority under subsection (4) are deemed to be and have been delegated to persons appointed, on or after 1 January 2007, by the Road Safety Authority to carry out tests under this section and every act done or purported to have been done by persons so appointed shall be, and be deemed always to have been, valid and effectual for all purposes.
(1C) If subsection (1A) or (1B) would, but for this subsection, conflict with a constitutional right of any person, the operation of that subsection shall be subject to such limitation as is necessary to secure that it does not so conflict but shall otherwise be of full force and effect.”,
and
(ii) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
“(2A) An application for a certificate of competency under this section shall contain the personal public service number allocated and issued to the applicant under section 262(2) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.”,”.
I have a note on that I would like to give, for the information of the House. It is just to have clarity on it. Members will be aware the Road Safety Authority, RSA, is responsible for the delivery of the driving test. This was the original core purpose of the authority, which was originally to be called the driver testing and standards authority. When first published as a Bill, the Road Safety Authority Act 2006 was called the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill. Recent discussions with the Attorney General indicated there was some obscurity in the legislation about the role of the RSA in delivering the driving test. On the advice of the then Attorney General, we agreed late last year to introduce an amendment to remove any obscurity in the law and reaffirm the role of the RSA in delivering the driving test.
Section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 deals with certificates of competency, which are the certificates issued when a person passes a driving test. Under section 33, the Minister may by regulations designate a body as the issuing authority for the purposes of certificates of competency and it is then the responsibility of the issuing authority to test applicants for a certificate or to call them to be tested. We are here amending section 33 by introducing three new subsections. These will become sections 33(1)(1A), 33(1)(1B) and 33(1)(1C). The new section 33(1)(1A) clarifies the RSA is the issuing authority and has been since 1 January 2007, which is when the RSA took over the delivery of the service. The new section 33(1)(1B) confirms functions under section 33(4), which are essentially functions of issuing or refusing certificates following tests, are deemed to have been carried out by persons appointed by the RSA to carry out the tests. This is to remove any doubt about the status or RSA testers. Section 33(1)(1C) is a standard formulation so that in the case where the operation of sections 33(1)(1A) or 33(1)(1B) might conflict with the person's rights, these subsections still operate so as not to conflict with those rights but otherwise be of full effect.
It is largely technical in nature, a Chathaoirligh, but I was keen to explain it in detail.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 14, line 31, to delete “(cc)” and substitute “(ca)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 14, line 34, to delete “(cd)” and substitute “(cb)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 16, to delete lines 17 to 39, to delete page 17, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 17 and substitute the following:
“(l) by the insertion of the following sections after section 56:
“Obligation to supply vehicle insurer or certain intermediaries with certain information
56A. (1) For the purpose or in the course of obtaining the issue of an approved policy of insurance and to assist a vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf to comply with its obligations under section 78A, a person, other than a fleet owner or motor trader, shall supply to the insurer or intermediary the following information:
(a) his or her name and address and the name of any other person who is to be named in particular 6 of the certificate of insurance;
(b) the date of birth of each person to whom paragraph (a) applies;
(c) the registration number or, in the event that the registration number is not available, the vehicle identification number (VIN) or any other unique identifying number given by the manufacturer, if available;
(d) in respect of each of the persons to whom paragraph (a) applies—
(i) the country of issue of the licence or permit, and
(ii) in the case the person concerned holds—
(I) an Irish driving licence, the number given at item 4d and described as ‘Uimhir tiomána’ or ‘Driver number’ on the licence,
(II) a learner permit, the number given at item 4d and described as ‘Uimhir tiomána’ or ‘Driver number’ on the permit, or
(III) a foreign driving licence, the driver number, licence number or unique identifier of any person to whom the licence is issued.
(2) Any change or error in respect of the information which has been provided pursuant to subsection (1) shall be notified by the person to whom the approved policy of insurance is issued or to be issued to the vehicle insurer or intermediary referred to in that subsection as soon as is practicable.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class E fine.
(4) For the purpose of or in the course of obtaining an approved policy of insurance and to assist a vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf to comply with its obligations under section 78A, a fleet owner or motor trader shall supply to the vehicle insurer or intermediary, as the case may be—
(a) his or her name and address and the names of any other person to be named in particular 6 of the certificate of insurance, and
(b) where applicable, the class or classes of driver whose liability is proposed to be covered by the policy.
(5) Any change or error in respect of the information which has been provided pursuant to subsection (4) shall be notified by the fleet owner or motor trader, as the case may be, to the vehicle insurer or intermediary referred to in that subsection as soon as is practicable.
(6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class E fine.
(7) A fleet owner or motor trader, as the case may be, shall, in respect of an approved policy of insurance to which subsection (4) refers, supply to MIBI within 14 days—
(a) of the issuing of an approved policy of insurance, in respect of a person named in particular 6 of the certificate of insurance—
(i) his or her date of birth, and
(ii) the information specified in paragraph (d)(i), (ii) or (iii), as the case may be, of subsection (1),
(b) of a person’s name being added to particular 6 of the certificate of insurance, his or her name and date of birth and such of the information specified in paragraph (d)(i), (ii) or (iii), as is relevant to him or her, and
(c) of a vehicle being in the possession of the fleet owner or motor trader, as the case may be, the registration number or, in the event that the registration number is not available, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) or any other unique identifying number given by the manufacturer, if available.
(8) Where a vehicle is in the possession of a fleet owner or motor trader for 14 days or less, the requirement under subsection (7)(c) does not apply.
(9) Any change or error in respect of the information provided pursuant to subsection (7)(a), (b) or (c) shall be notified by the fleet owner or motor trader to MIBI within 5 days of the change occurring or the error coming to the attention of the owner or trader, as the case may be.
(10) A person who contravenes subsection (7) or (9) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class E fine.
(11) A vehicle insurer shall not issue a policy of insurance to a person who fails to supply the information required under subsection (1) or (4).
(12) A person who contravenes subsection (11) commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a class E fine.
(13) Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or the connivance, or was attributable to any wilful neglect, of a person who, when the offence was committed, was a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, that person, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of an offence and may be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.
(14) In proceedings for an offence under this section or section 78A it shall be a defence for a body corporate against which such proceedings are brought to prove that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(15) For the purposes of this section and section 78A—
(a) a renewal of an approved policy of insurance shall be deemed to be an issue thereof,
(b) ‘certificate of insurance’ means the certificate the form of which is in the Second Schedule to the Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1962 (S.I. No. 14 of 1962),
(c) ‘fleet owner’ has the same meaning as it has in the Road Traffic (Insurance Disc) Regulations 1984 (S.I. No. 355 of 1984),
(d) ‘MIBI’ means the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland, and
(e) ‘motor trader’ means a person carrying on the business of manufacturing, dealing in, distributing or repairing vehicles (but excluding a person carrying on the business of manufacturing, dealing in or distributing components or parts for vehicles or of the carriage of vehicles).
Transitional provision (section 56A)
56B. Where, immediately after the commencement of section 56A, a person is in the process of submitting information to an insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf for the purpose, or in the course, of obtaining the issue of an approved policy of insurance, but the policy has not issued to him or to her, the provisions of section 56A shall apply.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 18, line 31, to delete “subsection” where it firstly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 18, to delete lines 38 to 40, to delete pages 19 and 20 and substitute the following:
“(o) by the substitution of the following section for section 78A:
“78A. (1) MIBI shall maintain a database of information specified in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7), and of information submitted to it under section 56A(7) and (9), and is designated as a data controller in relation to personal data processed for the purposes of this section and section 56A.
(2) A vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf shall, within 5 working days after it has issued an approved policy of insurance, notify MIBI of the following information in respect of persons to whom section 56A(1) applies:
(a) the name and address of the person to whom the policy of insurance is issued and the name of any other person named in particular 6 of the certificate of insurance;
(b) the date of birth of a person to whom paragraph (a) applies;
(c) any limitations as to the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle to which the policy relates;
(d) the policy number and the period of cover of the policy;
(e) the registration number or, in the event that the registration number is not available, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) or any other unique identifying number given by the manufacturer, if available;
(f) in respect of each of the persons to whom paragraph (a) applies—
(i) the country of issue of the licence or permit, and
(ii) in the case the person concerned holds—
(I) an Irish driving licence, the number given at item 4d and described as ‘Uimhir tiomána’ or ‘Driver number’ on the licence,
(II) a learner permit, the number given at item 4d and described as ‘Uimhir tiomána’ or ‘Driver number’ on the licence, or
(III) a foreign driving licence, the driver number, licence number or unique identifier of any person to whom the licence is issued.
(3) Where a vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf becomes aware of any error in or change to information provided to the insurer under section 56A(1), the insurer or intermediary, as the case may be, shall, within 5 working days of being made aware of the change or error, notify MIBI of such change or error.
(4) A vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf shall, within 5 working days after it has issued an approved policy of insurance to a fleet owner or motor trader, notify MIBI of the following information in respect of that policy:
(a) the name of the fleet owner or motor trader, as the case may be, and the names of any person named in particular 6 of the certificate of insurance;
(b) any limitations as to the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle to which the policy relates;
(c) the policy number and the period of cover of the policy.
(5) A vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf shall ensure that any changes or errors with respect to the matters provided for in subsection (4) are notified to MIBI within 5 working days after the insurer or intermediary, as the case may be, becomes aware of the change or error.
(6) A vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf who contravenes subsection (2), (3), (4), (5) or (7) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class E fine.
(7) A vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf shall, within 5 working days after it has cancelled an approved policy of insurance, notify MIBI of the cancellation.
(8) MIBI may process data received by it under subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) and section 56A(7) and (9) for the purposes of its functions under Regulations 5 and 6 of the European Communities (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 651 of 2003).
(9) MIBI shall make available data received by it under subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) and section 56A(7) and (9) to—
(a) the Minister, for the purposes of the Minister’s functions under section 60 of the Finance Act 1993 in respect of the National Vehicle and Driver File and for the purposes of the Minister’s functions under section 2 of the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006 in respect of an operator’s licence,
(b) the Garda Síochána, for the purposes of carrying out its functions in respect to enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2021,
(c) the National Transport Authority, for the purposes of its functions under the Taxi Regulation Acts 2013 and 2016 and the Taxi Regulation (Small Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 2015 (S.I. No. 33 of 2015),
(d) a vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf who provided it with information under subsection (2), (3), (4), (5) or (7), and
(e) a vehicle insurer or intermediary with specific sanction from a vehicle insurer to conclude insurance contracts on its behalf for the purposes of verifying information provided pursuant to section 56A(7) and (9) in circumstances where there is an approved policy of insurance to which section 56A(4) applies.
(10) MIBI shall, within 18 months of the commencement of this section and thereafter annually, submit to the Minister a report in relation to its operation of the database maintained by it pursuant to subsection (1).
(11) MIBI may, subject to regulations made by the Minister for that purpose, make available the information specified in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) or (7) and section 56A (7) and (9)—
(a) to the recipients specified in subsection (9) for such further purposes as may be specified in the regulations, and
(b) to such further recipients as may be specified in the regulations for such further purposes as may be specified therein.
(12) In this section—
‘National Vehicle and Driver File’ means records established and maintained by the Minister under section 60 of the Finance Act 1993; ‘operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as it has in section 2(9) of the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 21, to delete lines 24 to 27.
This amendment seeks to remove from the Bill the provision that would permit An Garda Síochána to enter "any place including the curtilage of a dwelling" without a warrant or to seize a vehicle a garda believes has been, is being or will be used dangerously.
Curtilage includes gardens, paths, driveways, yards, garages or sheds used in conjunction with a house. While the Bill specifies that gardaí cannot enter a dwelling proper without a warrant, we are concerned that permitting gardaí to seize a vehicle other than one in any public space or on any public road, regarding which there are existing powers, blurs the principle that gardaí should not enter a home without a warrant. That is a very long-established principle. While it is completely reasonable to be able to seize a vehicle in a public space that has been, is being or will be used dangerously, the reference to a vehicle that is likely to be used dangerously is quite open to interpretation. The Minister is blurring the power to enter somebody's home or personal land. It is based on a somewhat speculative assessment regarding use. With a warrant or some other safety mechanism, reasonable grounds of some kind must be shown.
The legislation does not refer to a garda entering the curtilage of a dwelling for a clear, specific, measurable purpose, such as to investigate the loud sound of an alarm, but to entering on the basis of a feeling that a vehicle might be used for a certain purpose, or used dangerously at an undefined point in the future. The reason for entry is setting a very low bar and may be ignoring the long-established practice whereby a garda must have a warrant or other very good reason for entry.
Curtilage includes the likes of garages and sheds in conjunction with a house. If entering garages, for example, there could be a blurring of the lines because one could be entering the same building as the house. This needs to be examined in order to tighten the requirements for entry or limit the areas that may be entered. Currently, the legislation is too loosely phrased.
On that point, the issue of scrambling bikes and quads is not significant in Galway but is in Dublin. I understand from talking to my colleagues in Dublin, particularly Deputy McAuliffe, that it is a matter of gardaí having access after the event. Naturally, they would have information that an event took place, so it is a matter of them being able to search a storage area or garage. A working group was set up when Deputy McAuliffe was mayor of the city and, as the Chair will be aware, the matter was included in the programme for Government. The initiative is welcome. There have been major accidents across Dublin, although the problem is of very little relevance in Galway city.
As Senator Crowe said, in the programme for Government we committed to addressing the antisocial use of scramblers and similar machines. We included a number of measures in the Bill to ensure the Garda will have the necessary powers to deal with this problem. Among other things, we are creating a power that will allow the Garda to enter the curtilage of a dwelling, but not the dwelling itself, to seize machines of the type in question that have been used illegally. The amendment proposed would delete this power and therefore I cannot agree to it.
We are not talking about an unreasonable power. I understand the point the Senator is making - it is valid - but one of the difficulties with addressing the problem of scramblers in parks and other places is that it would be dangerous to the users, gardaí and others who happen to be nearby to try to stop them when they are being used dangerously. It is therefore essential and safer to allow the Garda to seize them where they are kept. I am afraid I cannot therefore accept the amendment and I ask the Senator to withdraw it. I accept her logic but hope she understands that, in addressing this issue, trying to take a vehicle in full flight in the middle of a park, or in dangerous circumstances, requires us to consider other mechanisms.
I am not suggesting that vehicles need to be taken in full flight. If we start to go down a slippery slope, however, where will we stop? What will we not enter a dwelling or its curtilage to take? There are many things that would be much easier if gardaí had access to people's homes or homes' curtilage without a warrant but there is a reason there are caveats and protections in this regard.
Following a general principle that I believe to be reasonable, more permission is usually granted in law for investigation and prosecution. We will come to this when talking about cameras. It is one thing to do something for prosecution or investigation but another to do it on the basis of speculation about events that have not occurred.
This amendment is quite blunt in respect of removal. I will signal on Report Stage that a key point of concern is not just the reference to having been or being used but the phrase "likely to be driven". It is fine when following somebody in a vehicle that one can identify as having been used in a certain way but the wording "likely to be driven or used" is really blurring the line. This is because, when speculating on what is likely to be used, one is neither prosecuting nor investigating an offence committed; rather, one is in a zone of speculative or preventive action. In that context, the Minister is just blurring the line establishing what comprises an intrusion on rights. One would need to have a reasonable evidence base suggesting a vehicle will be used. I accept our amendment requires a flat deletion but I believe, with respect, that some nuancing of the legislation is needed, including on the question of garages directly attached to a house.
We always have to think about how legislation will be interpreted in a court, where some of the thinking is worked out. I believe the wording of the legislation delivers exactly what the Senator is looking for. It states, "A member of the Garda Síochána may, for the purposes of exercising a power under subsection (1), enter without warrant". As stated in subsection (1), it is only where a member of the Garda Síochána "reasonably believes that a vehicle has been, or is being, driven or used (or is likely to be driven or used) in any place in which it is, or is likely to be, dangerous to any persons present". Therefore, it is only where a garda has a reasonable belief that a vehicle was being driven in a manner very dangerous to others that subsection (3) comes into effect. A court would interpret that. It would not be possible for a garda to wander into someone's front garden without meeting any of the conditions in subsection (1). That would not be within the law. I hope that provides some of the reassurance the Senator is looking for.
I am still not fully reassured on the wording "is likely to be driven or used" but I will leave it for now. I propose to withdraw the amendment and introduce a more targeted one on Report Stage. Since I am not fully reassured, I ask the Minister to continue to think about this between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 24, line 15, to delete "(ll)" and substitute "(la)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12
Amendments Nos. 15 and 75 are related and may discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 40, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(a) in Part 4 of the First Schedule, by the insertion of the following after 26:
“
|
27
|
Offence consisting of contravention of Article 44(1)
|
Parking in a disabled persons' parking bay without a disabled person's permit
|
1
|
3
|
”.”.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. This is sort of a recurring theme. I recall discussing this with the Minister twice in the House. Basically, to cut to the chase, I propose the introduction of a penalty system for those who park in disability bays. I am conscious the Cathaoirleach is hugely involved in advocacy work for the disability sector. I, too, have and I have been a director of Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind for many years. I see this as an ongoing issue across the country.
I am a former councillor in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and this has been actively pursued by it, in addition to a whole load of other measures that would open up our public realm, car parking spaces and public roads for people with disabilities to access around them. It is very important. There are not enough of these designated parking bays at the moment in certain locations. However, that is not what I am dealing with today. It is important that people who have a disability and go through the proper criteria and application for a disability permit to park their car be supported in any way possible.
What are the disability organisations and advocacy groups telling us? They say it is a major problem. They say that they go to places where cars are parked in them. There is an issue of enforcement. The local authorities operate, under by-laws, certain parking regimes, as does An Garda Síochána. I spoke to one garda in the traffic unit about this and the garda told me much of it is a resource issue. Gardaí are under fierce demand, which we can understand. There are other priorities as well, and I respect and understand that.
Everyone knows what a disability bay is. It is about applying the law and respecting the special status and designation of these parking bays. I want - and I know the Minister and everyone in this House does as well – to see people with disabilities integrating fully in their work and their community, be it their parish life or whatever they want to do. These spaces are at a premium and there needs to be penalty.
I just checked something out. The rationale for this Bill is that it will introduce penalty points for people who park in disability parking bays without appropriate permits. At the moment, people who park in a disability bay without the appropriate permit are subject to a fine of €200. This increases to €300 if it is not paid within 28 days. This is covered by regulations that are set out by the Department and, under the by-laws, each local authority has discretion to set times for parking in various different pay-and-display or parking regimes that exist within their local authority area. We need to ensure that the laws are applied consistently and fairly so that people with disabilities do not face extremes or possibilities of difficulty in accessing their parking bays. The introduction of a penalty points scheme would deter people nationwide from parking in disability bays. That is fair.
I will go on and speak on the other amendment so that covers me, instead of getting up and down twice. It is important. Again, the rationale for amendment No. 75 is the same. I understand that parking in disability bays should be a criminal offence and this is what this will do. The Minister told me before that he did not think it was necessary to make this a criminal offence but I believe it is. I want to be clear that I think this is a criminal offence. It might sound a bit punitive, harsh and draconian, but it needs to happen. That is the language I am getting back from people who have disabilities who find it difficult to park. That is the language I am hearing from city and county councillors all around this country. They are saying that this is an issue. As I noted earlier, it is about policing and administering the system. For anyone who has had penalty points, three is one thing, but when one gets another three and it is six, now one is getting a bit exercised about everything. It is right and a strong message. We should clearly send a message of zero tolerance of people who take advantage of disability parking bays and park in them.
The Minister has had time to reflect on this because I have raised it twice with him before. I would like to think we can stand shoulder to shoulder together today in solidarity and send a clear message that this what we believe is the right regime. Disability sectors are asking for this. I was told that this might not be the appropriate legislation. There is clearly a place for this in this legislation. Clearly, we can slot this into the Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2021 and I would ask for the Minister’s support.
I hear the Senator’s passion and clear commitment to the issue. We are absolutely in agreement that the improper use of disabled parking is extremely selfish and causes grave disruption for people with disabilities who need access to those spaces. They are provided to people with mobility difficulties who need access to parking close to shops and other amenities and where the bays are designed to be wider to allow for people who have difficulty getting in and out of vehicles to have the space that they need.
As the Senator said, when someone parks illegally in a disabled parking bay, they face a fixed-charge penalty of €150, rising to €225 if it is not paid within 28 days, and rising further to €300, which is well above the usual fixed-charge rates. Most other parking offences incur a €40 charge. This penalty is now the highest of all the fixed-charge driving and parking offences.
I share the Senator’s concern about the issue. I acknowledge, as he said, that he has raised the issue with me before of whether we should go further and apply penalty points for the offence, which is now before us as the Senator’s amendment. I am afraid that I have not changed my view. As I indicated in the past, I do not consider this is the appropriate place for penalty points.
Ever since they have been introduced, penalty points have been focused on offences that involve driving and moving traffic, which is to say, offences causing danger and not just inconvenience. They are driving penalty points offences. The fact that the only parking offence to attract penalty points is dangerous parking, which is parking that could cause a risk to moving traffic, is an example of that definition. Penalty points are there to enforce traffic safety and affect driving safety. That distinction is something that we should retain.
For now, penalty points for parking in a disabled space is not appropriate, but we would be open to increasing the fines further, and we have recently increased a number of the fines for on-street parking and other offences. The proposals here would undermine the focus on the penalty points system on driving offences involving moving traffic and I do not believe it would necessarily combat the illegal use of disabled parking bays. We could do that with higher fines, which would be more appropriate.
I would also like to take the opportunity to point out to the Senator that in this Bill we are making amendments to enable prosecution for fraud where people make a false application for disabled parking permits that will, I hope, help reduce the incidence of fraud and, therefore, free up spaces for those who are legitimately entitled to use them.
With regard to amendment No. 75, I share the Senator’s concerns about the misuse of disabled parking spaces. As I indicated, it carries the highest fixed charge for parking offences and I am happy in that score, although it is always open to reconsideration. In this case, Senator Boyhan is proposing that a person who does not pay the fixed charges goes to court and is convicted should receive a class D fine. This is a fine up to a maximum of €1,000 at the discretion of the judge. While I appreciate the intention, I have to point out that this would mean reducing the fine against what it is today. It would actually have a slightly counterproductive impact.
The rules for disabled parking bays are set out in regulations made under section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. This means that the offence of a misuse of a disabled parking space is an offence under that section. In turn, the penalty for such an offence is the general penalty under road traffic Acts, which is a fine of up to €1,000 for the first offence, €2,000 for second or subsequent offence, and a fine of up to €2,000 and-or up to three months in prison for a third or subsequent offence of the same type within a 12-month period. A class D fine would, therefore, be the same as the current fine for a first offence, but a reduction of the penalty for second and subsequent offences. I know that is not the Senator’s intention and I appreciate his intention. However, the amendment would actually weaken it, strangely, because of that technical issue and the existing of ability to fine someone who is guilty.
I thank the Minister for his considered responses. I will take the response to amendment No. 15 first.
Being fined is not a problem for people who are very wealthy. In some cases the fines are paid by corporate companies. There are not many people for whom it is not an issue but there are those who just pass the buck down the road. It may be a company vehicle, somebody else's vehicle or they do not have a problem paying the fine. One clear thing to be sure of is that if we give people penalty points and they accumulate the maximum number they will be off the road.
The Minister is not going to support this. I am asking the Minister to support introducing a regime and system that would put off the road people who are deliberately and willingly going out and taking advantage of pay and display areas without a pay and display permit, which is a totally illegal activity. The Minister is not prepared to take a heavy hand with them and stand in solidarity. That is what I am taking from what the Minister has said. He is open to respond and counteract this if he feels I am misrepresenting him in any way. My takeaway is that he is not prepared to put these people off the road. People accumulate fine after fine. My local authority uses parking fines. People accumulate them and they just keep paying them. I got into a truck the other day with perhaps 50 fines thrown on the floor. That is terrible. The Minister is not supportive at this point in time. I have been touch with him about this twice. I have raised this as a matter in the House twice. Does the Minister accept that a penalty point system would put people off the road eventually? This is the reality of it. I know it. I do not think the Minister has any difficulty in accepting it because it is the fact. People get fine after fine.
I do not support the Minister's proposal. I will pursue this today because it is important to do so. I thank the Minister for his response and his engagement. He has the power to support the amendment and recommend its support in the House. It is ultimately a decision for the House to support this amendment, which would put people off the road if they took advantage of this situation. This is what I am asking for and I would like to hear the Minister's response. With regard to amendment No. 75, I fully accept what the Minister has said. He has set it out very well. It has been a learning curve for me. I fully accept the advice of the Minister's officials that it would not be the right to do because the penalty would be reduced. At present after a certain stage in the process there is the possibility of imprisonment. I accept this and I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 75. I will pursue amendment No. 15 but I would like to hear the response of the Minister.
Before I call on Senator Higgins I welcome the Youthreach group from Rush in County Dublin who are here with the teacher, Christine. They are guests of the Deputy Leader of the House, Senator Doherty. They are very welcome and I hope they have a good visit.
I want to speak in support of Senator Boyhan's amendment. I will pick up on a couple of points the Minister made. His position needs re-evaluation. He mentioned that the penalty point system is designed to tackle dangerous driving. He said the parking offence is dangerous parking. The Minister described dangerous parking as parking that is a danger to vehicles. Dangerous parking is parking that is a danger to road users and should be construed as such. Dangerous driving is not solely about the car. It is matter of road users and how cars are used in the proper way. It is also about other drivers. One of the requirements to pass a driving test is that people show appropriate consideration for other drivers and other road users.
It is not simply inconvenient, as it was framed, if a disability space has been wrongly occupied by a car that does not need one. It is dangerous for a driver with a disability who may not be able to access a safe parking space as a result and who may have real physical difficulties as a consequence. It is not inconvenient; it is dangerous. Disability parking is not a perk or compensation that we give to people with disabilities. Disability parking is a road safety measure and a driving safety measure.
In this sense, Senator Boyhan's proposal fits appropriately in the penalty system and should be considered part of regulating against dangerous driving. Frankly, persons who repeatedly engage in such behaviour show themselves to be reckless in respect of other road users and other drivers on the road. In this context it is appropriate. It is not simply about penalising them. For the general safety of our roads this behaviour should be identified and tackled with the accumulation of points. I urge re-evaluation of what we are looking at when we consider dangerous driving. If dangerous parking is already there, this is another form of it.
I have just received a text message from a disability group. It states that the Minister is quoting the old figures on the fines. I will not be pedantic about this. New figures are listed which came into effect on 1 January 2023. Perhaps the Minister might get his officials to send out the details because this is important. This is the briefing I received from a disability advocacy group that is watching the proceedings.
I am very glad to be informed.
It is a learning curve for me as well.
The texter is correct. I was uncertain as to that fact. Our office pushed for the increase in fines. As I said, we have never been shy about trying to protect this. To respond to Senator Higgins, when I speak about dangerous driving I am concerned about the people and not the vehicle. We also try to protect vehicles but we are all of a similar view that it is the human being we are looking to protect in how we regulate dangerous driving.
There is an important point on the use of penalty points and how we designate certain tools to protect people. I believe there is a benefit in focusing fines or penalty points for parking. They are completely different approaches with regard to taking people off the road. My concern is that we might dilute some of the effect and what I believe has been the significant role of penalty points in driving behaviour. If we broaden it out there is a risk that we could dilute or lose some of it. It is a subjective call. My call is that we are best to take this approach. There may be instances where there is dangerous parking. Again, this is a judgment call. It is for the courts or others to decide what is appropriate.
Senator Boyhan said that people do not pay attention to fines and that people can accumulate multiple fines and he is right. The fines are actually much higher now than were originally quoted in the response I had drafted. In these circumstances, someone using disability parking bays would start running into fines of thousands of euro. This would have a deterrent effect on people's behaviour. In a number of jurisdictions clamping as well as fines has an effect. No matter how wealthy people are, they have the same feeling when they see their vehicle clamped and they cannot move. There are various ways in which we can provide dissuasive measures. I am not convinced that broadening the scope of penalty points, which might dilute some of the impact they have on driving behaviour, is the approach to take. This is where we differ. The Senator is welcome to press the amendment but I will not agree to it.
I hear what the Minister is saying. I have consistently raised this issue. This is a request from disability sector advocates. We speak about being holistic. The Minister is very able and capable of making holistic arguments on a range of transport issues. I believe this is important. The alternative is fines or putting people off the road. Let us keep it all very simple. If accepted, this proposal would put people off the road for a considerable period of time rather than allowing them to buy their way out after deliberately abusing a system that was not put in place for them in the first place.
Before we go to a vote I want to look at the other options. The Minister has responsibility for transport and he engages with the traffic unit and the Garda Commissioner through his staff and Department. I do not like using the words "instruct" or "demand" so instead I will use "ask". Would the Minister be in a position to commit today, using his high-level contacts, to ask the Garda Commissioner and the transport unit to carry out a blitz on this in the next three months?
It would be some comfort if the Minister gave a commitment that he will put out some sort of blitz, an ask or instruction or resource them. The Garda tells me it does not have the necessary resources. There is a hell of a lot of demand on the excellent An Garda Síochána. Will the Minister give comfort to the people listening today that he is committed to using his powers, functions and contacts with An Garda Síochána and the enforcement agents to have a three-month absolute penetration and blitz to ensure that this is done, and run a public campaign about it? That would be helpful. I am a reasonable and pragmatic person. I know the arithmetic of this House. I could call a vote and so many people would bounce up here and we will not win it. One could trot out the auld press release and say the Minister did not stand in solidarity with people with disabilities and make a whole load of political mileage out of it, but that is not what I am about. I am about advocating to have action and I would be happy if the Minister could give a commitment that he will strongly use his influence to have a blitz for the next three months to tackle and address this serious issue.
I would be happy to support such a stepping up of efforts or a "blitz" as Senator Boyhan calls it. The timing would be appropriate. One of the things that did happen during Covid-19 was that much of the behaviours on our roads such as parking, use of bus lanes and other areas worsened when people maybe felt there was not the same policing operation in place due to the restrictions. I will look at that and see what is possible to try to make sure the resources are applied so we enforce the laws we have, as well as strengthen them.
I welcome that. That is a positive initiative. "Look" is a bit watery, to be honest. There needs to be a commitment that the Minister is actually going to do it. I take it that is a given. The Minister used the word "look" but too many of us are looking for too long; it is action we need. I appreciate that positive response. On that basis, if the Minister will assure us he will give the House that commitment, I am happy to withdraw these amendments.
It is the remit of An Garda Síochána as to how it deploys its resources. I certainly will join calls in making a case and pushing for that.
Does the Senator wish to withdraw the amendments?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 40, line 36, to delete “of” and substitute “or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 17 to 23, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 41, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(i) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
“(1A) Where an officer of the Revenue Commissioners has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under paragraph (b), (bb) or (c)
of section 139(1) of the Finance Act 1992 has been committed—
(a) if the officer identifies the person, the officer shall serve, or cause to be served, personally or by post, on the person a fixed charge notice, or
(b) if the officer does not identify the person and the offence involves the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, the officer shall serve, or cause to be served, personally or by post, on the registered owner of the vehicle a fixed charge notice.”,”.
These amendments are designed to allow the Revenue Commissioners to issue fixed-charge notices in certain circumstances. To explain the background, in 2002 the system of fixed-charge notices for certain offences relating to traffic and vehicles was introduced. Under this system, which applies to lesser offences, An Garda Síochána issued a fixed-charge notice in advance of taking a case to court. The recipient has 28 days to pay the charge and then a further 28 days to pay the charge, plus 50%. Only if there is no payment after 56 days will court proceedings be initiated.
The legislative basis for this system was updated in the Road Traffic Act 2010, making a number of changes, including the so-called "third payment" option, which means that when people get a summons, they also get a third and final chance to pay the fixed charge, plus 100%, and have court proceedings discontinued. The 2010 Act states that offences under section 139 of the Finance Act 1992 were to be fixed-charge offences. The intention was for offences relating to number plates to be fixed-charge offences.
However, there was a mistake in what was done in 2010 and also an unintended consequence. The mistake was to declare all offences under section 139 to be fixed-charge offences. This was never the intention and section 13(j) of the Bill rectifies this by specifying that it is only offences under sections 139(1)(b), (bb), and (c), the number plate offences, which are fixed-charge offences. Specifically, these offences relate to not displaying the registration plate or displaying it in a manner not corresponding with regulations, where a vehicle is unregistered, to use it in public places in contravention of prescribed conditions and to display a false registration.
The unintended consequences of the 2010 provisions were that the Revenue Commissioners, who used to have powers to enforce number plate offences, lost that power. Remember that registration of vehicles and assigning of registration numbers are tasks carried out by Revenue. When the 2010 Act provisions were brought in, they meant that no action could be taken in court under section 139 offences until the Garda had issued a fixed-charge notice and 56 days had passed without payment. At that point, the Garda could begin court proceedings.
It was never intended that the Revenue Commissioners would lose the power of enforcement over these offences. Either the Garda or Revenue could enforce them before the 2010 provisions came in. The mistake in making all section 139 offences, and not just the number plate offences, into fixed-charge offences compounded the problem. As I said, the Bill already addresses that mistake.
In order to restore the Revenue Commissioners' ability to enforce the registration plate offences, I am proposing the present amendments to allow them to issue fixed-charge notices in these cases. The amendments proposed now are to Part 3 of the 2010 Act, which deals with fixed-charge notices. In essence, they add in powers for the Revenue Commissioners so that they will be able to issue fixed-charge notices for number plate offences. This will restore their ability to enforce these offences, which had existed before the enactment of the 2010 provisions, and will mean that, as was the case before those provisions, both the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners will be able to act against those offences when they detect them.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 41, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(ii) in subsection (3)—
(I) by the insertion of “or (1A)(a)” after “under subsection (1)(a)”,
(II) by the insertion of “or (1A)(b)” after “under subsection (1)(b)”,
(III) in paragraph (a)(i)(II)(B), by the insertion of “or, as the case may be, the officer referred to in subsection (1A)” after “the member referred to in subsection (1)”, and
(IV) in paragraph (b)(i)(II), by the insertion of “or, as the case may be, the officer referred to in subsection (1A)” after “the member referred to in subsection (1)”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 41, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(iii) in subsection (6)—
(I) in paragraph (b), by the insertion of “did not have possession of, or” after “the registered owner of the vehicle”,
(II) in paragraph (i), by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”, and
(III) in paragraph (ii)—
(A) by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”, and
(B) by the insertion of “, officer” after “the member” in both places where it occurs,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 41, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(v) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (9):
“(10) The Revenue Commissioners shall, not later than 28 days after a document referred to in subsection (6) containing the name and address of the person who had possession of, or was driving or otherwise using the vehicle concerned at the time of the commission of the alleged offence concerned is given or sent to an officer of the Revenue Commissioners, cause a notice under this section to be served, personally or by post, on the person.”,
(l) in section 36(3)(d)—
(i) in subparagraph (i), by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”, and
(ii) in subparagraph (ii)—
(I) by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”, and
(II) by the insertion of “, officer” after “the member”,
(m) in section 39(1), by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a licensing authority”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 41, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(i) in subsection (5), by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 41, line 33, to delete “(6),” and substitute the following:
“(6)—
(I) by the insertion of “, an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”,
and
(II)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 41, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“(m) in section 44(1)—
(i) by the insertion of “or an officer of the Revenue Commissioners” after “a member of the Garda Síochána”, and
(ii) by the insertion of “or officer” after “the member”,
(n) in section 47, by the insertion of the following definition after the definition of “fixed charge offence”:
“ ‘an officer of the Revenue Commissioners’ means an officer of the Revenue Commissioners authorised by them for the purposes of this Part.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 44, lines 27 and 28, to delete “after the definition of “period of cover” ”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 25 to 32, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed?
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 44, line 29, after “means” to insert “, subject to subsection (1A),”.
Of all the measures dealt with in this complex Bill, it is probably fair to say that the ones which attracted the most attention were those to do with electric scooters. These vehicles have become very popular in recent years and have a great deal to offer as an environmentally-friendly form of micro mobility. At the same time, the laws needs to take account of them like any other vehicles in the general interest of public safety.
One starting point is that e-scooters already fit the criteria to be classed as mechanically-propelled vehicles, MPVs. It follows that they cannot be used in a public place without tax, insurance and an appropriate driving licence. They cannot be taxed because they are not a type approved and there is no appropriate class of driving licence. This means that they are currently illegal to use in a public space. The Bill will change this. It will create a new class of powered personal transport, PPT, which will be legal to use and distinct from MPVs. The class of PPTs is a wider category than e-scooters and allows for the possible emergence of other similar forms of micro mobility in the future.
In line with the way the law handles MPVs and other types of vehicles, the amendments to the Bill will establish PPTs as a category, as well as stating which specific provisions in the law do or do not apply to them, as they would to MPVS, while leaving the question of construction, equipment and use of the vehicles for regulations. We are breaking new ground and as we progressed through the Dáil we made a number of amendments to the PPT provisions. I have a few more to propose today. They are primarily about one core change with a number of consequential changes based on that change.
One of the most vital aspects of the introduction of any new concept into law is to have a clear definition of what it is we are talking about. It is also important to get that definition right because everything else will depend on it.
In the case of PPTs, it is essential we have a definition, and we are providing one. As we are talking about a class of vehicles, we have included in the Bill a definition of PPTs that relies on three parameters familiar from other definitions of vehicles, namely, weight, speed and power output. There has been much discussion on the best way to approach this definition and of the values to be set. In the Bill as it stands, when each of these parameters is mentioned, it is added that the Minister may subsequently set a different value for that parameter. I am now proposing to revise this. The specific wording expressed in respect of each of these parameters is being removed and I will add a general provision stating, "The Minister may prescribe, for powered personal transporters or different classes of them, a maximum weight unladen, a maximum design speed, or a maximum continuous rated power or combined maximum continuous rated power different to the weight, speed or rated power referred to in the definition". This is not simply a tidier way of saying the same thing; it is different from what is currently in the Bill in one crucial respect, namely, that different values could be set in regulations for different classes of PPTs. For the time being, e-scooters will be the only class of PPTs we will be addressing in regulations but we allow for the possibility there may be others in future. It may be that different weight, speed or power output limits would be appropriate for different types of PPTs. We are, therefore, making allowance for this via the proposed amendment. As I indicated, it is a core change and most of the other amendments proposed with it are consequential amendments following from it.
As regards amendment No. 26, while I understand what Senators Ruane and Higgins have in mind, the amendment misses an important point. In the Bill, we are introducing a new class of vehicles known as PPTs. This class will be distinct from mechanically propelled vehicles, the category into which e-scooters automatically fall at the moment. It will also be legally distinct from bicycles. The Senators’ amendment to add “except for pedal cargo bicycles” into the definition of PPTs is, therefore, unnecessary and irrelevant as PPTs do not include any type of pedal cycles. In that light, I ask the Senators to consider withdrawing the amendment. If they wish to press the amendment, I should point out that not only will it make no difference, it will also raise the problem that a pedal cargo bicycle is not defined in law. In any case, they can rest assured that the kind of vehicle of which they are thinking could not be mistaken in law for a PPT because it does not have a power source.
There is one further issue in the amendments to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. When it comes to consideration of the weight of a PPT, a question arose as to whether the battery should be included in the weight. I am proposing an amendment to state clearly that the battery should be so included. Weight is, among other things, a safety issue, being related to the momentum of a vehicle and the potential damage it might cause in a collision. In practice, these vehicles will be used on roads with the battery installed and it should be considered as part of the legal weight limit.
I have an amendment in this grouping. With respect to the Minister, the definition that has been put forward in terms of PPTs is not necessarily clear that it is solely designed in terms of e-scooters. My concern relates to cargo bikes, such as those that may be used by families, as well as the definition of pedal bicycles here. Where do cargo bikes fit in? I have sought to include them here, in the PPT space, but I would be happy if I felt confident they were included under the definitions in respect of pedal bicycles or mechanically powered vehicles. There is an ambiguity in terms of where and how they sit, however, and that is what I am seeking to address.
Our amendment specifically seeks to ensure there is clarity in respect of pedal cargo bicycles. The increased use of cargo bikes that are largely electronically assisted is a positive and transformative initiative in terms of their usage for transport, leisure and last-mile delivery. They can be used by small businesses as well by families. Their increased usage is constructive and can contribute to freeing up cities. In the context of moving towards the ten-minute town or the 15-minute city, it is important to ensure persons can transport loads of various kinds without automatically having to revert to using a car to do so.
I have no doubt about the enthusiasm of the Minister in respect of cargo bikes. I have lots more on the many benefits of e-assist cargo bikes. A study by the University of Westminster has shown their environmental benefits, as well as the benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity. What I am looking for is where they fit in. There is a clear restriction under the definition of PPTs, which refers to vehicles "constructed for the carriage of a single person, but not designed or constructed ... for the carriage of goods", while the definition of "pedal bicycle" refers to "person or persons". There are two issues here, one relating to the carriage of goods and the other relating to the carriage of multiple persons. A "pedal bicycle" is defined as being "a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated on it". That does not cover family bicycles or the family usage of cargo bikes, especially electric cargo bikes. The next part of the definition, which refers to "a bicycle capable of propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated on it, and equipped with an auxiliary electric motor" may cover it but there is no specific reference therein to the carriage of goods. I am concerned there could be an inadvertent interpretation of the PPT piece to suggest the carriage of goods on a cargo bike is legally ambiguous and those transporting goods in such a manner are not covered or protected by these measures.
I am happy not to press the amendment but I am seeking clarity in respect of the carriage of goods under the definition of pedal bicycle in particular or in terms of mechanically powered vehicles, although that is a much lesser speed. The issue in that regard is a maximum design speed of 6 km/h. Most electric cargo bikes have a maximum speed of 25 km/h. I am open to it not being put in that space but I am seeking clarity from the Minister in respect of where it sits.
Pedal bicycles, including cargo bikes, are not in this PPT category. The treatment of such bicycles is dealt with in a separate section of the Bill. As regards cargo bikes in particular, it depends on the power capacity. Where there is a maximum continuous rated power greater than 0.25 kW, there are particular legal requirements. Anything below that is treated in the same way as all other pedal bicycles. There are a range of cargo bikes, tricycles, recumbents and other new mobility and e-mobility equipment coming into the market, but anything that falls within that pedal bicycle category is not PPT and not subject to the legislation in respect of PPTs.
It is not clear because there is no reference to the carriage of goods. The only reference to the carriage of goods is a prohibitive reference that is attached to the PPT. There is no positive reference to the carriage of goods in the definition relating to bicycles. It is unclear. It is sometimes the case that if one kind of vehicle is prohibited from carrying goods but it is not made clear that another category of vehicle is allowed to carry goods, a presumption of leakage between the two could be created. I do not need to press the amendment at this point because the Minister is clear about the different purposes of the PPT, but I am not satisfied we have been given the reassurance we need in terms of cargo bikes within the pedal bicycle definition. We might come back to that on Report Stage.
I am happy to return to the issue on Report Stage and, I hope, clarify it for certain.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 44, line 32, after “goods,” to insert “except for pedal cargo bicycles,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 44, lines 33 and 34, to delete all words from and including “unladen” in line 33, down to and including line 34 and substitute “weight unladen of 25 kilograms,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 44, lines 36 and 37, to delete “or such other maximum design speed as the Minister prescribes,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 44, line 40, to delete “or” where it secondly occurs and in page 45 to delete lines 1 and 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 45, to delete line 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 45, line 7, to delete “vehicle,”.” and substitute the following:
“vehicle,”, and
(g) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
“(1A) The Minister may prescribe, for powered personal transporters or different classes of them, a maximum weight unladen, a maximum design speed, or a maximum continuous rated power or combined maximum continuous rated power different to the weight, speed or rated power referred to in the definition of ‘powered personal transporter’ in subsection (1).”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 45, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 14 of Act of 1961
17. Section 14 of the Act of 1961 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “subject to subsection (1A),” after “this Act,” and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
“(1A) Where a vehicle referred to in subsection (1) is a powered personal transporter and has an accumulator that is a battery, the weight of the accumulator shall be considered to be included in the weight unladen of the powered personal transporter.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 17 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 40
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 51, to delete lines 21 to 25 and substitute the following:
“(a) pedal cyclists, or
(b) a combination of pedal cyclists and either or both people driving powered personal transporters and pedestrians.”,”.
These two amendments are small but are important refinements to the definition of a cycleway in the Roads Act. A cycleway is a specific track intended for cyclists and is not the same as a cycle lane, as defined by markings on a road.
It is our intention that powered personal transporters will be able to use cycleways, however, cycleways are first and foremost for cycling. The amendments I am proposing here are designed to ensure that the cycleway will provide for pedal cyclists in all circumstances. Without these amendments we could end up in the odd situation that a track which allowed only pedestrians and PPTs, for example, for which cyclists could be excluded, would be a cycleway. These amendments are to avoid that prospect.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 51, to delete lines 31 to 33, and in page 52, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“(i) pedal cyclists, or
(ii) a combination of pedal cyclists and either or both people driving powered personal transporters and pedestrians.”.”..
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41
Amendments Nos. 35 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 52, line 13, after “recognition” to insert “but excluding through the use of facial recognition technology”.
The amendments in this grouping seek to insert safeguards around the use of facial recognition technology, FRT, in the definition of CCTV. Specifically, amendment No. 35 defines the use of CCTV as excluding the use of facial recognition technology such that any powers created in respect of CCTV throughout the Bill could not be interpreted as permitting the use of FRT.
Amendment No. 46 inserts a new section specifying that facial recognition technology may not be used in any cameras operated by the road authority, nor may any data from the cameras be processed later using FRT, either by the road authority or a third party.
I am aware that the Minister has amendments coming up in the next section which explicitly says that they are removed, but as it does refer to any other data-gathering devices, I will come to those again in the next section.
Interestingly, when drafting this Bill, the Minister made a point of specifying the artificial intelligence, AI, which the cameras can be used with, namely, automatic number plate recognition. It is strange then that we do not think to specify what artificial intelligence should not be applied to the footage from these cameras.
This must be the third or fourth legislative item to come through this House in the past year which casually creates powers of surveillance but does not insert any safeguards in primary legislation around how data from the surveillance can be used.
Similarly, we saw careless provisions in the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022, and we also sought to amend those at the time. The only safeguard in this Bill is that the Minister may make regulations in respect of how the data can be processed. We continue to treat mass surveillance of the public with a cavalier attitude when what we are dealing with is an infringement upon fundamental rights to privacy. We are five or ten years behind the rest of the world in this respect. Europe is on the cusp of legislating to control the use of AI but the Government seems intent on ignoring the way the winds are blowing. Again and again we see legislation with powers of surveillance being drafted in an open-ended way, so that it is never clear what technology is allowed to be used for surveillance, and which is not. We are living in a world where surveillance technology is evolving in new and sinister ways every day, yet the Minister's legislation seems oblivious to these developments.
By inserting safeguards around the use of FRT for surveillance purposes, we would be putting ourselves ahead of the curve in respect of European regulation. It is strange that we seem to be stuck five years in the past in respect of legislating for the use of AI and I hope that the Minister will seriously take into account and consider these amendments. I also hope that he will seriously reflect on the way the Government legislates around these issues.
I thank Senator Ruane for her comments. I completely agree with her that this issue about the regulation of facial recognition technology, artificial intelligence and machine-based learning technology systems is something which we have to treat with real attention. It is a significant issue with regard to getting the balance right between the deployment of technology, the protection of human rights and a good justice and judicial system.
I will treat the two amendments, Nos. 35 and 46, slightly differently, if I may. While I understand the logic behind amendment No. 35, I do not intend to accept it, not because I disagree in principle with some of the motives behind it, but my disagreement is purely on a technical point. What is proposed in the definition is that there is a risk that it would make it impossible to install or use any camera if it happened to be capable of capturing facial information. That would effectively mean that we could not use any camera, so that objection is purely a technical one.
The nub of the issue is contained in amendment No. 46 because this is very complex, and understanding how we get the regulation of technology right in this is an amendment I would be willing to come back and consider. I might ask my Department to look in more detail at some of the legal wording to ensure that we are not inadvertently creating difficulties. There is and can be no intention in my mind to use technology such as this without the Oireachtas passing legislation to designate certain areas for the use of technology in an appropriate way. I am happy that we should consider legislation to ensure that that is not an outcome of this legislation. It requires further consideration and I would like to come back on Report Stage, consider the amendment in the meantime, perhaps try to address the concerns that are raised but ensure it does not inadvertently create any other difficulties for us.
I am willing to hold off on pushing the amendment at this time and I will engage with the Minister between now and Report Stage in respect of, in particular, amendment No. 46.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 36, 43 to 45, inclusive, 47 to 52, inclusive, 54 to 56, inclusive, and 58 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 52, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(b) by the insertion of the following definition after the definition of
“contravention”:
“ ‘data-gathering device’ means any device, apparatus or equipment used or capable of being used for the gathering of data;”,”.
On amendment No. 36 and the subsequent amendments, Nos. 43 to 45, inclusive, 47 to 52, inclusive, 54 to 56, inclusive, and 58, I propose to extend the provisions relating to the use of cameras by local authorities and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, to include other similar devices and to address some technical issues in the text to improve the clarity of the text without changing the intent.
TII and local authorities use CCTV cameras to monitor traffic and to assist with enforcement. For traffic management, traffic monitoring cameras are used to monitor and manage the movement of general traffic, public transport and the various different active transport modes. They allow TII and local authorities to identify incidents, accidents, unusual congestion, delays and other events, and take appropriate actions.
Enforcement cameras or other devices can be located at toll plazas or on overhead gantries along roads such as M50 for the enforcement of speed limits or traffic lane control, including the red X and move lane arrows regulatory signs. At each enforcement location the system of enforcement cameras monitors vehicles and captures necessary information such as numberplates to support this. These cameras are generally fix mounted and generate images that are used for post-image capture processing such as automatic numberplate recognition.
Some of the devices currently may not fit neatly into the definition of cameras or CCTV, for example, devices that clock speed. The present amendment will allow for a wide range of options for managing traffic while making sure that appropriate protections are in place for the sharing of data, for data-sharing agreements, for the safeguarding of data and for the directions, guidelines, standards and regulations.
In the same vein as what I said during our discussion of the previous amendments, I have concerns about the Government amendments as they seek to broaden the technology that will potentially be used for surveillance. Again, without any appropriate safeguards attached in this legislation, they amend all mention of cameras to "cameras and other data-gathering devices". This, once again, extends surveillance powers in what I would see as a very concerning way. Indeed, the provisions on cameras in the original draft of the Bill are already concerning in and of themselves.
Many times over the past year we have seen open-ended provisions around technology being introduced. The speed at which data-gathering technology is developing is beyond anything with which we can keep pace. If the Minister is referring to the need to allow motion-sensor cameras, for example, then that should be specified in the primary legislation. If he is referring to other technology, we should specify what that is. The phrase “data-gathering device” is an absurdly broad definition and could apply to any number of devices which incorporate intrusive artificial intelligence. We are repeatedly seeing the Government choose not to be cautious when it comes to granting powers of surveillance in legislation. For me, that is at odds with the direction of movement at a European level. It is at odds with the recommendations of human rights and civil liberties organisations. Will the Minister clarify why this provision is necessary? Will he clarify why this provision is any better than a more specific provision which would name and define specific technologies to be used? Why does this provision need to be so broad?
This is the wrong direction of travel. It is literally saying any tool can be used for any kind of data. It does not clarify. The definition for cameras has been extended to include "other data-gathering devices" The definition of "data-gathering device" proposed by amendment No. 36 is extraordinarily vague, wide and dangerous: "‘data-gathering device’ means any device, apparatus or equipment used or capable of being used for the gathering of data”. Again, it is any device and any data. There is no clarity. There is neither a narrowness about the technology, as my colleague has put forward, nor even an absolute clarity around which kind of data might be gathered. That is extraordinarily vague and wide. Frankly, the amendment needs to be very significantly and seriously re-evaluated. If motion sensor or speed sensing equipment is needed, let that be clarified. If a mechanism is to be put in place around the recognition of other appropriate technologies with suitable safeguards, data protection and all attached to that, put forward a mechanism. Simply changing what is meant by "cameras" to mean anything is very concerning.
We have seen very worrying factors and we do not need to look far for them. We can look to China where there have been extraordinary levels of state surveillance and detailed pieces. Even if we do not have facial recognition technology, and we clearly do not have protections against that here, we may be still looking at profiling or crowd profiling. There is, for example, the new extreme legislation that has been introduced in the UK on public gatherings and people's rights to be together in public. There are a lot of very concerning areas here. If we are looking to authorise any device being used for the gathering of data, which could be any data, it is creating a public realm that is not really a public realm or shared space but which becomes a surveillance space where a person does not know what data are being gathered in respect of him or her. That person does not know for what purpose those data are being gathered and he or she does not know what devices may be tracking him or her. That is very different from saying there are speed cameras or cameras performing particular functions when it comes to automatic plate recognition.
I urge the Minister to re-evaluate all of the insertions of the phrase "data-gathering device" and, in particular, to re-evaluate the definition of "data-gathering device" he put forward in amendment No. 36.
I agreed in the previous amendment with the broad concern the three Senators set out around how we use facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence and the general risk - reality in many jurisdictions - of the surveillance of citizens that is totally inappropriate. I absolutely accept that.
I said in my response to the earlier amendment that we all seek to get the balance right. There are instances where we need technology to protect citizens and it is appropriate, subject to the correct regulation. This amendment is coming from the need for this, and the definition is set within our Department, so I will give two very specific examples. First is the collection of data from a speed gun. Is that a camera? What sort of device is that? A second example would toll tag readers, where a person going through a toll barrier swipes a car or has electronic tolling or fast tolling. Again, this technology continues to evolve. Going back to some of the original legislation, would we have foreseen the development of that technology? No. We have to provide some flexibility that there are technological devices evolving which we want to provide for and regulate. That is why this amendment is needed. It is to allow us to use some of the data from the likes of those speed guns or toll tag readers for the benefit of citizens, not for surveillance. That is why the amendment is being proposed.
We could all come up with many forms of data-gathering devices. If toll tag readers or speed guns are needed, then specify them. To say technology evolves all the time and moves so fast that we might need to use it before we have time to legislate for it is a very dangerous message to send. The Minister has recognised the concerns about artificial intelligence, the use of algorithms and facial recognition. If, in some other legislation, the Government is running to implement things before they are regulated or before there is proper regulation and monitoring of them, it is not the case that we should be in such a hurry to use any new technology that can be used to gather data that we would not have time to legislate properly for it, regulate it and monitor it. I do not agree that we should be able to have the flexibility to use as quickly as possible whatever is available in terms of data gathering and surveillance. It is appropriate, and it is the precautionary principle at an EU level that is being discussed in terms of legislation and directives at an EU level, that we should think first and legislate or regulate first before we go using whatever new thing might be seen at a trade fair or taken up by An Garda Síochána or anybody else who thinks it would be great and would love to use it.
Therefore, it is appropriate that the Minister specifies and takes appropriate action, be it regulatory and legislative, in respect of any new data gathering devices or technologies that are being introduced. To do the opposite is reckless.
I do not agree. I fear we could end up in a situation where we would have to go back to amend primary legislation in an evolving area where we have different types of electronic devices which might want to use the data. I agree with Senator Ruane's earlier contention that we need to regulate how devices using facial recognition technology or artificial intelligence, AI, which could have a surveillance component, may be used. That is a separate issue in my mind to the case as to whether we should specify every single type of device in primary legislation. That is not exhaustive and I am quite certain we may want to use the data from other devices for very good reasons such as protecting lives, making sure we have better environmental output and better safety conditions. Let us absolutely regulate against surveillance as appropriate but I do not believe that requires primary legislation in every piece of legislation to define each and every device.
I have two points to understand. Many places around the world where we have seen more and more use of AI and facial recognition, have all set out in the beginning with the intention that these were not for surveillance. Then the mission creep begins where something that was there to protect society becomes something that is then used for surveillance because of the access to the data.
As regards the other point of being able to go back to actually amend primary legislation to add in that evolving data, in all the years the drugs Act has been in place, every time a new component of a drug came on board there was a way to come back in and add drugs to the Schedule.
Even while not being overly specific, we have to be able to say what the intention of legislation is and have some sort of a Schedule that can be added to with regard to including certain types of data gathering devices. If we do not have any sort of ethical framework, which we do not have in Ireland when it comes to the use of AI, no piece of legislation like this or any of the rest of them that brought in any use of AI or facial recognition, should actually come before a framework is introduced that is underpinned by the ethics in the use of AI. Right now if we are not embedded in any sort of ethical framework, we are doing this without actually understanding what that means for Ireland.
It is the same thing. It is not simply a matter of saying we do not want to use the facial recognition technology on all this data that we gathered for whatever reasons. This is the thing with data. One does not get to gather data, potentially any kind of data, without having clear purposes as to why it is being gathered and what is being done with it. Again, we do not have the mechanisms or the framework. It is putting the cart before the horse as the AI directive has not yet been finalised in terms of the EU. That is still being finalised, debated and fine-tuned right now.
Why would we not wait either until we have developed our own ethical framework around these datum before we introduce their use? This is gathering of data from the public. Why would we introduce a wide frame that allows any kind of device, literally any kind of "device, apparatus or equipment" that can be used for the gathering of data, and have that in play before we have either our own ethical framework or even the AI directive from Europe clearly in place? It is open season and simply saying we do not want to use it for a particular purpose later on is a fishing expedition.
The Minister has given great ethical examples for which it may want to be used but again, he needs to make the case for those as per the precautionary principle. There are many non-ethical reasons that data gets used. Data can be used commercially, it can be used for profiling and in terms of targeting certain communities. There are many reasons data may be gathered in this context and in this very wide frame. There are lots of devices that give all kinds of interesting information and lots of people who are interested in all of those different kinds of interesting information. There is a reason we need a framework for how it is done and how it is analysed. The algorithms in respect of facial recognition are one part of it but there are many other parts that need to be regulated. The fact that everyone was gung-ho on facial recognition and now the dangers are being recognised is itself a cautionary tale against whatever other innovations may come up quickly in terms of data gathering.
I do not think the Minister is hitting a balance here. He is opening up a very wide door in this definition and any kind of thing could come through it. He really needs to narrow this piece of legislation. It does not need to be by primary legislation. It may be regulation, the amendment of a Schedule, or other mechanisms but there needs to be a mechanism whereby the public are really clear that when any new data gathering device is going to be used there is a clear process by which it will be properly considered, there will be thought around what data will be gathered, how it will be gathered, stored and used, and what the purposes and safeguards are. They need to know there is a clear mechanism in place and this very wide definition is not it.
I do not disagree with this issue. It is an issue obviously with mobile phones where there is a very serious issue around all the information, controversially. We have to be careful here not to try to address this whole complex issue through a piece of traffic management regulation. If we are starting to get down to specifics and that every device might be a data sharing device, we would have to start with this very room and my colleague here beside me with the headphones because they have an internet of things and world data sharing connecting capabilities: the screen in his hands, which records votes and who is speaking; the laptop; the microphones; all the other devices in this room - I could go on and list a whole range of devices - are collecting or have the potential to collect data. We could go into a very difficult legislation system here for the road traffic system, where similarly so many different devices are connected to an internet of things, and try to address this very important justice issue around how data records people's movements, actions, behaviours and so on but I do not think that will actually address it by trying to list every single thing.
In the traffic management area, the same thing applies. I did not disagree with the Senator's original argument that we need to consider particular facial recognition technology and AI and so on and how data is used, but we do not get that by just trying to list every single device that might have implications on how the data could be used. It is better to recognise that there are devices which could be used in that regard such as the lights of speed guns or e-tolling equipment. They classified them to give us the ability to have those types of devices. Yes, we need to regulate them in terms of their implications for facial recognition technology and-or the use of AI but we will not solve that problem by just trying to list every device.
I will be very brief. The Minister is the one seeking to expand the scope of this Bill. This is us responding to the expansion he has proposed. Frankly, his expansion includes every single thing. That is what the definition he is proposing effectively is.
One could argue we should not try to have to name every single thing but the answer is also not to use every single device which is what he has here. It is literally any device for the gathering of data: "any device, apparatus or equipment". It is the Minister who is proposing this expansion and inserting it into the Bill. If he has specific cases which he has repeatedly used, he should address those specific cases but simply put that he wants to have an absolutely expanded scope. This debate has been brought on by the Minister's attempt to widen the scope of what is covered by the definition of cameras.
Most people have an understanding of cameras. I am sure people will understand if the Minister says cameras, speed guns or even specifies certain categories of device but his phrase is "any device, apparatus or equipment used or capable of being used for the gathering of data". Therefore, it is not us introducing a big, wide topic but the Minister's amendment that is opening up a big, wide topic. If we wanted to address it in an efficient way for the purposes of this road traffic Bill - we can come back on all the regulation and the justice issues - the easiest way for now would be for the Minister to narrow the scope within his Bill to the actual purposes of the Bill in terms of the relevant devices there. Then we can all debate the wider issues at a later stage and be informed by the conclusion of the EU debate.
It is an interesting debate and the two ladies are raising some very valid points. I can see both sides of the debate because this a road traffic Bill and if there are devices we can use to help keep law and order around road traffic, then those devices should be at our disposal. As the Minister has said, facial recognition or artificial intelligence, AI, are not included. In some circumstances, we need to avail of everything we can when there has been a dangerous accident or somebody has broken the law and I can see why all devices would be listed in this. However, this debate has raised an important issue. We need to introduce separate legislation around AI and facial recognition that is completely separate from this Bill. There is a huge piece of work to be done and I would happily work with the Senators on it because I have seen some of the stuff the AI can do and it is quite scary. I can see why in this case of a road traffic Bill, all devices that can be used to implement the rules of the road and the laws around them would be needed in this circumstance. I am trying to mediate here as I can see both sides. There is definitely a valid point on wholly separate legislation that is not part of a road traffic Bill, around AI and facial recognition.
There is obviously an issue when you are being overly prescriptive in naming every single device but there must be another way to frame the amendment so it is not so open-ended and referring to "any device". Maybe there is an amendment that is not these, but which references devices that are related to the Road Traffic Act. It could specify the only devices that can be used are ones related to the violations brought to the fore in the Act and will catch speed and dangerous driving if something has happened. We would then be defining that it is not just any device for gathering data for any purpose but that it is related to the Act itself. As the amendment is written it could be anything for any reason. It just refers to "any device". Then, all of a sudden, we will have all different types of data-gathering devices on motorways and roads. We might have them in estates as well to monitor different minor roads. They are covered under this Bill rather than them being specific to road traffic incidents or related to speed. Even if it is not what we are saying about naming different devices, there is definitely a different way that is much more responsible than the way it is currently worded. Maybe the Minister should go back to what those amendments look like between now and the next Stage.
It is a useful and important discussion. One could look at it the other way. One could say that by being specific in primary legislation, which may only be amended by going through this House and the Dáil, we could end up with a situation where other devices are gathering data that are completely unregulated and outside any control system. That would be a big risk and as Senator Higgins says, the technology is evolving so fast.
On what basis? They would not be contained in the law.
It is far better to have that broad definition and say where there is a device that can collect data, it is part of any regulations and therefore any amendment the Senators have suggested would then have impact. It is better to do it that way than try to set out in primary legislation what exactly each and every device is.
The Minister might wish to respond to Senator Ruane's proposal. It is a really good compromise. It is not as strong as my proposal of naming each device but it is making it very clear that it is only to devices attached to a very particular and explicit purpose, namely, the investigation and prosecution of particular offences under the Road Traffic Act. That does not tie it to the device but ties it very narrowly to the purpose in terms of what are relevant data-gathering devices for this Bill to be legislating about.
Frankly, the idea everything is unregulated if it is not in the Road Traffic Act does not really stand up. We have a Data Protection Act and we already have a presumption that we must have a clear, necessary and proportionate rationale for processing data. Therefore, it is not the case it is a free-for-all unless it is in this Bill. That would be a wrong and inaccurate message to send out from the House. It would be useful for the Minister to give a response to the point put forward by Senator Ruane around not naming the specific devices but the specific purposes. I am aware that later on, the Bill talks about the purpose for which they may they be used but we say it should be restricted to devices for that purpose, in order that some of the dangers I have highlighted would be ruled out. This could include data gathering for commercial purposes and other things that might be added in. It would be useful if the Minister could specify and tie it to the specific functioning of the Road Traffic Act.
The legislation has provisions, or includes provisions elsewhere, that when we are referring to "personal data" it states it "has the same meaning as it has in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016". Therefore, everything works. Once you are designating something as a "data-gathering device" then the broader European GDPR and other regulations kick in. As Senator Higgins said, this is an evolving area where we are awaiting European legislation on AI and facial recognition technology. It is better to apply the principles of European rules, including those of the European Court of Justice, around this and not try to use the Road Traffic Act and the specific definitions of technologies as a way of trying to do the same thing, because it changes with respect to some of the devices we may look to use. However, I absolutely agree on the need for them to be regulated by good European and Irish law.
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement. I hope there can be conversations between this Stage and Report Stage but this definition is extraordinarily wide and there does not seem to be a willingness to look to narrow it in an effective way.
For the sake of clarity, under the GDPR and data protection, if all these devices are listed then we would have the GDPR and data protection to be used for all the devices whereas, as the Minister said, if we have a limited list then we cannot apply it. It is not as if just because all the devices are there people are allowed do whatever they want with them, because there is the GDPR. I am wondering if that is the protection we have, because it includes all devices; if there is data protection and the GDPR then all those devices have to obey that.
The issue is the data is being gathered. People will not be aware. This legislation creates a circumstance where persons may have large amounts of data gathered around and about them of which they will not even be aware. Their consent will not have been sought. A legislative basis will be used as the rationale, namely, we are gathering data about you based on the Road Traffic Act but there is no constraint within that Act that says the data we are gathering about you will only be related to road traffic.
Under the GDPR, nobody would be allowed sell it.
Under the GDPR, there is a need for a legislative basis or a consent basis for the gathering of data. The concern here is we have legislation being proposed that will give a very much wider permission for the gathering of data and that creates that dynamic. There are questions about the compatibility of the legislation with the GDPR in that context but we can come to that.
This is a very useful discussion. The proposed section 77A(6), to be inserted by section 45 of this Bill, sets out that the Minister must set out the regulations to "provide for data obtained using cameras operated by or on behalf of a road authority".
It also sets out, in some detail, that a data protection impact assessment and so on should be carried out under the terms of section 84 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is not providing a free-for-all. The debate here is about whether we identify each device in law. That is separate to whether there should be legislation.
To identify each device was one solution. Two solutions were put to the Minister. There is no amendment which states that each device should be identified. We have clarified that the problem is the Minister's proposal that all devices of any kind that gather data should be allowed and included under the definition of "camera". We have suggested two solutions. One is that we specify only such devices that are related to these offences and the other, which I put forward, involves specifying the particular devices. Those are two solutions we have suggested in the context of the proposal put forward by the Minister, which relates to all data.
Data gathering is a form of data processing. The Minister saying he will put in regulation as to how a person will use data that have been gathered does not reassure us as to the purposes for which data might be used. It does not give us assurances that a future Minister may not decide to add a load of other purposes for what that data that is being gathered might be used for. The Minister does not get to fish for lots of data and then decide later what purposes it may be used for. There is a question of the needless gathering of unknown amounts of data for unknown purposes by unknown devices. This is not controversial. It is probably one of the widest and loosest definitions I have ever seen.
To be clear, what we are voting on here is not a narrow definition put forward by us. It is an extraordinarily wide definition put forward by the Minister. What we have very reasonably suggested are ways that it might be made a little narrower and more effective. If it is the case that the Minister is pushing ahead then, obviously, we will just have to oppose his proposed definition. Let us again be clear what we are voting on, however, which is whether we are okay with any device that gathers any data, possible for any purpose, and that being included within the definition of "camera".
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Lynn Ruane.
Amendment declared carried.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 53, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(ba) undertake works to make improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of a road, in the interests of quality, accessibility and amenity,”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 53, lines 33 and 34, to delete all words from and including “by” in line 33 down to and including line 34 and substitute the following:
“—
(a) by the substitution of “maintenance (including maintenance works)” for “maintenance works” in each place that it occurs,
(b) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (b):
“(b) secure the carrying out of construction and maintenance (including maintenance works) and the provision of traffic signs and consult with the Commissioner,”,
and
(c) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):”.
This amendment represents a small but valuable change to clarify the role of TII with regard to maintenance. I am proposing to replace the words "maintenance works" with “maintenance (including maintenance works)” as well as providing for TII to consult the Garda Commissioner, as required, with regard to traffic signs. The change from "maintenance works" to “maintenance (including maintenance works)” is based on legal considerations that the new wording would more fully capture the range of activities that could be covered by what we might generally think of as maintenance. It may seem a small matter but I am assured that, in legal terms, the new wording is more appropriate.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 53, line 35, to delete “(cc)” and substitute “(ca)”.
Amendment agreed to
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44
Amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 54, to delete lines 10 and 11.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to delete a particular circumstance where An Bord Pleanála could approve works that materially contravene development or local area plans where the works are of "strategic, regional or national importance". We have observed significant restrictions on the authority and power of local government in recent decades and we fear this provision will exacerbate this as it relates to permissions for large schemes and road development. Irrespective of concerns about the legitimacy of the decision-making within An Bord Pleanála, it is very important that local authorities and councillors reserve the right to make decisions about what is included in their development and local area plans and that applications for works in a relevant area take their provisions into account.
Development and local area plans play a very important role in terms of democratic participation in the planning process and in decision-making about how we want to live together. They provide a vision for our villages, towns and cities and inform where development ought to take place.
The plans' provisions are not decided on a whim. They involve detailed consultation with the relevant electorate and deliberation between elected representatives. We are told that when decisions are made in our local area, the priorities, principles and rules of the area and the development plans matter. They are meant to inform, in large part, the planning decisions that can be made. It is our view that to contravene them undermines the democratic planning process. We ask that the Minister consider this deletion in order to uphold the planning process and democratic participation within it.
Similarly, amendment No. 41 seeks to narrow the circumstances in which An Bord Pleanála may materially contravene a local area or development plan. As drafted, the section provides that the board may do so if a proposed scheme or road should be approved having regard to "any relevant policy" of "any Minister of the Government". It is our assertion that this is not in the public interest and is open to abuse by future Governments. The amendment seeks to replace the term "any Minister of the Government" with an explicit reference to the Minister for Transport and the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. While we are of the view that policy decisions of a particular Government should, in and of themselves, not be put forward as a rationale for the contravention of democratically informed local area or development plans, we have proposed a modest amendment that would take account of the policies of relevant Departments, given their specific, relevant remit and their expertise in matters related to transport and transport-related development.
Like amendments Nos. 40 and 41, amendment No. 42 seeks to limit the circumstances wherein An Bord Pleanála could contravene local area or development plans. The subsection, as drafted, provides that the board may contravene these plans having regard to the "pattern of development" in an area in the time since the plan was developed. As drafted, we fear the subsection is open to abuse and could see the wide-scale contravention of local area and development plans. Such plans are integral to the democratic planning process. They are updated on a regular basis to take account of changes within local areas and within the understanding and perspectives of an electorate and elected representatives. An Bord Pleanála should not have carte blanche to precipitate these changes, as we fear would be the case should this amendment or a suitable alternative not be incorporated into the Bill.
I cannot accept amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive. In section 44, we are allowing An Bord Pleanála, in certain limited circumstances, to approve a scheme or road development that contravenes materially a development plan or local development plan. The first criterion under which the board will be allowed to do this is where the proposal is of strategic regional or national importance. We are bringing in these measures because they are essential to progressing the BusConnects projects.
Amendment No. 40 would remove the key criterion of strategic regional or national importance. Amendment No. 42 would remove the criterion of having regard to the pattern of development and to planning permissions granted since the making of the local area plan. This would mean that changing local circumstances could not be taken into account any more than could wider national circumstances. In effect, these proposals would make measures in the Bill toothless and risk holding up vital national infrastructure.
I appreciate there is always a concern in the matter of planning to balance local and national interests. In the current situation, however, it is clear that balance is not being struck correctly. If we are to be able to deal with major issues such as the need to improve our public transport network, we need planning laws that allow us to do so. The provision allows that the board shall approve proposals if it considers that the criteria set out are met. It still has the final word but we are allowing it more options in order to balance national and local interests.
Amendment No. 41, in proposing to replace the wording "any Minister of the Government" and limiting the application of the provision to two particular Ministers, would limit possible future developments that might have a real imperative for national and strategic reasons but are outside the remit of the Ministers named in the amendment. If we want to capture the concept of national and strategic importance, as we do, this is something that could at different times come under the remit of different Ministers. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. I would appreciate if the Senator would consider withdrawing amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive.
Does Senator Ruane wish to press the amendment?
I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I may bring it forward again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 54, to delete lines 23 to 26.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 54, line 29, after "cameras" to insert "and other devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 54, line 30, after "cameras" to insert "and other data-gathering devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 55, line 1, after "cameras" to insert "and other data-gathering devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 55, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(2A) Cameras operated by or on behalf of a road authority under this section shall not be equipped with facial recognition technology, and no data obtained using such cameras shall be processed by the road authority using facial recognition technology, or be passed to third parties for processing with facial recognition technology.".
I will withdraw the amendment and discuss it with the Minister before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 55, line 11, after "cameras" to insert "and other data-gathering devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 55, line 14, to delete "then".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 49:
In page 55, line 16, after "cameras" to insert "and other data-gathering devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 50:
In page 55, line 19, to delete "then".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 51:
In page 55, line 22, after "cameras" to insert "and other data-gathering devices".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 55, line 29, to delete "Síochana" and substitute "Síochána".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 57 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 55, line 36, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
These amendments propose a change in language to use "shall" instead of "may". We are seeking to strengthen safeguards around the use of facial recognition technology in the definition of CCTV. The amendments strengthen the provisions around how the Minister regulates the use of cameras and data from the cameras. The amendment proposes that the Minister "shall" rather than "may" make regulations. As I have outlined in regard to previous amendments, the safeguards around use of surveillance in the Bill are not strong enough. It is not acceptable to create open-ended powers for authorities to use any data-gathering technology they wish and then say the Minister might make some regulations about that. If we are not going to insert safeguards in the primary legislation, we must, at the very least, ensure the Minister is compelled to regulate for safety.
I do not disagree about the importance of this issue. Some of the debate on it earlier was very useful. I will consider the matter before Report Stage, if the Senator is agreeable. It is a technical issue and I want to get it right and to ascertain whether the proposed change in wording will constitute a practical strengthening of the provision. I would like to have time to consider that between now and Report Stage.
Is Senator Ruane pressing the amendment?
I appreciate the Minister's proposal. I will withdraw the amendment, with the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 54:
In page 55, line 42, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 55:
In page 56, line 22, after “measures” to insert “, including measures specified in section 36(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 56, line 26, to delete “for the purposes”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 56, line 28, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
I propose to withdraw the amendment at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 58:
In page 56, line 29, after “cameras” to insert “and other data-gathering devices”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 57, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:“(12A) The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act,commission and publish a report on the regulatory and legislative changes required in order to establish an online portal for the uploading of dash cam and helmet camera footage to aid in the investigation and prosecution of road traffic offences.”.
I propose to withdraw this amendment and amendment No. 60 with the right to reintroduce them on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 57, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:“(12A) The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act,commission and publish a report on the regulatory and legislative changes required in order to establish a mechanism for the use of dash cam footage obtained from public transport buses to aid in the investigation and prosecution of road traffic offences related to bus and cycle lanes.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 46
Amendments Nos. 61 to 64, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 57, line 30, after “to” to insert “protect and preserve semi-mature and mature trees and hedgerows, especially those older than twenty years, or”.
This amendment seeks to include specific protection for mature trees and hedgerows in the amending of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. As we know, large scale infrastructure projects and road development can often necessitate the removal and destruction of trees and hedgerows. This amendment would permit the Dublin Transport Authority to acquire land to protect and preserve semi-mature trees and hedgerows, taking particular account of those that are more than 20 years old. Mature trees and hedgerows play a critical role in carbon sequestration and the promotion of biodiversity. It is important that we provide specific protection for them in legislation. This amendment would achieve this by providing that the authority could purchase land or acquire land by CPO to preserve mature trees and hedgerows. We acknowledge that this might not be the most appropriate placement of this amendment given that the relevant sections relate exclusively to the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. However, we would welcome engagement with the Minister and his officials regarding how the protection and preservation of mature trees and hedgerows can be ensured when large-scale infrastructure and road development is occurring.
Amendment No. 62 is a simple amendment which seeks to include specific protection for local amenities which are affected by the impact of the development of public transport infrastructure under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. This section currently provides that the authority could take any measure required to mitigate the impact of public transport infrastructure on a site, building or structure. However, we feel it is important to include specific reference to local amenities, given the important role they play within communities in terms of social infrastructure in Dublin.
Amendment No. 63 seeks to protect the public realm when it is affected by the impact of the development of public transport infrastructure under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. The section currently does not make any specific reference to the public realm despite the fact that large scale public transport infrastructure development regularly impacts on the availability, functionality and quality of the public realm in Dublin. This amendment would correct what we feel is an important omission and would ensure that where there is an impact on the public realm in the development of transport infrastructure, the authority could take action to mitigate the effects so that the public realm remains accessible, functional and of good quality.
Amendment No. 64 seeks to include specific protection for accessible parking where public transport infrastructure is being developed within the remit of the Dublin Transport Authority. If we are to reduce the number of cars on our roads we will need to disincentivise car use in our towns and cities. Reducing the availability of public parking will be an important tool in achieving this. However, we must ensure that accessible parking is maintained in tandem to ensure our villages, towns and cities remain accessible for persons with a disability.
I am all about the hedgerows and trees, which I am always planting, but in some instances there is a need to do some trimming or lopping. Sometimes trees cause a hazard. My issue is that in many instances the first option is to cut them down. That is a huge part of the problem. Senator Ruane may agree with me when I suggest that cutting trees down should be the last resort. Trimming and lopping can be done by good tree surgeons. This might be a potential amendment to appease the Senator and me; we will now have biodiversity officers in every county in Ireland thanks to the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan. We need to rethink how we manage our hedgerows and our trees because too often, butchery happens. Cutting the tree down is quick and gets it out of the way. However, we really need to look at the possibilities of just trimming or lopping instead. By doing so we would not have as big an issue. Even if the trees are only 20 years old and they are a potential hazard we need to manage them but it does not mean that we need to cut them all down. I often get phone calls from people asking why so many trees are being cut down. Hedge cutters are doing their job but some of them cut down all the trees while others trim them. This is something that we will bring to Report Stage and I will work on the issue, which may appease Senator Ruane's concerns.
On amendment No. 64 on parking for people with disabilities, I accept the Senator's concerns are valid but I think the matter is captured in what we saying in relation to the wider availability of parking. In my experience, where schemes have been put in place in Waterford, while it may have necessitated the moving of disabled parking spaces, they have always been replaced as closely as possible to where they were originally. That can probably be achieved by regulation or by issue of a circular in that regard, if necessary. In my experience, local authorities have always been to the fore in providing parking for people with disabilities and that is how it should be.
I welcome Senator Cummins's comments. I have personal experience of not just disabled parking but parking in general where local authorities have allowed people to go in and cut down 200 or 300 year old trees to create a car park. In one instance, they did not really need to cut down the tree. It could have been left at the side because cutting it down did not provide any more car parking spaces anyway. There seems to be this idea of gutting and clear felling. It is no longer acceptable to think that we can cut things down that take hundreds of years to grow. It is good that we are having this debate but I feel that the local authorities need stronger proscriptions regarding what they can do and will allow to be done. We have a planning application at the moment for a nursing home, which is badly needed in Ennis, but where it is to be located will require the felling of many mature trees. I cannot find any way to stop them doing it. The local authority does not seem to have taken the matter into consideration. We know there is a climate and biodiversity emergency. We can no longer allow local authorities or private design in ways that do not avoid, where possible, the destruction of our natural habitats.
The purpose of Section 46 is to provide a clear legislative power to acquire land for the purposes of certain mitigation measures that may not normally be regarded as traditional or usual mitigation measures. For instance, usual mitigation measures for which lands are compulsorily required of which has been accepted and for which there is very little legal debate include items such as new access arrangements, lands for noise mitigation or landscaping and such other mitigation measures. However, the type of mitigation measures envisaged on Busconnects are not the usual type of measure.
For instance, replacement car parking is location-specific and so it is unlikely there will be suitable lands available on the open market at the required location. Therefore, the power to acquire such lands compulsorily is necessary. The provision makes specific reference to the power to compulsorily acquire land for any mitigation whatsoever, rather than including specific details. The inclusion of the wording in amendments Nos. 62 and 63 will not add, in my mind, to the Bill, and are potentially confusing. In the case of amendment No. 64, it would actually limit parking to disabled parking only, which would limit the mitigation measures envisaged in delivering the BusConnects project. In that regard, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments and would prefer if the Senators would withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 57, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(aa) any public local amenity,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 57, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(aa) the public realm, with particular reference to its quality, accessibility and functionality,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 57, line 34, after “parking” to insert “for persons with a disability”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 46 agreed to.
Sections 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 50
Amendments Nos. 65 to 70, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 59, line 22, to delete “desirable” and substitute “necessary”.
The majority of these amendments are about language and the intention of language. Amendment No. 65 seeks to delete the word "desirable" and substitute "necessary". As it currently reads, the Bill states: "The National Roads Authority may provide in respect of national managed roads such information signs and warning signs as it considers desirable." It does not seem to be the most appropriate language to use. Really it should read "information signs and warning signs as it considers necessary". Again, the word "desirable" is used in section 50(d). We are seeking to delete "desirable" and substitute "necessary". Amendment No. 67 seeks to insert the phrase "or mobility" after the word "safety" on page 60, line 1 of the Bill. Amendment No. 68 seeks to insert the phrase ", or which causes a nuisance to road users, especially vulnerable road users, in terms of accessibility and legibility" after the word "users". Amendment No. 69 seeks to insert the phrase, "Where a regulatory sign is removed from a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified of the removal." Again, it is about ensuring extra safety measures are provided. Amendment No. 70 seeks to insert the phrase "Where a private individual removes or significantly alters a hedgerow, or other established growth in the vicinity of a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified." It is about safety and information. Considering what Senator Garvey said earlier about people butchering the hedgerows and trees in the vicinity, the local authority should be notified of such removal. That is it. Apologies if that is not very clear, but I am trying to read the amendments as I am reading the Bill.
In section 50 of the Bill, we are providing a number of amendments to section 95 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which deals with provision of road signage. The principal aim here is to ensure the necessary powers for the TII to deal with signage on a new class of what will be called national managed roads. The only such road intended for now is the M50. What the Bill does is that it separates out existing powers for provision of signage from those being given to TII - still referred to, Senators may wish to note, as the National Roads Authority, NRA, in law.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 propose to replace references to signs which are "desirable" with signs which are "necessary". I understand the Senators’ wish to limit the signs which can be provided to those strictly necessary. However, the word "desirable" is the word already used in section 95 in relation to signage put up by road authorities. It would be odd if we put a tighter restriction on signage provision where a road was under TII management than where a local authority was in charge. The term "necessary" would place an unreasonable limit on signage provision by TII as opposed to local authorities, and therefore I cannot accept amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
The position is similar with amendments Nos. 67 and 68. The Bill will amend section 95 of the 1961 Act to allow for TII to provide signage on national management roads in the same way that a road authority does on roads within its ambit. Section 95 provides for the removal of signage where the Garda Commissioner has requested the removal on the grounds of the safety of road users, and in the Bill we are replicating this provision in respect of TII removing signage. Amendment No. 67, which proposes to add removal where the signage interferes with the mobility, as well as the safety, of road users would place a different standard under section 95 for TII signage as opposed to road authority signage. Amendment No. 68 would likewise add conditions to TII signs that do not apply to road authority signs. I believe the two should remain the same basis, which is what we have proposed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 69 would require notification to the relevant local authority where TII removed a regulatory sign from a national managed road. I do not see the value in this. The road will be under the management of TII, which will be providing the signage. I do not think we need to create a requirement to notify the local authority, which is not managing the road.
Finally, with regard to amendment No. 70, which would insert into section 95 of the 1961 Act – which deals with signage, let us remember - a requirement that "Where a private individual removes or significantly alters a hedgerow, or other established growth in the vicinity of a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified." I am very much in favour of protecting the natural environment. However, I do not see how this can possibly belong in a section of the law on signage. In any case, the proposed amendment does not say who is obliged to do the informing. In effect, no one would be. I therefore request that this amendment, and also amendments Nos. 65 to 69, inclusive, be withdrawn.
I want to come back in on something that Senator Ruane mentioned. I meant to raise it when we were discussing hedgerows and trees. With regard to An Bord Pleanála, for the record I want to make sure that it is very clear that we should only be acquiring land in instances where it is needed for BusConnects or active travel. We must ensure that it is not going to increase carbon emissions. Otherwise, we are going against the climate action plan. I want that to be on the record of the House. I will seek to bring an amendment on Report Stage. It is important that we acquire land to progress our modal shift and to reach our huge target of halving the carbon emissions from transport. Cutting trees is one part of it, of course. It is also important that we are only acquiring land to reduce our carbon emissions and not to increase car use. As Sarah McInerney - who has not always seen eye to eye with me - said on RTÉ radio last night, if you build for cars, you get cars. If you build it, they will come. Let us be careful about how we use our acquisition and ensure that we continue to focus on not contributing to carbon emissions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 59, line 25, to delete “desirable” and substitute “necessary”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 60, line 1, after “safety” to insert “or mobility”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 60, line 2, after “users” to insert “, or which causes a nuisance to road users, especially vulnerable road users, in terms of accessibility and legibility”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 60, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“(c) Where a regulatory sign is removed from a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified of the removal.”,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 60, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“(c) Where a private individual removes or significantly alters a hedgerow, or other established growth in the vicinity of a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified.”,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairperson
Amendment No. 71 is out of order because there is a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
Section 50 agreed.
SECTION 51
Government amendment No. 72:
In page 61, line 10, to delete “ ‘chief executive” ” and substitute “ ‘chief executive’ ”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 52
Government amendment No. 73:
In page 62, line 14, to delete “by deleting subsection (6)” and substitute “by the deletion of subsection (6)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 53 and 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55
Government amendment No. 74:
In page 68, line 37, to delete “willful” and substitute “wilful”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 56
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 71, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“PART 15UNAUTHORISED PARKING IN DISABLED BAYS
Parking in a disabled bay without permit
56. A person who contravenes Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 182/1997) shall be liable on summary conviction to a class D fine.”.
I spoke to this amendment. We have some sort of resolution. I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 76:
In page 71, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“PART 15AMENDMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE DUTIES) (VEHICLES) ACT 1952
Amendment of Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 195256. The Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952 is amended—
(a) in section 1(4)—
(i) in paragraph (h), by the substitution of “purposes,” for “purposes.”, and(ii) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (h):
“(i) vehicles owned by a Government Department, the Office of Public Works and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners,
and
(j) vehicles owned by such State agencies as may be prescribed by the Minister for Transport, having regard to the amount of State funding provided to such agencies.”, and (b) in section 3(c) of Part 1 of the Schedule, by the deletion of “large”.”.
This amendment to the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952 addresses two matters which have come to my attention regarding motor tax. The first relates to State-owned vehicles. State-owned vehicles are exempt from motor tax, and almost 6,000 vehicles are exempt in this way by virtue of being State-owned. Over half of these are Garda vehicles. There are also a significant number of vehicles owned by the Defence Forces, Civil Defence, the Office of Public Works, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, under the auspices of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the Department of Transport. The exemption also applies to a small number of vehicles held by State agencies.
I understand, based on legal advice, that it is prudent to amend the legislation to provide a modernised basis for this exemption. I am therefore proposing to amend the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952 to add State-owned vehicles to the list of exemptions from motor tax provided under section 1 of that Act, and also to allow for the exemption to be extended to vehicles owned by such State agencies as may be prescribed in regulations, having regard to the level to which they are funded by the State.
The second matter dealt with in this amendment is the amendment of Part I of the Schedule to the 1952 Act to remove the word “large” from the reference to a public service vehicle. In the early 1990s, a concessionary rate of motor tax was introduced for school buses. In order to qualify for the concession, which carries an annual rate of tax of €95, a vehicle must be a large public service vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961, that is, it must have more than eight seats, excluding the driver’s seat, and must be used exclusively for school transport or for transport to and from school-related physical education activities. The vehicle must either be licensed under article 60 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 1963 or be owned by a statutory transport undertaking. In the former case, it is usually referred to as an Article 60 licence.
An Article 60 licence is issued by An Garda Síochána where it is deemed that there is a need for the provision of a school transport service. Over the years, the owners of some passenger vehicles with eight seats or fewer have been issued with an Article 60 licence. These are vehicles used particularly in remote rural areas where transport is not always easy to obtain. As they have an Article 60 licence, these vehicles have traditionally been given the concessionary tax rate. However, it has come to our attention that this is not strictly correct, given that the vehicles are not large public service vehicles. This has sometimes resulted in operators being charged motor tax at private rates, which can go up to €2,400 annually. I understand that this is causing financial hardship and may impact on the continued provision of such services. The result would be a loss of service in some areas, particularly rural areas, where alternatives are not readily available.
I am, therefore, proposing to delete the word "large" in the appropriate place, so that the services in question which use smaller vehicles will be able to benefit from the exemption. In the interim, my Department has issued a circular to all authorities advising that the rate can continue to be given to these vehicles, pending a legislative amendment being put in place.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 57
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill."
Is Part 15 relating to zero and low emissions vehicles and the functions of the Minister part of the Bill? Is it under section 56?
We have already dealt with the section.
Can I speak to the section before we finish the Bill?
I will give the Senator a little bit of latitude.
I welcome the great work of ZEVI and the importance of working towards anything other than fossil fuels. It is important that the research from ZEVI is not just about e-cars. I may consider tabling an amendment on Report Stage. We should also research car-sharing of e-cars, not just sales. GoCar is working very well. I hope research expands into that area, and the fact that there is a big difference between a small Renault Zoe in terms of weight, cost, pollution and space, compared with a large electric SUV. It is not all about getting everyone out of cars which run on fossil fuels into e-cars.
As we well know, there is a huge challenge in terms of access to space for children and people who would like to walk and cycle safely. I hope the Minister could assure me that the research will not just be about how we get everybody switching from petrol and diesel to e-cars. If every car on the road in Ireland is changed from an e-car rather than one which runs on petrol or diesel, that will not solve any of the issues around space for our children to walk and cycle. We do not see the same level of research available for active travel, for instance. It is great to have ZEVI research on cars, but who will do research on active travel ? The NTA, local authorities, TII, the NRA and many State agencies deal with cars, but it is not the job of any one group to examine space.
ZEVI has a very clear remit to examine e-cars. I would like some assurance, through an amendment or otherwise, that there is a focus on modal shift, that is, getting people out of cars and using public transport and bikes and walking. I do not trust the current State agencies and local authorities as a collective to do that. It is everybody's job and it is nobody's job. That is my major concern.
There is no co-ordinated office for research and development for active and public transport. Transport researchers in technical universities do not have the same resources as ZEVI. We need to look to that and consider having proper researchers that are not biased because an agency has hired them to find a certain result. We need proper research, through universities, that is unbiased and promoted in the same manner in which we are doing now, that is, through legislation for ZEVI and e-cars.
The Acting Chair will not be as generous in the future as he was at that time.
Senator Garvey was slightly distracted getting her notes together.
That is fine. Every point she made I agreed with. I was at the ZEVI events in the Aviva Stadium with the Minister, as he will remember. I cycled to the events. Active travel is better than ZEVI, but ZEVI is better than a combustion engine. That point is well made.
I am sorry I was not here for the whole debate on Committee Stage because I was chairing a transport committee. It is a very useful and good Bill. There is an awful lot in it. I look forward to all of it being implemented and so on. We are not yet at the Final Stage. It would be remiss of us not to acknowledge that almost €290 million in active travel measures was announced today, which are not related to electric vehicle.
The Minister, Senator Boyhan and I happen to know about the split in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, where there is about €16 million on the Dún Laoghaire side and about €4 million on the Rathdown side. I have not managed to work out where another €4 million is going. We need to make sure that the next allocation goes more to Rathdown than Dún Laoghaire.
The Minister will be interested to hear there is a pretty nice job being done on the cycleway in Clonskeagh. I cycle parts of it myself. Well done to the Minister and all involved.
I really appreciate the engagement we have had. The issue of disability parking is really important. We have had many emails since this meeting started. We can send a clear message and support the people who have permits and disability cards. I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I am looking forward to seeing this blitz starting in the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7 February 2023.
