Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Jul 2006

Vol. 184 No. 13

Road Traffic Bill 2006 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage. The Minister will deal separately with the subject matter of each group of amendments. I have also circulated the proposed groupings. A Senator may contribute once on each grouping. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil.

The Minister of State has indicated his intention to ask the Chair to direct the Clerk to make a correction to the Bill under Standing Order 121 as follows: "On page 28, to delete the comma after "Circuit Court"." This would facilitate the reading of the next text, without affecting the meaning. I will direct the Clerk accordingly.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

An Cathaoirleach

I call on the Minister of State to speak to the amendments in the first grouping.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Mr. Gallagher)

These amendments to the Bill were passed by the Dáil and they bring greater clarity and consistency to the statutory provisions of the road traffic Acts and the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975 as regards the operation of the fixed charge system and in particular some functions carried out by local authority traffic wardens. While there are a number of amendments, I will take as examples amendment Nos. 27 and 31. These ensure minor provisions are provided in section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and in section 3 of the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975 as regards corresponding provisions in each statute in relation to the scope of the regulatory power the Minister can exercise.

It is appropriate that a common form will be used in both statutes. With the exception of amendment No. 27, already referred to, all of the other amendments are being discussed together relate to the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975. Section 15 of the Bill refers to the Act of 1975. The purpose of the amendments is basically to streamline, clarify and update various provisions of the 1975 Act. The amendments in the main are of a technical and restatement nature, but also include the following which are more substantive in nature. Where a traffic warden has issued a fixed charge notice in respect of an alleged offence, the Bill expressly provides — amendment No. 31 — that a registered owner of a vehicle will be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,000 on summary conviction in respect of an offence of giving false or misleading information to a local authority traffic warden regarding the identity of the person who is stated to have been driving at the time the offence alleged was committed.

The maximum fine, on summary conviction, for offences under the 1975 Act of obstructing a traffic warden or failure to comply with a request for a name and address in situations where the traffic warden has reasonable grounds for believing the person is committing, or has committed a fixed charge offence, was last reviewed in 1987 and stands at only the euro equivalent of £150. The level of maximum fine for these two offences has been increased in the Bill through amendment No. 32 to €1,000 to make it a more reasonable deterrent.

Mr. P. Burke

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and wish him well with the Bill. I do not have any problems with the amendments as proposed by the Minister of State, particularly as regards traffic wardens.

On the question of clamping, while in some cases this has been farmed out by local authorities to private companies or individuals, there now seems to be a rowing back on this in some areas, so that the local authorities are themselves taking on the role of enforcement. I wonder why this is. Do they believe the original decision to farm out the work has turned out to be too severe in most cases and not enough leeway is being given? Perhaps it encouraged the companies concerned to take the view that every time a vehicle was clamped it meant that money was rolling into the coffers. I should like to know what is the current thinking as regards the rowing back by those local authorities who are choosing to enforce the regulations themselves. Other than that, I welcome the amendments made by the Minister of State.

Mr. Dooley

I welcome the amendments the Minister of State has introduced and believe they will help. To follow what Senator Paddy Burke said with regard to traffic wardens and the issue of clamping, something that should be considered is the matter of vehicles being parked wrongly in disabled persons' slots. While it is not appropriate to this Bill, perhaps it might be dealt with through regulation. This is something which has become much more prevalent in recent times. Respect for disabled persons' slots was adhered to for a considerable length of time, but more recently I have noticed a growing number of people infringe in this regard. I am not sure how the Minister might propose to deal with it, whether through clamping or penalty points. It is one of the most disgraceful acts anybody can perpetrate. Everybody seems to think that they can park there because they are parking only for two or three minutes. Around the country, particularly in County Clare, the slots are permanently full with people parking for short periods and it is not acceptable to see those who do not have their full mobility being hindered in this disgraceful way. I would like the Minister to do something about this.

Mr. Gallagher

I thank the Members for accepting the amendments. As I said, these amendments make sense. Senator Burke made a general point on clamping. We have discussed this and he realises that it is not part of this Bill but a matter for each local authority to contract this business out to others. I do not know why they are doing it. Perhaps it is lucrative. Nobody who is not disabled should park in the spaces reserved for disabled persons. Those who are not disabled are fortunate. We took into consideration the views expressed by individuals, groups and Members and on 3 April the Minister increased the fixed fine to €80. If that is not paid within 28 days it will increase to €120. Perhaps one might say that is not high enough but we will keep it under review. Perhaps it is not a sufficient deterrent but we should wait and see. While I accept the principle of Senator Dooley's point, it is not part of the Bill.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Moylan)

I call on the Minister to speak to the amendments in group 2.

Mr. Gallagher

As in this House, Members of the Dáil referred to the challenge, at a time of continuing innovation in communications technologies, of legislating to regulate the use of mobile telephones and in-vehicle communications technologies. In such an environment I am conscious of the need to be far-sighted on the drafting of section 3 so that it will be sufficiently broad-based and flexible to enable appropriate and speedy regulatory responses to driver distraction risks associated with these technologies without having to resort to primary legislation on each occasion. In light of the Second Stage debate in the Dáil we reviewed section 3 so as to be as satisfied as possible that its provisions are sufficiently robust and comprehensive to cater for future regulatory needs.

Arising from that review the Dáil approved ten Government amendments and one Opposition amendment to the section. These amendments are designed primarily to ensure section 3 will facilitate regulation-making in the future to deal with inappropriate and irresponsible driving practices associated with the use of communication and entertainment equipment, which is an important objective identified by both Houses. A number of the amendments relate to the prohibition of hand-held mobile telephones provided for in section 1(3) putting beyond doubt the status of Bluetooth, with which we are familiar, and other hands-free devices so that they do not come within the scope of the prohibition. The remaining amendments are designed to ensure that the definitions used in the section are sufficiently wide and comprehensive to remain relevant for regulation making in the longer term.

Mr. P. Burke

I welcome the Minister's amendments. Did the Minister say the Bluetooth system is not allowed in cars?

Mr. Gallagher

It is not prohibited in cars.

Mr. P. Burke

From some of the amendments it seems that the telephone must be in a cradle. When the members of the Joint Committee on Transport went to Australia, the transport committee members in Sydney told us it had done much research on hands-free and hand-held telephones and found no significant difference between them. Deputy Olivia Mitchell had a Bill in the Dáil on this and she thinks all mobile telephones are a distraction. I do not doubt this. They are probably the most serious distraction. The amendments do not mention the new navigation systems. Are they covered by any of the amendments? I expect there will soon be televisions in cars to add to the distractions. There is no doubt that when one is on the telephone in the car, one's mind is distracted from driving. Before we had mobile telephones one would often forget whether one had gone through a particular town, especially on long journeys. I wonder if being on the telephone affects the incidence of those blank spots, which would occur anyway. In Sydney they found little difference between hands-free and hand-held telephones. As there is no prohibition on the Bluetooth system, one can keep the mobile telephone on the seat of the car, not necessarily in the cradle, while wearing one's headgear. I welcome the Minister's amendments. Can navigation systems be controlled under legislation or would it require further legislation? Do they need to be brought to the same level as mobile telephones?

Mr. Dooley

I welcome these amendments and the fact that the Bluetooth situation has been cleared up. As Bluetooth is a radio signal transmission, it was important to clarify it. Senator Burke made the point that there is probably not a great need to move from hand-held to hands-free and questioned whether it is safer. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many accidents are caused by people using telephones, which often prevent them from driving properly. I have seen people reverse articulated trucks while holding telephones to their ears. While the driver may not be involved in an accident, some of the behaviour leads to other people being involved in accidents. I welcome a move away from people taking their hands off the steering wheel to use the telephone. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has not banned the use of mobile telephones while driving because none of us could afford to stop at the roadside for the amount of time we spend on the telephone. The roadsides would become cluttered if everybody who had to take a call had to pull over. The modern technology helps to provide a safer environment and allows people to continue their journey while pursuing their busy lives. Could the definition of a hand held device include a telephone with an in-built speaker rather than a car kit? This may have been discussed already in the Dáil.

Many things can distract one slightly when driving such as having the radio on and changing channels. I am more alert with the radio off when I am driving. People eat in their cars and do all sorts of things. There are different levels of distraction. I accept Senator Paddy Burke's point that some studies have reported that even a car kit can be dangerous. I presume that constitutes a different level of danger. The Department should perhaps study the different levels of danger incurred by using a hands-free device or holding the telephone in one's hand.

Mr. Gallagher

Bluetooth hands-free devices do not come within the scope of the prohibition. Holding the telephone in one's hand or resting it between one's shoulder and neck is prohibited. It does not necessarily have to be in a cradle. If one uses Bluetooth it can lie on the seat. The same applies if one uses an earphone, or it can rest in the cradle.

Senator Paddy Burke referred to Australia where research showed that hands-free telephones could be just as distracting. This has not been confirmed and it would be wrong for us to arrive at any conclusions. In this subsection we deliberately left the definitions wide and comprehensive enough to allow the Minister of the day to make long-term regulations. Innovations in communications technologies have advanced considerably in recent years. It is only right that we include this subsection to enable this or any future Minister to introduce other prohibitions by way of regulation rather than primary legislation. Examples include a regulation to ban televisions and GPS on the basis that they would affect one's concentration. For those of us who drive long journeys the radio is sometimes the only company we have. Young people choose to listen to loud music which maybe does not affect them but one wag says some music would put a driver to sleep. He did not mention who the singer might be.

Mr. Dooley

I am sure that does not include any Donegal artists.

Mr. Gallagher

I appreciate the support of all parties for these amendments so that we can introduce regulations, if need be. The definition of the hands-free device is a device designed such that when used in conjunction with a mobile telephone there is no need for the user to hold the telephone by hand. That is the technical explanation. The holding of the telephone means physically holding, supporting or cradling it with another part of the body which would normally be the neck and shoulder.

Acting Chairman

I call on the Minister of State to address the third group of amendments.

Mr. Gallagher

These are drafting amendments advised by the Parliamentary Counsel as the Bill proceeded through its various Stages. They are technical in nature and are intended to add clarity through the deletion of unnecessary words, the correction of grammar and hyphenation, and the correction of sequencing in some instances. They also include references to certain Acts which were omitted and consequential repeals that arose from the provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Mr. P. Burke

Many of those who drive and have accidents have taken drugs. The incidence of this is increasing. It is a significant factor in Australia and I am sure it is a factor here. It is increasing in the United Kingdom too where there are moves to implement drug-testing. Will the Minister of State outline a timeframe within which we might introduce drug-testing? Does the Government believe this issue warrants attention? I would support any drug-testing measures put in place.

Acting Chairman

We may discuss only the content of the Bill.

Mr. P. Burke

I thought it would be in the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Mr. Gallagher)

I can arrange a bilateral meeting.

I thank the Senators for their time and input into the development of the Bill which was initiated in this House, and for bringing it to its conclusion. The interest in the Bill in both Houses indicated the concern of Members about the broad area of road safety.

This is an important road safety Bill. For the first time it will permit roadside breath testing and the privatisation of speed cameras. We know that most road deaths are attributed to drink driving, and speeding. It is essential to have the legal power to deal with this in the continuing effort by all to reduce death and injury on our roads. I call on all road users and drivers in particular, to observe the speed limits, not to drink and drive, to use safety belts and to remember that their fate or that of someone else with whom they may collide may be just around the next corner.

I also want to sympathise with all the families who have lost loved ones and dear ones over the past six months. I sincerely hope the record for the next six months will represent an improvement on the record for the corresponding six months last year. I believe more in the carrot approach than in the stick approach represented by this legislation. If individuals were to observe the rules of the road, care for others and change their behaviour, there could be a substantial reduction in the number of fatalities and serious accidents on our roads. Go raibh míle maith agaibh as ucht bhur gcuidiú.

Mr. P. Burke

I do not doubt that this legislation will save lives. When all Stages of the Bill were completed by this House before it was sent to the Dáil, we wished the Minister of State and his staff well with it. At that time, I thanked Senators Dooley and Wilson for their co-operation with the Bill. I am convinced this very good legislation will save lives. I wish the Minister of State well with it.

Ms Tuffy

I thank the Minister of State and his staff. I did not have a substantial involvement in the legislation during its passage as I do not have significant knowledge of this area. However, I can tell there are some very good things in the Bill.

Mr. Dooley

I welcome the Bill, as I did when it was originally passed by the Seanad. I recognise the tremendous effort that has been made by Senator Paddy Burke and his Opposition colleagues, who have co-operated with the Government during the passage of the legislation. It is clear that there is consensus in this House about the manner in which we should deal with the problem of deaths on our roads.

While this legislation is welcome, it will not save any lives on our roads unless everyone concerned makes a real effort to respect the rules of the road and to recognise that the use of the road is a privilege and not a right. We will not make any progress until such a change in culture takes place.

The Department of Education and Science needs to educate young people about the use of the road so they respect it and recognise it is a privilege rather than a right. That will take some time, however. I caution those who seem to think the passage of the Bill is the answer to the problem of deaths on the roads. If we are to see a successful outcome in this regard, everyone will have to co-operate over a long period of time.

Even though the number of cars on our roads is higher than ever and is continuing to increase, as some Senators mentioned on Second Stage, people seem to think the level of road deaths has increased. Given that there is more activity on our roads and the number of cars in Ireland has risen, the level of fatalities has not increased in real terms. We have to be careful in dealing with statistics.

I welcome this legislation. I hope it will receive the co-operation of the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which is needed if the Garda Síochána is to be involved to the extent that is necessary to ensure that everyone adheres to the various provisions of this Bill to the best of their ability.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.