Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 12 June 2018
43. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the impediments which exist to the regulation of rickshaws in view of the fact that most other European states have regulated their use; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25253/18]
View answerWhat are the impediments to regulating rickshaws, given that most other European cities have regulations?
The Deputy will be aware that, like her, I am very conscious of the case for taking steps to regulate the operation of rickshaws or to curtail their activities. She will also be aware that my Department is deeply engaged in working out whether and how the problems that have been identified in connection with rickshaws could be addressed or regulated in a meaningful and legally robust way that is also proportionate, effective and cost-efficient. She was part of the very useful and extensive discussion we had about this two weeks ago at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport. The choice is simple. Rickshaws can be banned, left as they are or regulated. Banning them is one option, as is regulating. Leaving matters as they are is not an option.
As rickshaws are vehicles that operate on the public road, regulation requires us to consider the matter in the context of the Road Traffic Acts in the first instance. Given the extensive record of litigation under those Acts, we must be very exact in terms of how we define a vehicle as a basis for developing new laws. The NTA advises that a pedal-powered rickshaw can be converted to a motorised one within minutes by attaching a small motor and that the motor can also be removed just as quickly. However, the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts are clear in distinguishing mechanically propelled vehicles from others. There would be a very different set of requirements for a motorised rickshaw - because it would be regarded as a mechanically propelled vehicle - than those that would apply in the case of a non-motorised rickshaw or bicycle.
While it may not be impossible, it is clear that a significant impediment in this context relates to the ability to develop new legislation that can be enforced in any meaningful way – especially given the ability to switch from one type of vehicle to another at such speed.
In the international context, the position is not absolute. There are EU member states where, like Ireland, rickshaws are not regulated at all. There are some where rickshaws are subject to regulation or where legislation is currently under development. In many cases where regulation has been introduced, this has often happened at local or municipal level.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Deputy will be aware that the tradition across Europe demonstrates a model with stronger powers and functions at municipal level than is the case in Ireland. The question of regulation at local level has also been considered here. While some would favour that approach, there are also matters to be considered in terms of the powers currently available for local authorities, particularly the question as to what extent those powers could be used to ensure effective enforcement.
As I said when I appeared before the joint committee recently, I am putting the rickshaw industry on notice that I will be deciding very shortly as regards the introduction either of an outright prohibition or a new regulatory framework for rickshaws. While the preferred approach at present is an outright ban, I am aware that this option is not entirely without obstacles. My Department is engaging with the Office of the Attorney General to consider any blockages which might arise, including how best to weigh and balance private interests in the context of the public good. Once consultations with the Office of the Attorney General are complete, I expect to be in a position to finalise and announce my decision before the end of this Dáil term.
I have said previously that rickshaws constitute a novel way of travelling that tourists enjoy. They are another transport option for many people, and the service provides around 1,000 jobs. There are problems with rickshaws but nothing that cannot be solved through regulation. The lack of regulation is the main reason for the problems. I have been calling on the Minister to regulate rickshaws for the past two years. I tabled an amendment in December 2016 to allow for regulation but, until now, the Minister has done absolutely nothing. Two weeks ago he announced that he favoured an outright ban on rickshaws. It seems that, after two years of having every option on the table, the Minister has favoured the laziest one available rather than the most suitable in terms of policy or law.
The National Transport Authority, NTA, exists as a licensing authority. It regulates taxis, for example. Is the Minister saying that sufficient expertise is not available, between the NTA and his Department, to regulate for something as simple as a rickshaw?
The Deputy really does talk in exaggerated, broad-brush-----
The Minister does that regularly.
She said that she has been calling on me to act for two years. It has certainly not been two years. The amendment to which she refers-----
That amendment was made in 2016.
-----was made in December 2016. That is not two years ago.
The Minister has done nothing.
We would have four-year parliamentary terms if we used the Deputy's calculations and all sorts of other unpleasant problems would arise.
The Deputy went on to say that I have done nothing during the period in question. That is simply not true. We have been through this at the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport. The NTA carried out an extremely thorough survey in respect of this issue in the past year and has come up with some fairly startling conclusions, one of which is that the majority of the people want to ban rickshaws. How can the Deputy say that nothing has been done when we have had a public consultation that has produced serious conclusions? I ask that she examine those conclusions before she comes out with rash statements.
There is an onus on the Minister to regulate. I have read a couple of the reports that have been compiled. They contain every single excuse under the sun. That is why I referred to the lazy option. The Minister is talking as if this is an impossible task, suggesting that we could never regulate the industry. Here is an example of what is possible. Rickshaws are regulated in cities such as Vienna, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hanover, Hamburg, Budapest, Krakow, Milan, Rome, St. Petersburg, Barcelona, Valencia and London. Those cities are able to do rickshaw regulation. Two years have passed and the Minister needs to get his act together and do it.
This is ludicrous. The Deputy has said that I have done nothing and that I should get my act together. We seem to have an amnesiac in our midst. I accepted the amendment tabled by the Deputy. Does she remember that?
Other countries are able to regulate rickshaws.
I will move on to the next question.
I accepted the amendment tabled by the Deputy. I gave her that commitment. I found that the legal problems were too great and that the matter has to be addressed in a different way. I immediately responded to what the Deputy did and said that we would take her point on board. To say that I do not have the enthusiasm for tackling this issue is absurd. We now have legal complexities which will be resolved.
