Amendment No. 176 is in the name of Deputy Yates. Amendments Nos. 177, 180 and 182 are related and therefore may be discussed together.
SECTION 70.
I move amendment No. 176:
In page 59, subsection (2), after line 48, to insert the following:
(b) Any person organising a road race shall be obliged to have adequate property and other relevant insurance.
Amendment No. 179 is not being taken with this group of amendments, is that right?
That is right.
Why not? Do they not all relate to road races?
Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 have been bracketed together, however, amendments Nos. 178 and 179 may be discussed with amendments Nos. 176, 177, 180 and 182 by agreement.
Amendments Nos. 176 to 179 are under section 70.
Yes.
I was approached by the people who run the rallies, the RIAC, and I advised them to write directly to the Minister. They run road races all over the country. They gave me details of the job they do and the tourism revenue statistics they generate are very good. They said that from time to time they come across engineers in local authorities, some of whom, like Dáil Deputies and people in other walks of life are reasonable people and others who are very contrary. Some engineers make unreasonable demands of race organisers in relation to the running of their races and the demands can vary within a local authority between the engineer who inspects the course and the engineer they have to deal with. They would like the regulations governing road races to have some uniformity and they would also like to have some right of appeal to the Minister if they find it difficult to deal with a bolshy engineer. All these amendments relate to road races. Amendment No. 176 is to ensure that race organisers should have adequate property and other relevant insurance, which I am sure is an existing standard requirement for road races and that any damage caused would be borne by the race organisers and not the local authority. It should not be a burden on a local authority. Amendments Nos. 179 and 183 propose that in relation to road races the Minister should make regulations which would have some uniformity and that an appeal procedure would be put in place. Perhaps the Minister received a submission from the RIAC and I am sure the cycling groups referred to earlier would have similar requirements. In road races more road damage is caused by cars than bicycles. I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 179.
A recent road race in Cootehill generated an income in excess of £20,000 over the weekend. Objections to the race came from the local people on the roads. They submitted a signed petition to the county manager objecting to these races. Having campaigned for a number of years to get the road back into reasonable repair, the Minister will be aware that the roads were in a very bad state of repair, the people did not want the roads damaged by people driving fast cars at speed. I could not accept that, but a regulation was made granting permission to race organisers to run a road race and requiring the race organisers to lodge an amount of money with the local authority for repairs to the road if any damage was caused. The race organisers agreed to this. It is reasonable and fair that where people have had to suffer because of bad roads and have got them repaired, they would not want to see the roads damaged by people driving fast cars at speed and cornering, which tears up the road surface, and would lead to further potholes developing. We should not ban road races. They are a tourist event and they generate income.
Earlier I expressed my concern about the large numbers of young people who are involved in cycle clubs; they may not participate in organised races but they are involved in some time trials and may train on public roads. Their enthusiasm can be vast at times. They can be a danger to themselves and to traffic trying to pass them. On some occasions there may be 20 or 30 cyclists together pacing along at about 20 miles an hour. It is awkward to pass them if they are not well organised. In a way they create a hazard to themselves more than anyone else. They use two by-passes frequently — the Bray-Shankill and the Newtown by-passes. If they were banned from using these by-passes the alternative would be to allow them use very secondary terrain where the road surface would be unsuitable for their bicycles and their use of such roads would cause traffic problems for other road users. It is important to let them know what their responsibilities are as well as their entitlements. There should be a safety code setting out clearly their responsibilities, and the race organisers should inform cycle club members of those responsibilities.
I hope that under this Bill some rules and guidelines will be drawn up so that cycle club organisers can inform their members about their safety. In an argument between a cyclist and a motorcar or a lorry the cyclist comes out second best. There have been a few accidents, some of them minor but potentially they could have been very dangerous. With the increasing popularity of cycling, particularly road racing, as a result of the successes of our international cyclists in the Tour de France it is important to consider the use of the public roads for cycle training and for holding cycle races. A safety code should be drawn up for everybody using the roads.
The amendment I have proposed will allow road authorities to request the organisers of road races and other events to provide indemnity to cover any injury to persons or damage to property caused as a result of the road race or any other event. In addition, local authorities already have powers under both sections to require the organisers of road races or other events to comply with specified conditions, restrictions or requirements. These can include the possession of adequate insurance — the relevant provisions are section 70 (3) (a) and subsection 71 (1). In view of this I can assure Deputy Yates that the concerns expressed in his proposed amendment are adequately covered by the existing sections.
Amendment No. 178 will allow the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of this section, in particular in relation to the making and consideration of objections in the provision of a security or an indemnity. This will make the provisions of the section consistent with those of section 71, dealing with the temporary closing of roads, and will allow the Minister to make appropriate provisions and regulations for the consideration of objections if he thinks it necessary. This also should meet the requirements of Deputy Yates' proposed amendment.
I was extremely anxious that the RIAC and the County Managers' Association would meet to work out uniform and consistent arrangements with regard to car racing and I am glad to inform Deputies that these meetings have taken place and there is now broad agreement on a consistent arrangement to be applied evenly by the local authorities across the country. Therefore, we should not have to deal in future with the type and range of problems which developed in the past. Both sides will know from the start what the requirements are and what has to be met and it should result in a more fluid operation in the future.
With regard to cycle racing, we have also met the Cycle Federation with a view to dealing with the problems outlined by Deputy Kavanagh. In one area it would be a matter for road traffic management but as far as cycle racing is concerned it would be covered by these provisions. There is a need for a consistent approach by local authorities and for people involved in racing teams to take a little more account of other road users. They may argue that they want other road users to take account of their situation but they will have to take account of other road users in a fair and enlightened way. On Report Stage I will report on whatever progress has been made in relation to these discussions with a view to a more systematic management and uniformity of arrangements as far as each local authority is concerned with the obligations resting where they should.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 177:
In page 60, subsection (3) (b), line 15, after "security" to insert "or the provision of an indemnity".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 60, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section and such regulations may in particular make provision for—
(a) requirements in relation to the making and consideration of objections,
(b) requirements in relation to the giving of security or the provision of an indemnity.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 179 not moved.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.