Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 2; amendments Nos. 4 and 7 are related to amendment No. 2 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Road Transport Bill, 1998: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 1: In page 3, between lines 16 and 17, the following new definition inserted:
"‘Community licence' means a Community licence for the international carriage of passengers by road for hire or reward (within the meaning of Article 3a (inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No. 11/98 of 11 December 1997f7>(1)) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 684/92 of 16 March 1992f7>(2));".
From 11 June 1999, all operators carrying on international passenger transport operations must hold a Community licence, issued in accordance with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No. 11/98 of 11 December 1997 and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus.
In accordance with these Council regulations, a new Community licence will replace the existing international road passenger transport operations licence granted by the Minister under the European Community Road Passenger Transport Regulations, 1991. This IRPTOL is valid for both national and international operations. Many holders of IRPTOLs do not operate international services but confine their operations to the national market. The existing international operator's licence will therefore remain valid for those operators who will not be carrying on international operations after 11 June 1999. As existing international licences expire, they will be replaced by the new Community licences which will also be valid for national operations.
Amendment No. 1 provides a definition of Community licence in section 1 of the Bill. This is required as the Bill refers to Community licence in a number of sections. Section 4 provides that transport discs shall be issued to holders of existing road freight and road passenger licences in respect of each vehicle on the licence. Transport discs will also be required by the hold ers of the new Community licence for each vehicle. Amendment No. 2 provides that transport discs will also be issued to the holder of a Community licence in respect of each vehicle.
Section 5 prohibits the operation of a vehicle under a road passenger and road freight licence unless a transport disc has been issued in respect of the vehicle. Amendment No. 4 extends this prohibition to the operation of a vehicle under a Community licence issued by the Minister. Under this amendment, vehicles operated under a road freight, road passenger or Community licence must have a transport disc in respect of each vehicle used in such operations. In regard to amendment No. 7, section 12 provides for offences in relation to the authorisation of licensing documents. Amendment No. 7 includes a community licence in the definition of "licensing document" for the purposes of this section.
I am always interested to know why it is necessary to amend legislation in the Seanad very shortly after it has been passed by this House. Seanad amendment No. 1 was a Government amendment. The Minister has told us this amendment to include community licences is necessary because of a Council regulation of 11 December 1997. Is that the case and, if so, why was this House not told about it, given that the European regulation dates from 11 December 1997? The other amendments are technical ones consequential on Seanad amendment No. 1. I would like to know the answer to that for my own satisfaction.
The issue is as the Deputy has put it. As we have already pointed out, the community licence was brought in under European Council regulations. It was then subsequently decided, as a matter of policy, that the community licence was to replace the current international operator's licence. As the Deputy said, the Bill had already been introduced and, accordingly, these four amendments were necessary. It should also be noted that the community licence is subject to the same qualifying conditions as the IRPTOL. We are in a constant learning process. Perhaps this heralds an increased use of the Seanad.
The Minister of State replied to questions I did not ask. I will repeat the question I asked – why did we not know about the EU regulation of 11 December 1997 when this legislation was debated in this House? Was it a total oversight or did someone take their eye off the ball? What is the explanation for it?
It was not an oversight. We had decided to go a certain route but, since then we have decided, on reflection, this particular route is the most efficient and effective one. I stand over that procedure and those decisions. As a result, we now have good, effective legislation, which I suggest is the purpose of amendments.
I still have not got a satisfactory answer but I will not pursue the point.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 4: In page 5, lines 33 to 40, subsection (1) deleted and the following substituted:
"(1) Subject to this section, the Minister shall, on application, issue to the holder of—
(a) a road freight carrier's licence,
(b) a road passenger transport operator's licence, or
(c) a Community licence,
a transport disc in respect of each vehicle to be operated under the licence.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection 2(b), line 46, "of this Act" deleted.
Acting Chairman
This is a drafting amendment and there is probably no need to discuss it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 5: In page 6, subsection (1)(a), line 28, "after the coming into operation" deleted and ", or a Community licence issued, after the commencement" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (5), line 9, "of this section" deleted.
Acting Chairman
This is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 12: In page 9, subsection (3), line 34,
"For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of" deleted and "In" substituted.
This is a minor technical amendment, suggested by the parliamentary draftsman. In section 12(3) the word "In" is being substituted for the words "For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
In page 9, between lines 37 and 38, the following paragraph inserted:
"(c) a Community licence,".
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Seanad amendment No. 10 is cognate on Seanad amendment No. 8 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 13: In page 10, subsection (1)(b), line 9, "omnibus" deleted and "road" substituted.
The word "omnibus" has a specific meaning in the Road Traffic Acts which, if applied to this Bill, would probably have the effect of excluding non-scheduled road passenger services, such as coach tours and excursions. These are among the types of services at which the legislation is aimed. The amendments will ensure that all road passenger operations are encompassed by section 13 which provides for arrest without warrant and section 16 which provides for on-the-spot fines.
It seems strange to have an amendment substituting "omnibus" for "road", but I understand the reason for it. I agree with the amendment. It would be very bad to have legislation which excluded coach tours and excursions. Fortunately, if memory serves, we have been spared a serious tour coach accident, but there have been some very bad accidents in Britain and on the Continent. We must be extremely careful about this. I support the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Seanad amendment No. 11 is related to Seanad amendment No. 9 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, the following subsection inserted:
"(3) Where a person–
(a) when his or her name is required of him or her under subsection (1), refuses or fails to give his or her name and address or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, or
(b) having an address outside the State, when required under subsection (1) to give an address in the State, gives an address which is false or misleading,
such person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.".
This amendment arose on foot of proposals by Deputy Bell's colleague, Deputy Stagg. It has improved the Bill. The amendment provides that it is an offence for a person to refuse to give his or her name and address when required to do so or to give a name and address which is false or misleading. The creation of an offence and penalty in section 13 for failure to give an address when required strengthens the action.
Seanad amendment No. 11 adds a new section to the Bill, which amends section 9 of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Act, 1998, in line with the provisions of section 13 of the Bill. Both section 13 of the Bill and section 9 of the Act contain provisions for ensuring prosecutions where offences are committed in connection with the carriage of merchandise, passengers or dangerous goods by road. The provisions of section 13 of the Bill are more comprehensive than those of section 9 of the Act. The intention of this amendment is to bring these more comprehensive provisions into section 9 of the Act.
It is clearly important that we have as much control as possible over the carriage of dangerous goods by road. I support the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 16: In page 11, subsection (1)(b), line 32, "omnibus" deleted and "road" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Seanad amendment No. 11 was already discussed with Seanad amendment No. 9.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
Section 21: In page 15, before section 21, the following section inserted:
21.–Section 9 of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Act, 1998, is hereby amended by–
(a) the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
‘(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána alleges to a person that the member suspects that such person has committed or is committing an offence resulting from a contravention of this Act or regulations made under section 17 in connection with the operation on a public road of transport equipment, the member may require of such person his or her name and address, and if such person gives an address outside the State, the member may require the person to give to the member an address within the State, which is satisfactory to the member, for the service of any summons, and may, if such person–
(a) fails to give his or her name and address,
(b) gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading, or
(c) having an address outside the State, fails to give an address within the State or gives such an address which the member has reason to doubt is satisfactory for the service of a summons,
arrest such person without warrant.',
(b) in subsection (2), the substitution for ‘subsection (1)(b)' of ‘subsection (1)', and
(c) the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:
‘(3) Where a person–
(a)when his or her name is required of him or her under subsection (1), refuses or fails to give his or her name and address or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, or
(b)having an address outside the State, when required under subsection (1) to give an address in the State, gives an address which is false or misleading,
such person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.'.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
Section 24: In page 15, subsection (2), line 29, "and 18"' deleted and ", 18 and 21" substituted.
This is merely a technical amendment consequential to amendment No. 11, which was the insertion of New Section 21. Section 21 along with sections 17 and 18 relate to Acts other than road transport Acts and are therefore not construed as part of the Principal Act.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
Schedule: In page 16, line 5, "27," deleted.
Section 27 of the Road Transport Act, 1933, gives power to the Minister to proscribe fees. It was wrongly scheduled for repeal and this amendment deletes that section from the repeals schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
That concludes the amendments from the Seanad. Agreement to Seanad amendments is reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.
I thank colleagues for their co-operation and support throughout this procedural stage of the Bill. This is long awaited legislation and we were at one throughout this stage in both Houses. Being an exporting island nation the haulage and road transport sectors are of paramount importance. We now have a Bill in place which will prove effective and efficient and will pave the way to a better future.