Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jun 1986

Vol. 113 No. 4

Dublin Transport Authority Bill, 1985: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 23, between lines 19 and 20, to insert a new subsection as follows:—

(2) (a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a vehicle shall not be parked on the part of a roadway immediately adjacent to either side of a median strip for the purpose of enabling goods to be loaded in or on to it or unloaded from it or for the purpose in enabling a passenger to enter or leave it provided that the Authority gives notice of its intention to restrict the parking referred to in at least one newspaper circulating in the area proposed and shall apply for such period as may be specified in the notice.

(b) Except as otherwise indicated by means of a traffic sign a vehicle shall not during such period as may be specified in an appropriate notice under this subsection be parked on a public road in an area to which this subsection applies or on a public road to which this subsection applies, if the unladen weight of the vehicle exceeds that specified for the purposes of this paragraph in that notice.

(c) This subsection shall come into operation in relation to a particular area of public road specified in a notice under this subsection on such date (not earlier than one month after the date of publication of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.

(d) In this subsection ‘vehicle' includes a vehicle attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle (or to another vehicle attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle) a vehicle constructed or adapted for the purpose of being drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle the drawn component of an articulated vehicle and a vehicle constructed or adapted for use as such drawn component.

(e) This subsection will not apply to any vehicle which is being used in connection with:—

(i) the removal of any obstruction to traffic,

(ii) the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of a street or portion of a street to which this applies,

(iii) the provision, alteration or repair of a sewer, or of any main, drain, pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas, water or electricity or any telegraph or telephone line,

(iv) a fire engine, an ambulance or any vehicle in the service of the Garda Síochána while being used in pursuance of statutory powers or duties.

I gave notice yesterday in the course of my contribution on Second Stage of this Bill of my concern about the parking of articulated trucks and other commercial vehicles in cities like Dublin. This Bill deals with many important environmental improvements by way of the introduction of road humps, bollards and a series of other measures that I welcomed yesterday. My concern is that Dublin City Council passed a series of improvements of by-laws in 1980 which were then dispatched to the Minister for the Environment for his seal of approval. He declined to give his approval to a set of by-laws which would have the effect of designating residential areas as created by the Dublin city development plan, and which could be applied in the Dublin county area also, as areas where the parking of articulated trucks and commercial vehicles would be prohibited. He declined to assent to this by-law and despite many approaches by Dublin Corporation, of which I have been a member for a considerable time, we have not been able to even arrange a delegation with the Minister for the Environment. This goes back further than this Government as we have been trying to make progress in this area for a number of years.

I do not understand why it is not possible to approve of an amendment of this kind which would have the effect of designating areas, identifying the vehicles which would be prohibited to park in certain areas around the city and county of Dublin and giving the necessary release to public service vehicles who have a reason to operate in these areas due to roadworks, ambulances, fire brigades, etc. It is not just a question of handling the environmental advantages which could be dealt with by this amendment but there has been a spate of fatal accidents involving articulated trucks and commercial vehicles that have been badly lit or the roads on which the vehicles are parked are badly lit. This makes the matter all the more urgent. I hope that the Minister, in the course of this debate, can report some progress in relation to what is a very constructive and important point. If there is provision under section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, I do not see why there has been no progress in this area. This is the reason I have sought the inclusion of this amendment.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications (Mr. Nealon)

The subject matter of this amendment can be covered by by-laws or temporary rules of one year's duration under section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Following submission of the amendment we examined the situation and that is the position confirmed by the Department of the Environment.

Under the 1985 Dublin Temporary Rules, Rule 6 (i) prohibits any parking on a median strip or any part of it. Rule 9 excludes goods and passenger vehicles from parking on that part of the roadway immediately adjacent to either side of a median strip but allows any vehicles to park temporarily for loading or unloading purposes in other restricted places but not on a median strip or any part of it.

The problem referred to by the Senator about the 1980 draft by-laws which prohibit the parking of commercial vehicles in residential and other areas, for example overnight, centred on the adequacy of the notification of the operation of such prohibition. A notice in the newspapers on a particular day would not suffice as all persons might not read it. No further proposals for revised by-laws in this matter have been submitted to the Minister for the Environment for approval since then. He will favourably consider any such proposals provided the notification aspect is properly dealt with. On legal advice he has indicated his attitude on this to the Garda Commissioner. This area is adequately covered and the procedures are there for attaining all the desired results that the Senator seeks in his amendment. It is a question of pressing into operation the various regulations under the 1985 Temporary Rules so that the same results as he outlines in his extensive amendment to this section can be achieved.

Mr. Killilea

I see the relevance of Senator FitzGerald's point but I will refer to the original report of Dr. MacCormac on the Dublin Transport Authority. What the Minister has said here today has added more confusion to an already confused area. He is passing it off by saying that the Minister for the Environment would, if submissions were made to him, consider them. It runs right down the line to a whole series of ifs and buts.

The original report clearly pinpointed this matter but the consequences of that report are borne out by the Minister saying that this authority should be an authority in their own right and not subservient to the Minister for the Environment or to the Department of the Environment. It is obvious from what the Minister has said that since 1980 the Department of the Environment have fought a ferocious battle to hold on to their own powers and, as I said on Second Stage, in winning that battle they have consistently and persistently fought to maintain their own rights. Because of that this Bill is weak and washy. Had the Minister been more powerful in his attitude to remain within the framework of the suggestion in the MacCormac report, Senator FitzGerald would have no need whatsoever to put down this amendment. It was a power struggle which has been won by the Department of the Environment and the Minister for the Environment.

We are opposing this Bill because of its shabbiness, and weakness and because it is only an authority in a nominal sense. It has no real powers when it comes to basics, for example, in this instance in the parking of vehicles on public roads which is a major problem throughout this city, the Minister for the Environment has all the power. What I said before still stands. It has been proven conclusively by the remarks made by the Minister that if the Minister for the Environment receives certain submissions, then certain things will be done. That is not the way this matter is going to be dealt with. When business resumes in this city and when the thoroughfares become busy again we are going to have a situation far worse than it was prior to 1980, and that was bad.

I said at the beginning that the whole framework of this Bill is weak. We could not accept it in principle because the principal part if it was an integral plan for the whole of this city comprising every single particle, be it of the Department of the Environment, Dublin Corporation, or be it implicated in CIE, which come within the ambit of the Department of Communications. All of that was being brought into one central administrative unit. That has not been done.

I did not put any amendment down to this Bill because I think it is useless. It is a pointless exercise. The Minister finds himself in the misfortunate situation that the Bill is weak and that this situation is going to continue, because, as we know from history, nobody is going to make submissions. There will be a big wrangle in Dublin Corporation and in Dublin County Council. Everybody is going to go on different roads to suit themselves and at the end of the day there will be total and absolute confusion like before. I will illustrate that further in certain sections of this Bill as they come up.

In fairness, Senator Alexis FitzGerald highlighted the point that the grapples of the Department of the Environment are stuck in here. Nobody has broken them. The Minister for Communications was not capable of breaking them when he set out this Bill on day one. If he had tucked the MacCormac Report under his arm and said this is what we have to do, this is what we must do after the magnificent performance so far as the report was concerned, if he had stuck by it, no Minister or Department could have won against him. Sad to say, the whole thing is weak. It is shabby. This section of the Bill, as was highlighted by Senator Alexis FitzGerald, proves the point. The response given by the Minister confirms that point.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I would like to say in response to the Minister's report on this amendment a few minutes ago, that we have in this Bill, setting up the Dublin Transport Authority, a large area dealing with the parking of vehicles on public roads and how that can be controlled. We go into some finite detail in relation to the traffic warden service, the whole question of parking meters and other possible alternatives to parking meters and so on, yet the area which is causing the most disturbance to a large section of the population in the greater Dublin area is parking of commercial vehicles and articulated trucks in points of great danger which have caused traffic accidents during weekends and every night of the week where the Garda authorities are unable to deal with them: I say that with a certain knowledge of the situation. Unless a commercial vehicle or articulated truck parks on a pavement or on an already designated area where parking is prohibited, the Garda authorities are not in a position to intervene.

This Bill has gone a long distance to deal with the needs for environmental improvement to protect many areas which are being sought publically for a considerable time. I mentioned them earlier. Why can we not seek progress in this area? What is the resistance to it? I do not accept that we have anything like enough reassurance from the Department of the Environment that there will be progress in this area, when all we appear to be getting so far is that if proposals come up that are a bit better than the proposals made the last time they will be considered. That appears to be allowing this matter to go along its merry way for another period of five or six years. We have had five or six years already. It is an area which I am convinced needs to be dealt with. There will be another period of many years before this matter is adequately dealt with. We do not seem to be getting enough stir from the Department of the Environment. They appear to be sitting on this area, quite unconcerned about making progress on it. The value of including an amendment like this in the Bill would be that we would have the opportunity of highlighting this area to the Authority once it is in operation. That Authority would see to it that one of the primary concerns of the Bill, from an environmental point of view and from the point of view of dealing with road safety, would get priority once the Authority are set up.

At the very least, I hope we will be able to get more progress on this matter between this Committee Stage and Report Stage and, if necessary, that Report Stage be held over to another day in order to see some definite indication from the Department of the Environment that they are going to move on the constant requests which have been received from Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council in relation to this matter. I do not see why one cannot expect a little more than: "If you come up with the suggestions and if they are a bit better than the ones you had the last time, we will consider them." The Department should be in a position now to come forth with proposals similar to the ones I suggested earlier on approved designation of areas under the city development plan, areas zoned for one purpose or another, including some zoned as residential areas. I do not see why it would not be possible to give public notice that in residential areas from X date, or in certain residential areas from X date, the parking of these vehicles will be prohibited. I do not understand the Department of the Environment reservation that some fellow who happens to park his vehicle in a particular area will not know about the notice. Notices are put in the newspapers about all sorts of matters. We will be doing it very soon in relation to the creation of these smoke free zones under the Air Polution Bill, 1986. I do not see why it is not necessary for the Department of the Environment to go along the road a bit further than what their response is to date and come up with some serious proposals on which this matter can be seen to be addressed and dealt with and that we will see some progress in the area. I hope we can have over a matter of days a more serious response than we are getting this morning.

Mr. Nealon

I fully realise the difficulties which arise so far as parking is concerned in the Dublin area. These have been articulated by Senator FitzGerald. As I already pointed out there is sufficient power, through the by-laws and temporary rules, if they are activated and followed up by the local authorities. What happens here is the transfer to the Dublin Transport Authority, in respect of its functional area, of the powers of the Garda Commissioner to make by-laws under section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. That means that the Dublin Transport Authority can take the initiative in this respect. They are the people who can be the motivators in ensuring that proper use is made of the by-laws and of the temporary routes in order to attain the desired effect. There was national application of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, and when I say the DTA, naturally that is for their own functional area. The Garda Commissioner will continue to make the by-laws for the rest of the country. The precise flow, if one can describe it as such, that emerged in the 1980 draft by-laws was notified to the Garda Commissioner, who is the person who makes these by-laws with the consent of the Minister for the Environment after consulting the local authority.

The lack of progress since 1980 raises the question of the local authorities concerned in this matter, why it has not been followed up since and the flaw remedied? They should reactivate the matter now. Section 33 has the advantage of transferring to the Dublin Transport Authority, for its own functional area, the power of the Garda Commissioner to make these by-laws. Therefore, I expect that there would be much greater initiative taken in this respect. If the Garda Commissioner deals with the entire country, the Dublin Transport Authority would be concerned with its own functional area where the parking problem is very acute, as outlined by both Senator FitzGerald and Senator Killilea. The necessary power is there, although to a certain extent it may be cumbersome. The transfer now to the Dublin Transport Authority will introduce a new dynamic into that so far as parking is concerned. It will be adequate to get round the difficulties that Senator Fitzgerald has outlined in his amendment and which have been pointed out also by Senator Killilea in this debate.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

Is it possible for the Minister to outline what the difficulties were on the last occasion in 1980?

Mr. Nealon

The problem arose so far as the notification was concerned. A notice in the newspaper on a particular day was not regarded as sufficient as all persons might not have seen it. This is the area where the difficulty arose. No further proposals or revised by-laws in this matter have been submitted to the Minister for the Environment for approval since then. As I indicated earlier, he will consider favourably any such proposals provided that the notification aspect, which was the difficulty in the previous case, is properly dealt with. He has indicated this previously to the Garda Commissioner on legal advice.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I and colleagues of mine have taken part not just in the corporation but also in the county council debates on this matter over the last number of years. There have been requests on a number of occasions since 1980 for deputations to be received by the Minister for the Environment. This has not been acceded to. There was one made about one year ago and the matter still travels on. The request was made on the last occasion by the present Lord Mayor in order to highlight the concern of the City Council and the widespread feeling that exists in the city that this matter should be resolved.

If we have not seen progress by way of the proposal that was made in 1980 and if there has been a constant stream of requests for discussions as to the manner in which this matter might be tackled and how the technical difficulties could be resolved, would it not be possible for us to have a report back on Report Stage of this Bill — which could be taken on a separate occasion or a different day — which would indicate the alternatives the Department of the Environment would suggest in relation to bringing a by-law of this kind into force? The alternative I suggested was that the whole matter of notice could be related to the city development plan, the zoning of residential areas and the indication that these residential zones could, bit by bit, affect the parts of the city most vulnerable to this problem. Perhaps we could get from the Department of the Environment, since we do not seem to be able to get it any other way, some serious response in relation to how this matter could be tackled.

I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment on the understanding that on Report Stage, which would be taken on a separate occasion, there would be a report back from the Department of the Environment with a much more detailed response. I do not understand why it has to be all a one-way track. Traffic officials in the city of Dublin have got to come up with proposals all the time. Why can we not hear now something from the Department of the Environment in relation to how this matter could be tackled in a reasoned way, overcoming the technical difficulties as they see them at this time?

Mr. Killilea

I agree with the suggestions expressed by Senator FitzGerald. While Report Stage is important and probably the Minister expected the Report Stage today, it might be tactically good to do exactly what Senator FitzGerald says, to see if we can extract something more from the Department now. They have put their backs to the wall. Sections 37, 38, 40 and 49 will show that the whole exercise is a waste of time unless something positive is put into this Bill, some teeth are given to this section and many other sections also. Unless the Dublin Transport Authority get some teeth we are wasting our time here and I do not intend to waste any more of it. The Minister has the opportunity to have a rethink and he should arm himself with the MacCormac report again and leave it down on the table in front of those in the Department of the Environment so that they can digest it.

Mr. Nealon

The Minister for the Environment, on the advice of the Attorney General, did not approve the by-laws we are talking about because of the doubts that existed in regard to bringing cases arising out of them to the courts. They would not stand up in court for the reason I mentioned. This was the subject of a fairly extensive submission by the Minister for the Environment to the Garda Commissioner pointing out that there is no question of the Minister for the Environment having refused as such. He simply outlined the situation to the Garda Commissioner who is the person responsible in this area. Since that, nothing has been submitted. So far as he is concerned there have been no proposals submitted to him since that time. He has said he will favourably consider any such proposals that come along. Naturally, we are all anxious to see that there is an appropriate solution for what is unquestionably a problem. With the regulations as they are, with the transfer to the DTA of responsibility for making the by-laws and the temporary rules for Dublin and the new initiative that that will give — they will be taking the place of the Garda Commissioner in this respect as far as their functional area is concerned — we have the necessary requirements here.

The discussion here in the Seanad and the contributions by Senator FitzGerald and Senator Killilea will draw attention to this matter and introduce a new dynamic and urgency into it. I will be very pleased to bring this discussion and the points arising out of it to the attention of the Minister for the Environment immediately.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

At this stage, six years after the original by-laws were introduced, and were despatched to the Minister for his signature, there has been little communication on this matter despite requests for deputations from both the County Council and the Corporation of Dublin who are affected by this Dublin Transport Authority Bill. I ask that we get a more serious and considered response than just that the proposals were not technically suitable, that the Attorney General did not approve of the particular drafting of the proposals in relation to notice. Could we not get from the Department a more substantial reply which would indicate the kind of format that controls on these vehicles which have caused accidents will take. I know of a number of fatal accidents which have resulted from the parking of these vehicles, quite apart from the stress it causes to widespread areas of this city where these vehicles park in an uncontrolled fashion and where nobody can do anything about it. The incentive to use the commercial lorry parks that are available is not there because the parking of these vehicles can be done so freely.

I would hope that we could see on Report Stage some substantial response from the Department of the Environment indicating the form that controls could take and indicating perhaps also when a deputation could be received from the relevant local authorities who have an interest in this matter and who have been unable to make progress for a considerable time. I am not convinced that the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority will mean progress on this matter for a number of years. I feel at this point we could, even before the Transport Authority is set up, perhaps see some useful development on this matter, which is a cause of great concern in the Dublin area. The single most universal complaint received by the traffic authority in Dublin is in relation to this matter. I insist on it for this reason.

Mr. Nealon

The obtaining of the report will obviously take some time. It is something that we had not been able to get working on until the amendment came in. What surprises me is that the corporation have not been very active on this area over the past number of years since the difficulty arose. Equally the initiative could have come from the Garda Commissioner. No further proposals for revised by-laws in this matter have been submitted to the Minister for the Environment since this difficulty arose. He would look on it very favourably. The position is that there has been agreement that all stages of the Bill will be taken today. I certainly will do all I can to obtain this report and find all the details regarding it. That would involve the corporation as well as the Garda Commissioner and the Department of the Environment. I would be glad to have that report circulated to the Senators who are expressing concern in this debate. I was anxious that we would get the Report Stage today.

Mr. Killilea

Therein lies a problem. The Minister again has compounded the problem. He wondered why Dublin Corporation did not do certain things. He wondered why the Garda Commissioner did not do certain things. He wondered why the Department of the Environment did not do certain things. The MacCormac report concluded that the major problem as regards the chaotic situation throughout the city was that too many cooks were spoiling the broth. The purpose of the Dublin Transport Authority was to put everything together into one central administrative body. If you take as an example the work done by the task force in the matter of the bus lanes. Look at the significant difference that has been brought about in this city by the implementation of the bus lanes. The bus lanes have created a free flow of traffic in the city in so far as that is possible. They took on board that part of the MacCormac report. They went out and they applied it. They got their act together and the result of it was that at least the buses of this city are running and are not jammed or clogged up like we used to see them in 1979 and 1980. That is an acknowledged fact. This is a reasonable request by Senator FitzGerald with which I agree.

The powers for this should rest clearly and unequivocally with the new Dublin Transport Authority. The power of implementation of regulations made by other bodies is what the authority has, not of making them themselves. That is the basic weakness in this Bill. It is throughout it. That is a reasonable request and we can deal with it next week or the following week.

Mr. Nealon

A point I would like to get over is that the law gives the Garda Commissioner, after consultation with the local authority, the right to make these by-laws. They have to be finally sanctioned by the Minister because he is the man responsible for the environment.

Mr. Killilea

But under the MacCormac report that was to be taken away from him.

Mr. Nealon

What is happening in this case is that responsibility is transferred from the Garda Commissioner as far as by-laws in the Dublin area are concerned to the Dublin Transport Authority. They will be the people and it is a matter for them to take the initiative in this respect. The Minister for the Environment being the person responsible for road traffic, has to give the final sanction.

Mr. Killilea

Why is the Minister for Communications not the Minister responsible? Why has it to be the Minister for the Environment?

Mr. Nealon

That is a wider canvas than we can possibly cover.

Mr. Killilea

If you go back to the MacCormac report it is very specific on that particular field.

Mr. Nealon

The MacCormac report does not have the standing of legislation.

Mr. Killilea

It was adopted unanimously by the Government at that time. Every Member of this House and the other House agreed with it.

Mr. Nealon

That does not constitute legislation. What I am saying is that I think there is a reasonable structure on the ground for obtaining the desired result of this amendment. As an ordinary citizen travelling around Dublin, I can see the difficulties that arise. However, I believe the framework is there. It will be greatly strengthened with the Dublin Transport Authority replacing the Garda Commissioner. The law will now give the Dublin Transport Authority the right to make these by-laws. They will be much more vigorous as far as making these by-laws are concerned. They will not have a nationwide brief. They will have the brief for their own area. They can meet all of the requirements in this section and I hope the Senator will be in a position to withdraw the amendment. I have a difficulty as regards Report Stage.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I am not clear on the difficulty as regards the Report Stage other than a tacit agreement in this House. Is there any other particular difficulty?

Mr. Nealon

No. I was very anxious to get it today. That was the general agreement, that all Stages would be taken today.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

Can the Minister give me any reason to expect progress before the Dublin Transport Authority is set up and operational? Obviously, there will be very many preoccupations in the initial stages of its development. Can we expect that in the early stages of the formation of the Authority we will see some progress in this area and that it will be given priority? We have seen six years pass. Are we likely to see another three or four before there will be a development on this matter? Would it not be possible for the Minister to at least use his good offices with the Minister for the Environment to arrange at a very early date a meeting between the corporation, the county council and the Garda Síochána, as Senator Killilea suggests, that would not be a meeting expecting progress from one side only but from the other side also. We would have on the table the format of the various ways of getting over the technical difficulties of introducing a prohibition in relation to the parking of these offending vehicles.

I do not want to make a song and dance about this matter. But if you are living in a pleasant little Victorian street and every night in front of your house somebody who lives three or four doors from you parks a vast vehicle, as happens everywhere in the built-up areas of this city, the environment is offended in a very serious way and it becomes a major hazard to road users. I was at a funeral only three months ago of two girls who worked in the housing department of the city and who were killed outright when they drove into an unlit vehicle of this kind in Cork street. These vehicles are often parked in most unsuitable places. The Garda authorities have as of now no control whatsoever on these vehicles provided they are not parked in a place that is prohibited or controlled in some other way. The least I might expect from this amendment is that we would have some assurance that soon the Minister — perhaps this side of the summer would be a reasonable request — will get a meeting held that would take on this matter in a much more serious fashion than we have had to date.

Mr. Nealon

In making the order bringing various sections of this Bill into operation and effect, the Minister for Communications will, I can assure the House, take into consideration all the various points raised and in particular this serious matter that has been the subject of discussion over the past while. I will pass along the request to the Minister for the Environment and will also ensure that the Minister for Communications passes it along so that such a meeting as the Senator has outlined will take place. We have the Minister's guarantee that he will consider favourably any such proposals brought to him. The proposals can in the future be brought to him by the Dublin Transport Authority, and he will obviously be prepared for a meeting as the Senator visualises.

I am naturally extremely keen because I have some personal experience of precisely the difficulty that Senator FitzGerald has just alluded to as far as the parking of huge articulated trucks in the Dublin area is concerned. Before returning to live in my own constituency of Sligo-Leitrim I lived in the city centre area where this was becoming a continuous problem and was of enormous visual offence, but that is another matter. It created a major traffic hazard as far as the children in particular in the area were concerned. Efforts were made — but it had to be on a totally voluntary basis — to have these trucks removed from the area, not always with a successful outcome. All residential areas are unsuited for this use of the street space. I am very sympathetic to the intent and import of the contents of the Senator's amendment and all that has been said here by Senators Killilea and FitzGerald on that matter. I will certainly press extremely strongly for the meeting that he has spoken of. I have no doubt that with that and the Dublin Transport Authority, if the various orders have been made bringing it into operation at that time, results will be achieved in this area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 33 agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Killilea

Line 39, subsection (2) (i) reads:

...fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle while it remains in the place where he finds it,

Would the Minister define "vehicle" for me?

Mr. Nealon

Subsection (2) is the main provision for wheel clamping which is a new introduction in this area. It allows an authorised person or person acting under his direction to wheel clamp.

Mr. Killilea

Would the Minister define "vehicle" for me?

Mr. Nealon

I understand that it involves any vehicle as such.

Mr. Killilea

"Vehicle" is a very broad word. Does it include an articulated truck? Does it include a four-wheeled propelled motor car or van? Does it include a closed-in propelled vehicle of any size or nature? Does it include caravans and mobile homes? They are all vehicles because under the Act when you are insuring your car you are insured for trailers of all types and descriptions. I would like to know if trailers are included in the definition of "vehicle". "Vehicle" has to be more clear. We have major problems around this city and around every city in the country as regards vehicles. We have the eternal problem of all the different authorities responsible for the different things done to those vehicles. There are the Garda, the corporation, the county councils, and by-laws.

Would the Minister please tell me what "vehicle" means? More importantly, what about the disused immobile vehicles we see scattered all over the city, parts taken out of them, dumps made of them? Are they included under "vehicle", because if they are one could see it having a bit of teeth — if they could go out and take away and compound or do what they wished with them if they were causing an obstruction on property owned by the county council or corporation. It is about time we faced up to the reality of this situation. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell me.

Mr. Nealon

"Vehicle" here has the widest possible meaning. It is not restricted. It is the dictionary meaning. Therefore it covers all of the things mentioned by the Senator. It has the widest possible meaning and anything that can be moved and those which are no longer mobile are covered as well. This widest terminology is very deliberately chosen.

Mr. Killilea

Good.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Question proposed: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Killilea

As regards section 37 we have a new definition of "omnibus." I would like if the Minister would tell me what he means by "omnibus". Does it include CIE or does it exclude CIE? Section 37 (1) refers to "Omnibus stopping places and stands". Does it include CIE?

Mr. Nealon

It does.

Mr. Killilea

Is it proper for an ombibus of any description to stop at an ombibus sign or a bus sign as we know it? Who has the right to stop at a bus stop? Have all omnibuses the right to stop at a bus stop in Dublin city or is it just selectively for CIE?

Mr. Nealon

It depends on the nature of the bus stop. These stops are erected as such by CIE and they are their particular stops.

Mr. Killilea

So we have selectivity now as regards bus stops. A bus stop says "bus stop". It should now, under the law, say it is an "omnibus stop". It is stopping on property which is under the regulation of either Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council or, if it ever reaches it, the Dublin Transport Authority. I cannot see under the law how CIE can control certain areas for themselves. If an omnibus stop is erected would it not include all buses? I am not saying that all buses might use it but selectivity in this field cannot be given to anybody under the European regulations. Under the regulations there cannot be a monopoly situation created by a local authority and here we are creating one. It is a simple question. The Minister rightly said omnibus means all. It means CIE and all types of transport carriers on the one hand under section 37. Then we are talking about stopping places and stands and go on to say: "But CIE have a special place to stop for themselves, no one else can stop there." That cannot be. I would like a further explanation from the Minister because I do not think he is acting legally in this field. Just because CIE erect a stop it does not mean it belongs to them.

Mr. Nealon

As the Senator is aware the main providers of buses and bus services are CIE. There are very few who do not belong to CIE operating on this particular basis.

Mr. Killilea

There are a few. I would like to know are they legally correct?

Mr. Nealon

As far as stops are concerned it is a matter for the Garda. I understand that people operating buses may be permitted by the Garda to use the stops and if so allowed they can stop at these particular stops.

Mr. Killilea

Under this Bill you are taking the powers away from the Garda and giving them to the authority. Where do the authority say they can stop?

Mr. Noonan

The Dublin Transport Authority will decide then under the statutory provisions where precisely these people can stop. It will have the power of making these decisions under the various statutory provisions.

Mr. Killilea

Would the Minister not be more definitive about this matter? This is a very important area. Selectivity cannot be allowed and the Minister, I am sure, would not allow it himself. I think there is an omission here. He should have time to go back. The original request by Senator Alexis Fitzgerald would give him breathing space to bring in an amendment here next week to clearly state that the Dublin Transport Authority under the EC regulations have no right or legal standing to define a certain place for a single public utility. After all, many of those omnibuses are licensed omnibuses. I know several of the operators who come to town on Saturday. They are all licensed by the Minister's Department to come into this town. They have the same licences as CIE have. I cannot understand why they cannot stop at a bus stop. I think what CIE have put on their bus stops is actually illegal — CIE bus stop. It is a facility created to allow people to get on or off a licensed omnibus. It was never given as a licence to get on or off a CIE bus. It was an omnibus licence. They have the same licence as the operators have to bring people to this city on Saturday. If the Minister wants to give further details I will even instance the licence number that allows an omnibus from my part of the world to come up to this city every Saturday of the month. They have the same licence that CIE have. We must be more specific. I plead with the Minister at this particular stage to put an amendment in here to clarify this situation so that we will be, as the Constitution states, cherishing our people equally. The EC regulations also state that you cannot have a monopoly. We are in an open competitive world and competition is the spice of the trade. I am not one bit afraid of it and I do not think CIE are either. I think they have improved immensely since they were woken up from their deep slumbers. They have improved their services and this will improve them further. If an omnibus pulls in at a bus stop, which it is entitled to do, to let a person embark or disembark from the propelled vehicle, can that vehicle have claws put on it and be swept off to the compound because it pulled in at a bus stop?

Mr. Nealon

As regards the question of bus stops, there is provision for their approval in the 1961 Act. We are not making new legislation in this case.

Mr. Killilea

What section of the 1961 Act?

Mr. Nealon

I will have that for you in a moment, Senator. Anyone providing a bus service can request the Garda under the 1961 Act for a suitable stop. As far as the Dublin area is concerned that function will be transferred to the Dublin Transport Authority. It is the Road Traffic Act, 1961, section 85. We are not making any changes as far as the legislation is concerned. What we are doing under section 37 is transferring the power that existed for the Garda to the Dublin Transport Authority. As far as the buses coming from a provincial area or otherwise are concerned, what they can do is make a request to the Dublin Transport Authority as far as stops in the Dublin city area or its functional area are concerned. Naturally the Dublin Transport Authority will have to take into consideration the traffic situation and volume of traffic. There is no prohibition other than those considerations on giving stops. It will now be a matter, as it formerly was for the Garda, for the Dublin Transport Authority.

Mr. Killilea

Will we have two different types of stops then? Are we going to have a CIE stop and a private bus stop? Naturally enough Parnell Square is not capable of handling the situation on a Friday evening. It is illogical that people should be forced to go into such a situation and rush right around that Square to find their local bus to bring them home for the weekend. I take that as an exam ple. The Dublin people would probably know more about this better than I would and I would like to hear a few comments from them. Would it not be far better if the west-bound traffic were based along the quays, the south-bound traffic based along Dame Street and the north-bound traffic based on the north outlets rather than having the whole of the travelling public assemble in one point?

I honestly believe that the Minister is quite wrong. I do not think that CIE have an exclusive right to claim a CIE bus stop. I have not seen that section of the Act, section 85 of the 1961 Act. They have applied for permission to stop but I do not think they have applied for permission to put their sign up to say that this is a CIE stop. I do not see any reason why some of those stops could not be used, for example — and it should be enshrined in this Act — by omnibus operators of all descriptions, including CIE. I do not think they have a sole right and I do not think they have any right whatsoever to claim it as a CIE bus stop. It is an omnibus stop under the Act because; that is what is written down here. I think "stops" and "stands" are the same thing but perhaps the "stand" is where there is an end to the route on either side. Some of those rural buses coming in here on a Sunday night around 10 or 11 o'clock or whatever time they arrive in the city should have the right to distribute their passengers around the city at certain centre points. I do not see any reason why the existing bus stops which are, after all, only bus stops should not be used for this purpose. I think that is fair comment and I would like a response from the Minister on that point. I would like to know if CIE have a right to put their name up on these bus stops.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I presume a difficulty would arise if other private omnibus concerns were to seek permission to put up bus stops on streets in which CIE already have their own provision by way of bus stops. Are we not in a ludicrous situation here where we could have a number of omnibus concerns competing for stops? I take the point made by Senator Killilea in relation to the congestion these buses could cause in Parnell Square on a Friday evening and at other times over the weekends. Surely there must be a way of facilitating other omnibus operators at CIE bus stops. He makes a very real point which deserves a response.

Mr. Nealon

It is not necessary to have two kinds of stops. I accept that. It depends very much on the circumstances of the bus, the needs that it is serving, where it is going, and ensuring easy access and easy departure. I think what Senator Killilea has said about the different locations of buses of private operators heading for the provincial areas is something that obviously is going to have to be considered in the interest of traffic and easy movement. As far as the stops are concerned, it is a fact that CIE have paid for the various stops; they are the people who erected these signs. I think that if anyone else was using them it would be reasonable to ask that they should contribute towards the cost also. I do not think it should be at the expense of the taxpayers.

The position regarding the bus going out to Wicklow is that they do not have actual signs, but they have established a location at which they traditionally stop. As far as Dublin city is concerned it is the Green on one side and as far as Bray is concerned it is the Town Hall. People know down the years that that is the particular location as far as these buses are concerned so that they do not use the stops. The number of stops in any particular street was governed by traffic considerations. These are all matters that will come under the Dublin Transport Authority.

I agree about the difficulties — I experienced difficulty myself — that are arising in the congestion taking place at the point of origin for all of the provincial buses particularly on a weekend, or on a Friday evening. This is something that would have to be considered and a system would have to be developed by the Dublin Transport Authority in the interest of the free flow of traffic into and out of the city and for the convenience of the people operating these buses.

Mr. Killilea

Thank you. I feel that those omnibuses using this facility would be far better stopping at an existing bus stop than stopping at points that may cause traffic hazards. There is harassment going on at the moment of the major bus companies that I know of, particularly those serving the westward routes. The police are actually chasing them because they cannot stop where there is no official bus stop sign. They should actually be allowed to stop and should have allowed designated bus stops, not CIE bus stops necessarily, but certain bus stops with a sign saying "Bus stop" or "Omnibus stop". You have a choice. This should be done quite quickly.

Mr. Nealon

The Dublin Transport Authority will have the power in this area. One of the difficulties is that one group of buses may be blocking another. Naturally we want to get rid of that particular circumstance. The power exists for orderly operation. There should not be any reason why preferential treatment should be given to anyone in this particular respect. All we should seek is the best possible flow of traffic and the easiest entrance and departure for the buses.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I just want to raise a technical point in relation to drafting here. We have under section 40, subsection (5), "a person who contravenes a direction or by-laws under this section shall be guilty of an offence." Are we not talking about statutory undertakers here rather than individuals? The whole question here relates to advance notice on proposed roadworks and reinstatement of roadways following works by those involved. It would seem to me that the likelihood of individuals seeking permission to open up a section of roadway is rather remote. We really are speaking here of the statutory undertakers and perhaps they should be so named.

Mr. Nealon

The section includes the bodies such as the Senator talks about. It would be invidious to start naming any of those in particular. It would be most unlikely that you would have to deal with an individual person as such. What is involved here includes the natural or the legal person, a legal person being any of the various organisations which might be concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 41 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 49.

Question proposed: "That section 49 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Killilea

This concerns casual trading, and it is not at all specific. Paragraph (b) states:

Bye-laws under subsection (8) of this section shall not be made in relation to the functional area of the Dublin Transport Authority without the prior approval of that Authority.

We have not gone half far enough here. If one travels out of any of the main thoroughfares from this city one can see the flouting of commercial trading practice, which is not given the real bite that it should be given in this Bill which should have been used to get its teeth into this major problem of roadside traders around the city. It is very lacking as regards machinery to bring this matter up to the proper standards required today. It gets a couple of lines in the whole of the Bill when it should have got a full page defining strong, firm action. It is very lacking in this regard.

Mr. Nealon

This section requires the approval of the Dublin Transport Authority for the designation by the relevant local authority under the Casual Trading Act of the casual trading areas in the functional area of the Dublin Transport Authority or for the making of by-laws in relation to casual trading. Casual trading means areas where goods can be sold by retail or off stands to which the public have access as of right. Public roads, squares etc. are designated for casual trading by the relevant local authorities. This could have very serious consequences for the traffic flows or for parking arrangements. Very often we find this casual trading takes place on the main arteries or in the areas where people are inclined to congregate. This could have an effect on matters within the general remit of the Dublin Transport Authority. It is, of course, for the local authorities to licence casual traders and the roadside traders to whom Deputy Killilea has referred come under this. It is within the local authorities' remit to prosecute those who operate without the necessary licence. This section requires the approval of the Dublin Transport Authority for the designation by the relevant local authority of the particular areas in which casual trading can take place. This is a necessary requirement. Deputy Killilea has said that it does not go far enough but it gives considerable powers in this respect to the Dublin Transport Authority for its own area. Of course, the rest of the country is not covered by this.

Mr. Killilea

To give power is one thing but when you go to court it is a matter of interpretation. I think the interpretation should have been written into this Bill and not be left to people who can play around with phraseology and words. That is where it is lacking. Again we have missed the opportunity to put a bit of bite into this Bill and say what is meant clearly and unequivocally. I take offence when I compare that section of the Bill and section 53. It is outrageous to think that a man would be fined £50,000 or 12 months in jail — this is clearly and unequivocally printed into the Bill — for an offence under sections 17, 18 or 19 of the Bill and here we have roadside traders foisting inferior commodities without any sense of responsibility on gullible people who might think that they are going to get value. The Minister has gone off the beam here altogether when he did not include in the Bill a specific interpretation so that the courts and lawyers will not spend days wrangling over interpretation. It should have been far more specific. I would appreciate it if the Minister would reconsider that situation.

This nonsense is allowed to go on year after year. It is causing traffic problems on arterial roads. If one wanted planning permission from any of the county councils for a house or an entrance to bring out stock along any of these roads, one would have the greatest problems and might not get it. Yet these traders can pull up wherever they like and trade in inferior commodities. Not to have put in a specific penalty here shows that the Minister has slipped up again by not grasping this problem.

Mr. Nealon

Again I note what is happening with regard to casual trading. That is dealt with under the Casual Trading Act, 1980.

Mr. Killilea

That is more of it. This is the point I am trying to make. All through this the buck is being passed to somebody else. That is why this Bill will not and cannot work and why it is inferior. The Minister did not take the MacCormac report and use it to get proper legislation through this House where you can take this authority away from those people who are not complying with the law and give it to the Dublin Transport Authority. This Bill should be the weapon to use for all of this. Control of casual trading should be included in this Bill. This is legislation that has been proven over the years to be necessary. What we are doing here is passing the buck. When the question gets hot we pass the buck instead of taking this opportunity to enshrine these necessary provisions in the Bill and make it a proper Bill. It will not be a proper Bill. Nobody will hear about this in 20 years time other than permission to stop or not to stop in some place around town. It is a shame that the whole effort is being wasted.

Mr. Nealon

I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the Dublin Transport Authority Bill should be used as a vehicle for the total revamping of the Casual Trading Act, 1980. The Dublin Transport Authority Bill specifically gives the power to the Dublin Transport Authority as regards the designation by the relevant local authority of an area for casual trading. In other words, the local authority cannot act in this respect without the approval of the Dublin Transport Authority and that is as a result of the transport considerations involved. Under the Casual Trading Act, 1980, unlicensed casual trading or casual trading outside the casual trading area is an offence subject to a maximum penalty of £5,000 and/or six months in prison. Similar penalties apply to breaches of the relevant by-laws of the local authority. While I know of the difficulty that exists as regards casual trading and enforcement of the law and the penalties arising out of breaches of that law I do not believe this measure could have gone any further than the section which requires the approval of the Dublin Transport Authority for the designation of casual trading areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 50 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 53.

Question proposed: "That section 53 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Killilea

In relation to section 53 (1) (i) and (ii) could the Minister explain where he got the figure of £50,000 for sections 18, 19 and 40? How can the Minister expect this House to impose such penalties when he has let go the major obstacles? Surely the Minister does not consider that this House would be so tolerant as to accept such nonsensical figures? It is like looking for penalties in telephone numbers. A fine of £50,000 is unreasonable and I have to oppose this section.

Mr. Nealon

The important point is that while the maximum penalties are on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £1,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, on conviction on indictment of a fine not exceeding £50,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, the actual penalty will be for the courts to decide. Section 18 deals with unauthorised disclosure of information by a member of the Authority: section 19 deals with failure by a member of the Authority to disclose a beneficial interest in matters being dealt with by the Authority and section 40 deals with unauthorised roadworks. All of these matters can have major implications. Obviously, any breach of these laws could have serious consequences for the work being carried out and the efficient running — or the running at all — of the activities of the Dublin Transport Authority. In the circumstances the penalties should be severe enough to deter from any breach of these sections. The maximum penalty provided in section 53 takes due account of the gravity of the offence by enabling the bringing of indictment proceedings if warranted rather than summary proceedings involving a much lower penalty on conviction. On a summary conviction the fine will not exceed £1,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

The actual penalty imposed will, as I said, be a matter for the courts to decide. Section 53 (1) states the maximum penalty. The maximum penalties we have outlined for the disclosure of unauthorised information by a member of the Authority which would be relevant to the Authority's activities, failure to disclose beneficial interest and unauthorised roadworks, are not unreasonable. In any case, the penalties will be decided by the courts and they, no doubt, will take into consideration all of the relevant factors and any ameliorating circumstances that may arise when a penalty is being imposed and the gravity or otherwise of an offence. There is a whole range of penalties, even on conviction, that can be applied by the court and the judges will use their own discretion in deciding on the gravity of the offence. It is intended, because of the potential damage that could be done and the necessity to prevent repetition of the offences and to deter people who have committed offences that in addition to the punishment for these breaches there should be the scope for a £50,000 fine. But again it is a matter for the courts who will take all the relevant factors into consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 54 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for Final Consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Killilea

The Bill is a long way from what was enshrined in the MacCormac report. The Minister for Communications has failed totally to grasp the intention of that report and this is tragic. The need for the MacCormac report was obvious to any commuter in the Dublin area. The report was unanimously adopted within three weeks of its publication by the then Government. Two months later the task force, which was proposed in the MacCormac report, were on the streets and working headed by a Mr. Fitzpatrick, if my memory serves me correctly. A tremendous change was brought about by the commitment of the task force to do the work set out in the MacCormac report. The main thrust of the report was to be the Dublin Transport Authority Bill and six years later we have a Bill before us which lacks the initiative, drive or effort to grasp the situation. Of course the same problems do not prevail in the city today as did then. The thrust of business has dropped quite significantly from the thrust of business of those days, when this city was absolutely snarled up by traffic, the worst in the world. If business resumes in this city to the same extent as in 1977, 1979 and 1980, then we will see exactly the same thing again. Section 33, the section to which Senator Alexis Fitzgerald put down an amendment which he withdrew, and sections 37, 38, 40 and 49 are the parts of the Bill which should have put the bite into this authority. There is no doubt in my mind now that the Minister for the Environment and the Department of the Environment, as they did in 1980 when that report came out, dug their heels in deep and held on firmly to their powers. Hence the reason that we get this garbled version.

Any of the issues that were brought up then as the hot potato of the snarling up of traffic have been bypassed today. We had the Minister here on an issue concerning street trading, which was pushed off to some other old Bill that was passed a couple of years ago. This has not been implemented and will not be implemented now by this new Dublin Transport Authority Bill. We had the same situation in sections 38, 40 and 49. The whole plan of this city was at that time envisaged within this Bill. I do not see much of it now. Under sections 17, 18 and 40 I see penalties for digging up the road, running to figures of £50,000 and five years in jail, when other far more serious, and far more costly matters are being passed by. I do not know if the Minister will be able to do something at this late stage. Obviously he could not do it before this, and he will not be able to do it now because the Department and the Minister for the Environment dug his heels in.

I am delighted to be assured by the Minister that the bus stop signs around this city are not the sole possession of CIE. I have asked a very pertinent question. I believe there is a Bill coming in soon according to what the Minister said earlier on, concerning the omnibus situation in general. I hope those matters will be brought out and that we will get a Bill where regulations will be brought in so that all people will have the right to function within this area equally, competitively and honourably and that the sneaking allegations made will stop and that competition will be seen as a good thing for society. I am very disappointed with the Bill. It is not what it should be. Professor MacCormac and his team must feel very shocked now at what has evolved from what they thought were very pertinent questions at that time.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I would like to contrast somewhat with Senator Killilea in that I do not think this Bill has been a Bill of missed opportunity. We have seen quite a bit of progress in dealing with the long-standing objective of getting a Transport Authority on its way. The Bill deals with the important matter of planning the operation of road and rail transport in the future. I hope that the bias contained in this Bill towards the greater use of public transport will be seen to operate. We will not be able to plan the future of the city and county of Dublin purely on the basis of reacting to the need of vehicles, be they private or public. We will have to see what can be done to develop the public transport system in such a way as to retain the character and attraction of Dublin as a city. I made some points yesterday in my Second Stage speech about the unfortunate decision of the Minister for the Environment relating to the Patrick's Street-Nicholas Street compulsory purchase order and I will not repeat them now. We have in this Bill very many important environmental improvements, areas of progress with the Department of the Environment, which have been achieved. I hope that when the Dublin Transport Authority is formed — I presume the Minister will be able to indicate when this body is likely to be functioning — we will see many of these proposals improving the environment of the city and county.

Mr. Cregan

I would like to make one point. Listening to Senator Killilea an impression might be got that the Bill only speaks for the Transport Authority but looking at it from the point of view of Cork city, development plans have been set up over the last few years, and I know that the Dublin city development plan has been implemented within the last few years. This Bill ties in with the relevant plans that are being made in other cities like Cork city. An impression would not want to go out that they are thinking alone. It is part of a general plan and it is also part of a structure that has been built up. I would like to emphasise very strongly that for far too long we did not recognise that long term planning in our cities was needed. A marvellous example of that is the de-luxe plan that has been implemented in Cork city. We brought that out in 1978. May I say that in funding we only went from strength to strength. We are planning on a long term basis. Many people who have visited us have said that it is only proper that we should plan on a long term basis. People should be talking to each other regarding their plans. I hope the Department have in mind that the Dublin City Development Plan is part of the whole general structure. That should be emphasised more.

Mrs. Honan

I do not think, in fairness to Senator Killilea, who has left the Chamber, that he was opposing the Bill because of what was in it. Senator Killilea very constructively argued this morning with Senator FitzGerald, and spoke about what was not in the Bill. He did not oppose the Bill because of long term planning for the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. If other Senators were in the House while the very interesting debate was going on between Senator FitzGerald, Senator Killilea and the Minister, they would be more clear why Senator Killilea made the remarks he made. I had to defend Senator Killilea in his absence.

Mr. Cregan

With all respect, the Senator is perfectly right.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications (Mr. Nealon)

I thought when Senator Cregan got to his feet that we were about to have a last minute effort to extend the Dublin Transport Authority Bill to the Cork area but that did not materialise. I want to thank very much all the Senators for their contributions throughout this debate. I must say they were stimulating contributions and were obviously expressing deep felt concerns and difficulties which they had experienced as well as difficulties that have been experienced by the public and been brought to their attention. It would be a very useful exercise — I am sure it will take place — for the Dublin Transport Authority to read through all of this debate in the Seanad today, find the strongly held views of the Senators who contributed and examine the matters which are of concern to them and how they can act on it.

I am very confident, despite the reservations expressed, that excellent results will flow from the Dublin Transport Authority Bill we are now concluding here. The important point is that we now have legislation which will enable the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority to take place and, in response to Senator FitzGerald's question, the target date for that is 1 July, 1986. It is hoped that we will be in a position to meet that. I know there were reservations expressed about this Bill and the powers that it contains, but despite that, I believe that it has a major contribution to make, and also, for the people who will be charged with the responsibility of bringing the various regulations made here onto the ground it is a very exciting prospect as well as tackling the traffic problem of the capital city. I wish them every success with that.

The Bill, as Senators are aware, was substantially amended in the Dáil. The key contributions made today in the Seanad will guide the Minister in assigning functions to the DTA and also stimulate the DTA to meet the traffic and parking needs of Dublin in the overall interest. I can assure Deputy Killilea — I mean Senator Killilea——

Mrs. Honan

The Deputy was correct.

Mr. Nealon

——in waiting. I assure Senator Killilea that I will bring his comments to the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding the Casual Trading Act, 1980. While I realise the points he was making very strenuously, it would be wrong — I do not believe he really expected it — that the Dublin Transport Authority Bill should be expanded into a revision of the Casual Trading Act.

On the road traffic by-laws, brought forward in the amendment by Senator FitzGerald, to prohibit juggernauts and such trucks parking in residential areas, I will, as I have promised, pursue this very vigorously with the Minister for the Environment. They were the major points in the Seanad debate. Once again, I want to thank all the Senators for their contributions. Gabhaim buíochas do na Seanadoírí go léir a bhí páirteach san díospóireacht seo.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. W. Ryan

Are we adjourning for lunch?

Professor Dooge

My suggestion is that we do not adjourn now for lunch. I understand Senator Fitzsimons is the next Senator to speak. Assuming that he speaks for not less than half an hour and not more than two hours I suggest that we adjourn at the conclusion of Senator Fitzsimons' speech, for one hour or one hour and a quarter.