Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jun 1975

Vol. 281 No. 12

Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

To put the Bill in its context I should perhaps go back to section 103 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, which set up the system of so-called "fines-on-the-spot". Under this a person to whom a notice is given alleging that he committed a specified Road Traffic Act offence may pay a stated penalty in lieu of standing prosecution for the offence. The offences to which the system applies are prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for Local Government. These regulations confine the system to parking offences.

Under the 1961 Act members of the Garda issued the parking "tickets". However, with the continuing growth in traffic and the corresponding increase in traffic offences, it became clear that the work would make too great an inroad into Garda time. Indeed, it is wasteful to use trained police on this kind of work. Accordingly, section 64 of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, enabled the Commissioner of the Garda to appoint "authorised persons" to issue the "tickets". These men came to be known as traffic wardens.

At first the Garda authorities themselves operated the system of traffic wardens, but as its operation extended, particularly in Dublin following the introduction of parking meters, it became more apparent that the control and direction of the wardens and the administration generally of the system of parking tickets was absorbing a disproportionate amount of the time and resources of the Garda. Accordingly, the Garda Commissioner came to an arrangement with Dublin Corporation whereby, on a basis agreed with him, they recruited and supervised the traffic wardens and assisted the Garda in administering the collection of payments on the parking "tickets", the Commissioner giving his covering appointment to the persons employed. Nearly 40 wardens are now employed in Dublin. Wardens are similarly employed by Cork Corporation and directly by the Commissioner in Limerick, Tralee, Killarney and Athlone. While the present informal arrangements in Dublin work reasonably well, it is desirable to regularise them and to give the full operation of the service to the local authorities and to enable other local authorities to operate it also if they think fit. This would be in line with a recommendation of the Conroy Commission. It is also in line with my general policy to devolve the powers and responsibility of local authorities. It will encourage them to take an overall practical view of the traffic and parking problems in their areas, not merely from the aspect of road construction. I may say that the previous Government had approved of proposals for legislation generally in line with those now before the House.

Under the Bill, a local authority may decide to establish a service of traffic wardens in their areas. This could be on a standing basis, or in the case of a smaller town with seasonal problems, on a seasonal basis.

Before proceeding, the local authority would have to consult the Garda Síochána, who would give them the benefit of their advice. The local authority would then take their decision, subject to the normal controls on pay and conditions of service operated by my Department in relation to local authority employees generally.

The wardens would be confined to administering parking tickets and checking the display of tax discs. Giving them this latter function should help in the enforcement of motor taxation, the proceeds of which go largely to the local authorities for road works. I shall have something more to say on this.

As to finance, the payments by the recipients of "tickets" will be made to the local authority concerned and, in so far as they exceed the cost of the wardens, will be retained by the local authority in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister. The intention is that the regulations would require such sums to be used for roads and traffic purposes. If the cost of the wardens exceeded the payments received, the local rates would meet the difference, but there is provision for possible recoupment by the Minister. I should say that I would not envisage recoupment save in very exceptional cases, as I would regard the warden service as basically a local service.

It may not be feasible for particular local authorities to operate a warden service, and so the Garda Commissioner is still left with the power under the 1968 Road Traffic Act to engage wardens. And of course the gardaí themselves will continue in all places to have the power to dispense "tickets" for parking offences and will continue to enforce motor taxation. On this, I may say I am concerned at what I believe to be widespread evasion of motor taxation. The matter has been taken up with the Garda Commissioner and I am glad to say that I expect that, despite the very heavy demands on the Force at present, a considerable increase in enforcement will shortly evince itself. I am sure I have the support of all members of the House in appealing to the public to meet their responsibilities in regard to motor taxation. Not alone is the tax essential if the road system is to be properly maintained but it also provides a valuable source of employment throughout the country.

Nobody of course likes taxation, nor does anybody like controls on traffic and parking, or penalties, but the growth in traffic and the inevitable gap between demands on the road system and the capacity available mean that parking facilities must be rationed, and rationing must be enforced if it is to be effective. The Bill should therefore be seen as a useful addition to the powers of local authorities to enable them to operate the road system more efficiently in the public interest.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Before speaking on this Bill, I should like to protest against the refusal of the Government to continue with the Committee Stage of the Planning Bill. I cannot understand why this Bill was so urgent that it should be brought before the House at this stage while the Minister was dealing with a Bill which was of considerable public importance. I can only conclude that neither the Government nor the Minister wish the Minister's powers regarding planning appeals to be transferred to the board.

The reason the Planning Bill has not been introduced is that it is a colossal Bill, as Deputy Faulkner knows, and we would only get half way through one of the arguments before finishing up, and the Minister for Lands like the rest of us has to eat.

It is hardly proper that, since I became spokesman for local government, we had only about three hours' discussion on the Planning Bill.

We were discussing the tax Bills.

I do not accept that this Bill was of such urgency that we could not utilise any time available to the House to continue with the Planning Bill. I queried this matter on Wednesday morning last when I received a copy of the Bill. I was informed by the Minister that it was a simple Bill and would take up very little time. At that time I had not read it and, therefore, I did not know what its provisions were.

Having studied the Bill it would appear to me to be much more complex than either the explanatory memorandum or the Minister's speech would give us to understand. It is a Bill which needs careful consideration because it appears—and I am open to contradiction on this—to make available to the Minister very wide powers to make regulation to extend the authority of traffic wardens. I would refer particularly to section 3 (1). If my interpretation of what it contains is correct it would enable the Minister to widen the powers of the wardens to such an extent as almost to create another police force which apparently would not be under the control of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. I would have thought also that where there was provision for the widening—it seems to me very considerably—of the powers of the traffic wardens that reference would be made in the Bill to recruitment standards, to training, to educational standards and so on.

The real objection lies in the fact that not only do we not know what powers the Minister would transfer to the wardens but the Bill appears to give him unlimited powers to prescribe by regulation any offence under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973. In that respect it would appear that the explanatory memorandum does not give the information to which we are entitled. If we were to take the explanatory memorandum on its face value certainly we could then describe the Bill as the Minister has described it as a relatively simple measure. That is not the case and I would have thought that we would have been given more detailed information as to what, in fact, is contained in the Bill.

Before dealing with section 3, subsection (1), the content of which is my main objection, I will comment on some other aspects. The powers to appoint traffic wardens was conferred on county councils and on borough corporations, urban councils and commissioners of towns by section 96 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 for particular purposes and this power could only be exercised with the consent of the Garda Commissioner. The control of traffic is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and he may make bye-laws, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government, and bye-laws have been made in certain areas.

As the Minister has already stated and so far as I could ascertain, the traffic warden service at the moment is in operation only in Dublin where the Minister says there are approximately 40 wardens. In Limerick, Killarney, Athlone there are full-time wardens and in Tralee there are part-time wardens. At present, I think I am correct in saying, where a local authority wish to appoint a warden they can apply to the Department of Justice and to the Department of Local Government for permission and when permission is granted the local authority advertise the post or posts in the national Press. The local authority interview the applicants and submit the names of suitable applicants to the Commissioner, who appoints them. This situation will not continue under the terms of this Bill. It would appear that there are some fundamental changes here made in respect of the appointment of wardens. We should be concerned about this, particularly when we advert to the fact that the powers the Minister will have will be quite considerable.

It would appear to me from reading the Bill that traffic wardens will continue to be selected by the local authority but the local authority will also appoint them and the Garda Commissioner will no longer have any say in their appointment and therefore cannot ensure that the people appointed are suitable for the work they have to perform. This might not be a matter of any great consequence or importance if the warden's duties were to be confined to relatively simple matters but where there is a danger that the warden may ultimately take over a relatively wide range of police duties it is quite another matter. This could happen if the Bill is passed in its present form.

The proposed method of appointment as envisaged in the Bill is that the local authority will consult with the Commissioner with regard to the traffic warden scheme. The operative word here is "consult". While they may be compelled by the terms of the Bill to consult with the Commissioner, they may not necessarily take his advice.

I would ask the Minister if there would in future be consultation between the Commissioner and the local authority in relation to individual appointments. It would appear to me that this will not be the case. Then, even though the Minister could transfer quite a considerable number of police duties to the wardens, the Commissioner would have no say in their appointment. The body to be set up and which may be given wide powers by the Minister in matters relating to offences under the Road Traffic Acts will not be under the control of the Commissioner or of the Minister for Justice although they will be carrying out what might be considered to be police duties. Generally speaking, where police duties are involved or duties which have been carried out by the police, the Commissioner should still have some power in relation to the appointment of wardens.

The section which disturbs me is section 3, subsection (1) of the Bill. I quote the section:

This section applies to such of the following offences as may be declared by the Minister by regulations made after consultation with the Minister for Justice, to be offences to which this section applies, namely, any offence under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973 and the offence under regulations made under the Roads Act, 1920, of not attaching to and carrying on a vehicle in the manner prescribed by those regulations a licence in respect of the vehicle issued under that Act.

I am mainly concerned with the first part of this subsection. This subsection would empower the Minister to hand over to the local authority and through them to the traffic wardens all the powers at present confined to the Garda Síochána in respect of offences under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973. I feel that this right which the Minister will have if this Bill is passed as it now stands is much too wide. It would be worth while enumerating some of the offences which could be delegated by the Minister to traffic wardens.

Some of the matters which are offences under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973, are dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, drunken driving and offences relating to the breathalyser, insurance offences, careless driving, using a motor car without the consent of its owner, and any offence under the Larceny Act in which a motor car is used. Some of these, of course, are indictable offences, incurring heavy penalties and even jail sentences.

When I studied this Bill I came to appreciate the wide-ranging powers the Minister appeared to be seeking and I was concerned on this account. I have no doubt that many other people will be concerned, too. I know that the Minister in his reply may state that he had no intention of including by regulation any of the offences I have outlined but the fact remains that once he has the power conferred on him to make regulations he, or any of his successors, could include any of the offences by regulation.

If the Minister decided to bring in all the offences by regulation, as he would be entitled to do, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, traffic wardens would then be empowered by other sections and subsections to act in respect of cases of dangerous driving. I should like to know who decides whether driving in a certain manner is dangerous driving.

It is unfair to allow Deputy Faulkner to follow that line because the Bill deals simply with parking offences and nothing else.

The point is——

The Deputy is thinking of the Fianna Fáil Bill which they were ready to introduce just before the change of Government, which did include point duty and everything else.

The Minister in his statement said that the previous Government had approved of proposals for legislation generally in line with those now before the House. I cannot see how he is now able to say that I am dealing with a Bill of a different kind which he says Fianna Fáil was to bring in, if it is exactly the same as that which is before the House.

I am dealing with this Bill as I see it. I am dealing with the provisions as I see them, and if the Minister, when he is replying, can show me that the course I am going on is completely out of line, he is at liberty to do so. I am dealing with the Bill as it stands, not with what the Minister may have had in mind. Section 3, subsection (1) says that:

This section applies to such of the following offences as may be declared by the Minister by regulations made after consultation with the Minister for Justice, to be offences to which this section applies, namely, any offence under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973...

As I see it, that means that the Minister could, by regulation, transfer the power to deal with these offences to the traffic wardens. If that is not what the Minister had in mind, I am sure he will bring in an amendment to that subsection——

Would Deputy Faulkner read the whole of that subsection?

Perhaps he might then understand that it is not as he says.

I appreciate what the second part of it is about; that is why I said I was not concerned with the second part of the subsection.

The portion he read only qualifies the second part of it.

I appreciate what the second part is about. I am dealing with this as I see it and the Minister can deal with it later on, if he so desires. In this subsection the Minister is taking power to give authority to traffic wardens to deal with any offence under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1973, and he is also giving them power under the Roads Acts, 1920. That is as I see it, and the Minister can explain the position in relation to that when he is replying.

Deputy Faulkner is deliberately avoiding reading out the remainder of the section.

I have read the second part. It deals with tax discs. But the first part of it is giving power to the Minister in relation to any offence. That is as the section is drafted. If the Minister wishes to change the subsection that is all right with me.

It is not sufficient that the Minister should simply say to me that I am misinterpreting this. What he must ensure is that the subsection is not capable of misinterpretation. When the Minister takes another look at it, I hope that he will reconsider that particular aspect of it and ensure that what he had in mind is, in fact, shown in the subsection.

I hope the Minister will take another look at it. I must admit that when I read that subsection I was disturbed and I am sure other people will be concerned also. Therefore, it would be wise to ensure that the subsection clearly indicated what the Minister had in mind and not have us discussing a situation whereby the Minister could, by regulation, prescribe any offence under the Road Traffic Acts between 1961 and 1973, if that is not his intention. I will not proceed any further with that particular aspect except to say that if my interpretation is the correct one—I am sure the Minister will get legal advice on it when he is aware there are other interpretations— then there is no question about the fact that it could lead to a very dangerous situation.

The Minister referred to the second part of subsection (1). In sections 2 and section 3 of the Bill there is specific mention, as the Minister has said, to an offence under regulations made under the Road Act, 1920, that is the offence of not attaching to and carrying on a vehicle in the manner prescribed by the regulations a licence in respect of a vehicle issued under the Act. That particular wording is satisfactory. It makes us fully aware of what is involved in relation to the 1920 Act and we can clearly assess its merit. I have no objection to it. I agree that this is a task which might suitably be carried out by traffic wardens but, as I said earlier, I have a decided objection to handing over to the Minister or to any other Minister power, the effects of which would be impossible to calculate.

If the Minister has any other type of offence in mind, I see no reason why he would not include the other offences to be transferred by regulation in the same manner as has been done in relation to the tax discs offence and then we would clearly know what he had in mind and could discuss it accordingly. I take it from what he has already said that he does not propose to transfer any other duties to the traffic wardens than the ones he has mentioned, that is parking offences and tax discs offences. Therefore, I would appeal to him to look at this subsection again to ensure that it fulfils the function he has in mind and nothing else.

I would like to deal with a few other aspects of this Bill. At present when a traffic warden affixes a notice to a car the person committing the parking offence is given a number of days to pay the fine and, pending the completion of the time allowed, no prosecution takes place. I note that the same provision is in this Bill. At present the traffic warden operates from a Garda station and when he hands in his book to the station the Garda sergeant usually sends a note to the person involved reminding him of the position regarding the payment of the fine. I understand it is usually at that stage that the fine is paid. This is a fair system because it is possible, for example, for children to tear off the notice which is affixed to the car or for the notice to be blown away and the owner of the car may not be aware that there was a notice on the car and that he has committed an offence. Therefore, were it not for this note that is sent to him by the Garda sergeant he would be unaware that he had committed an offence until a summons arrived. I understand that it is not obligatory on the sergeant to do this but that the practice is that it is done. Under the new system I suggest that where the local authority are dealing with the matter they would likewise send a notice to the person concerned. It is only fair that should be done.

The Bill also refers to the fact that different amounts can be prescribed in respect of different offences. I think the Minister will prescribe the amounts but I am not too sure of that. I would take it that it will not be left to the various authorities to decide on what the particular penalties ought to be? If that were so we could have a very wide variation in relation to the penalties imposed. This causes quite a considerable amount of dissatisfaction as we are only too well aware in relation to the fines imposed for traffic offences in different courts in different parts of the country, which can be very different from one another.

The Minister might also let me know why it has not been possible to indicate these penalties in the Bill. I know there is a reference made to penalties but I think that refers to other matters. I understand that at present where the local authority have a traffic warden scheme in operation the fines are collected and are sent to a central fund. The wardens are paid by the local authority and the local authority can reclaim the money from the Department of Justice who recoup it from the Department of Local Government. I would like to know who will pay for the scheme under this Bill. The Minister stated that while he has authority to make certain subventions he will not be all that anxious to do it and some of it may fall on the rates. I do not think that this should happen. Do we take it that the fines collected will be used for the purpose of paying the wardens? I am assuming that up to the present the local authority have been fully reimbursed by the Department in regard to the moneys expended by them on the traffic wardens. If that is so I do not see why there should be a change made now in relation to this aspect of the matter.

If it is intended, as it would appear to me to be, that the scheme would pay for itself then that could be open to certain abuse. We could have a situation where the city or county manager would call on the wardens and advise them that they wanted them to be more strict and in effect, collect more money. What we should concern ourselves with here is that on-the-spot fines or fines of any kind in relation to traffic infringement should not be for the purpose of collecting money. It is very important to ensure good traffic control. There should be an opportunity to exercise cautionary control; in other words, the traffic warden should be in a position to give a warning. Sometimes we can be over-zealous in the operation of this particular scheme.

We certainly would be in danger of such if it were intended that the income from on-the-spot fines would pay for the whole system or if the cost should come from the rates. Quite obviously, if it were to be charged on the rates, it would be more than likely that traffic wardens would be advised to get in as much money as possible. My feeling is that the system should be operated to ensure good traffic control with the least possible harassment of the motorist. At present the motorist is harassed to quite a considerable extent in many ways. We should concern ourselves more with endeavouring to ensure proper traffic control while, at the same time, having a reasonable approach to it.

A further matter which arises in relation to this Bill is the administration of the warden service. I know the local authority will administer it generally but in relation, for example, to prosecutions, what will be the position? Local authority legal personnel have far too much work to do as it is. We are all well aware of the many complaints about the length of time it takes the various councils to deal with legal matters, and this refers to housing and so on. At the present time many local authorities are engaging outside solicitors to help cope with council legal matters. Unless the Minister has some way in which he hopes to deal with this particular aspect this burden will be added to the heavy load already being carried and, if it is, we will face difficulties in the future.

The law officer would appear to be the obvious person to deal with prosecutions under this Bill but, if the Minister does not propose to sanction a considerable amount of help, then the whole working of the Bill could be frustrated and the system could break down. I wonder if the Minister proposes to set up a special section under each local authority to deal with this matter and whether he proposes they should be entitled to employ more legal experts. The Minister may not intend existing council law officers to deal with these prosecutions. If this is so, perhaps he would let us know who would take evidence, who would prosecute, who would make available the book of evidence and so on.

It does not appear to me, from reading the Bill, that there is an obligation on a traffic warden to be in uniform. The traffic warden is not obliged to identify himself unless he is requested to do so by a person who allegedly commits a crime. Therefore, in such circumstances, the local authorities could bring a prosecution for obstruction of a traffic warden who was not in uniform and who did not identify himself and the person concerned may not know that he could require the traffic warden to identify himself. Similarly, in relation to another subsection of section 4, a traffic warden who is not in uniform and who has not identified himself may demand the name and address of any person when he has reason to believe that person has committed an offence. This subsection gives the warden the right to demand the name and address of the person he suspects of being guilty of dangerous driving, for example. If a regulation is made in relation to this offence, in my reading——

It is dealing only with parking.

On my reading of the Bill he is apparently entitled to march on to the scene of an accident and ask for a person's name and address. If the Minister is convinced that my approach to the Bill is wrong and, if he can explain exactly what is meant by the first part of section 3 subsection (1), I will consider what he has to say about it.

Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, would also let us know if he has consulted with the Garda Commissioners and the local authorities before bringing in this Bill and if he had any advice or recommendations from them in relation to it.

I should like to ask the Minister how he proposes to proceed with recruitment to the traffic warden service from now on. Even if we accept his interpretation of the Bill, he is giving the wardens more power and authority. I am informed that traffic wardens are given only one week's training. I think the Minister will agree that one week's training is inadequate for any job and especially when the person concerned has to deal with the public. Apart from any other consideration, a week's training gives no standing to the person so trained, and in a job where there is constant contact between the individual and the public generally—this contact is not of a very pleasant nature, through no fault of the traffic wardens—it is essential that there should be much more thought given to the training of traffic wardens.

The traffic warden, because of the nature of his duties, has a very difficult task to perform and he should get proper training. If he got proper training we would have fewer problems in relation to the work he does. It would not be necessary in those circumstances as it, unfortunately, appears to be necessary, now, to insert a subsection in the Bill in which a penalty is laid down for abuse of or attacking a traffic warden.

We know that the Garda, for example, have a very much longer training period. Even when the Garda had to deal with this type of offence, people did not hold it against them, as they appear to do in relation to the traffic wardens. It is possibly because of the extra training that the Garda have in how to deal with the public. It is unfair to the traffic wardens not to give them this training which, as I said, is very essential for the type of work they are doing and which would make the work more pleasant for themselves and the effects more pleasant for the public, in general.

Perhaps the Minister would inform us what the educational standards are at present for entrance to this job. If there are no qualifications laid down, I suggest that he should consider this matter and decide that, at least, a certain level of educational qualification is necessary. If we are to adopt the suggestion I have made in relation to a much longer training period for traffic wardens it is essential that we have, at least, minimum educational standards laid down.

If the offences under the Traffic Acts, which the Minister has in mind, are relatively minor ones—he has stated they are—then we would be satisfied if we had a properly trained corps of traffic wardens. It is necessary to know in advance what offences are to be delegated by the Minister. He has stated that the offences are confined to parking and to dealing with tax discs on cars. I want to point out again that my interpretation of the Bill is quite different. I would have to be satisfied that my interpretation is not correct before I could accept the Bill.

This is the bone of contention which is between us. It is not just my own opinion. It is the opinion of others who deal in legal matters. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take another look at that section, which is disturbing me, and to have it amended to ensure there will be no doubt as to what the Minister has in mind with regard to the offences he proposes to delegate to the traffic wardens. As I said if the matters to be dealt with are relatively minor matters then I would be satisfied with a properly trained corps of traffic wardens but, of course, if the offences prescribed were those which I have in mind, which would be possible under this Bill, we would have to reconsider the whole situation.

There are many aspects of this Bill which are satisfactory and which we could accept but, as I said at the outset, I am still perturbed about section 3 (1). The fact that I am perturbed about it overshadows in my mind, the good aspects that are in the Bill itself. Most of my speech might have appeared to consist of adverse criticism. This was not intentional. I simply wanted to ensure that another look is taken at this subsection so that there will be no doubt about the fact that the Minister will not have the power through this Bill to give further powers under the Traffic Acts, 1961-73, to traffic wardens. I am in favour of a properly trained corps of traffic wardens. A very large proportion of the accidents which occur occur in the vicinity of vehicles which are parked in a dangerous manner, in a prohibited area or in areas where common sense would tell the driver he should not park.

Therefore, if we could reach agreement in relation to the parts of the Bill I am perturbed about, it could perform a useful function. Anything which helps to reduce the shocking death toll on our roads would be very welcome to us. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will help to dispel any doubts I may have and, if necessary, be prepared suitably to amend the Bill. Why is this Bill called the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Bill when it appears to relate to Road Traffic Acts?

That is the whole thing. The whole point the Deputy is missing is that it does not relate to Road Traffic Acts except for one thing. I think Deputy Faulkner will agree with me when I explain it to him later on.

The Minister will also agree that the reference all through the Bill is to Road Traffic Acts. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that section 3 (1) is amended if there is any possible danger that it can be interpreted as I have interpreted it.

I welcome this Bill. Any effort or legislation brought in for better traffic management must be welcomed, particularly in the densely populated urban areas. I am a member of the local authority for Dublin and this responsibility will be passed over to them to operate. A lot of time is taken up by gardaí going to court to deal with very petty offences. I hope this Bill will eliminate a lot of the time taken up on these very minor offences where people opt to go to court. When people who opt to go to court are convicted of one of these minor traffic offences the fines should be quite substantial because of the amount of time taken up with this exercise.

The whole aspect of the traffic warden service, the training and may be the retraining of existing staff will have to be looked at. More staff are required in the Dublin area to ensure that these offences are checked. We realise the amount of illegal parking that goes on which causes a fair amount of chaos and slows down the movement of traffic. When traffic wardens come under the local authorities they will be able to plan and will be able to control traffic to a far greater degree than they have been able to do to date. A lot of point duty work done by gardaí could be taken over by the traffic warden service.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share