Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Dec 2016

Vol. 249 No. 7

Road Traffic Bill 2016: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages

I welcome the Minister. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 138, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration," a 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. The Minister will deal separately with the subject of each related group of amendments. I have also circulated a proposed grouping of amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage. I remind them that the only matters that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. I invite the Minister to deal with the amendments in group 1.

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

I welcome the opportunity to report to the Seanad on the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill 2016 approved by the Dáil. It is a pleasure to be back in the Seanad as a Minister, I hope to pass legislation for the first time.

Road traffic legislation is in place to promote greater safety on the roads. The urgency of the Bill is all the greater as we come to the end of what has been a very disappointing year in the context of road safety, with a significant increase in the number of road deaths as against the number in 2015.

The Bill focuses on three priorities. The first is to deal with drivers who have taken drugs. The Bill creates a new offence of being over a specified limit for three drugs, namely, cannabis, cocaine and heroin, in the same way we have penalties for being over the limit for alcohol. The Bill also empowers gardaí to conduct roadside tests for the presence of drugs using devices which take and test a swab of oral fluid. The devices will be used in the same circumstances in which gardaí already conduct roadside breath tests for alcohol.

The second priority is to provide for an amendment to speed limits. Members will, no doubt, be aware of the Jake's legacy campaign. Jake Brennan was only six years old when he was killed on being struck by a car in the housing estate where he lived. His family have campaigned to have the law changed to provide for a mandatory 20 km/h speed limit in housing estates. Making such a limit mandatory would be highly problematic. It would go against a basic principle that local authorities decide the appropriate speed limit for roads in their functional areas. It would be extremely difficult to produce a legally watertight definition of a housing estate and it would mean applying the limit not only to the roads where it is meant to apply but also to roads which are busy thoroughfares where it would be unenforceable. The Bill, therefore, provides local authorities with the option of introducing a 20 km/h limit on roads where it would be appropriate. This is in keeping with the spirit of the Jake's legacy campaign and will ensure the new limit is brought in where it should be, while not being imposed on roads where it would not work.

The Bill will give effect to an agreement on the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications between Ireland and the United Kingdom. This will be of great value to both countries. It will mean that an Irish driving licence holder disqualified in the United Kingdom will also be disqualified here and vice versa. None of us wants dangerous drivers let loose on roads and I would like to see the agreement in effect as soon as possible. It requires legislation on both sides to give effect to the agreement and our UK colleagues have already enacted the necessary provisions. We will be able to proceed with operation of the agreement once the Irish legislation is in effect.

I call on the Minister to deal with the amendments in group 2.

Amendments Nos. 1, 14 to 16, inclusive, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36 and 39-----

The Minister is dealing with group 2 which includes amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive. Has he dealt with all of the amendments in group 1?

I want to address the amendments in group 1 first.

I am sorry; I thought the Minister had finished.

No. The amendments deal with technical matters which I introduced during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil. They consist of corrections of minor errors or changes to rule out ambiguities and make no substantive changes to the content of the Bill.

On amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, when I became Minister, I decided to act on written-off vehicles. The question of how to deal with them in legislation has been much debated, but it has never been translated into action. Currently, the only way in which written-off vehicles are addressed is by an informal and non-statutory arrangement between my Department and some motor insurance companies which will notify my Department of written-off vehicles in order that they can be entered in my Department's national vehicle and driver file, NVDF. This is not a satisfactory arrangement. It makes notification entirely voluntary, meaning that some insurance companies do not notify the NVDF of write-offs and there is no way of ensuring those who should notify the NVDF will do so in all cases. Therefore, I decided to create a statutory basis for the recording of write-offs. Under the amendments, all insurers will be statutorily required to notify my Department of category A vehicles, irreparable and fit for scrap only, and category B vehicles, useful for viable spare parts only, in order that these records can be locked down on the NVDF and their circulation within the national fleet prevented. This will go a long way towards keeping dangerous vehicles off them roads and making us all safer.

I call the Minister to speak to the subject matter of amendment No. 15, which is group 3.

It is to address the issue of impairment tests. Amendment No. 15 marks a change in the rules for such tests. They are tests conducted by gardaí to determine if a driver is impaired by an intoxicant - walking in a straight line, touching one's nose and so on. The amendment substitutes section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 which deals with impairment tests. Much of the substituted section repeats what is already in place. I draw the attention of Senators, however, to subsection (2) which substantially is the new part of the section. It allows gardaí to conduct impairment tests at a Garda station after an arrest within three hours of the time when a person drove or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. The figure of three hours is in line with the existing provision that a specimen of blood, breath or urine must be taken within three hours in a case related to intoxicated driving. Previously, gardaí were not empowered to conduct impairment tests following arrests. The amendment, therefore, fills an important gap in the power of gardaí to gather evidence for impaired driving.

The amendments in group 4 concern fixed charge offences and the third payment option, the subject matter of amendments Nos. 16 to 22, inclusive.

Senators will be familiar with the concept of what is known as a third payment option for fixed charges. For those who are not, I will explain briefly. Several dozen road traffic offences are classified as fixed charge offences. This means that the person caught committing these offences receives a fixed charge notice from the Garda. They may pay the charge within 28 days or the charge, plus 50%, within a further 28 days. If they do not pay after 56 days, court proceedings are initiated.

The Road Traffic Act 2010 provided for a third payment option, under which a person would receive a third and final chance to pay, this time twice the original amount. The third option would be in the form of a document contained with the summons to court. If he or she paid no later than seven days before the court appearance, court proceedings would be discontinued. The advantage of this system is that it will not only take pressure off the courts, it will also end an unfortunate practice whereby some people claim in court that they never received a fixed charge notice. As they will have received the third payment notice with the summons, they can hardly turn up in court and claim they did not receive the notice.

To date, the 2010 provisions have not been commenced. This is hardly desirable and it is due to a combination of flaws in the 2010 provisions and a decision taken subsequently to improve the working of the system by having the summons and notice issued by the Garda, not the Courts Service, as originally envisaged. In order to proceed with commencement of these long overdue provisions, it is, therefore, necessary for both road traffic law and court law to be amended. I have done so in the amendments to the Bill under discussion and my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, is working on the related courts amendments. Once the Bill and the court amendments are in place, we will finally have the appropriate legal mechanisms to initiate the third payment option.

Insurance information is the subject matter of amendment No. 26, which is group 5.

Amendment No. 26 is a small but significant extension to a provision in the original Bill. Current legislation provides for motor insurance companies to provide details of motor insurance policies for my Department and the Garda. The current legislation, however, does not set out what these details are to be. In the Bill, as originally passed by this House, we, therefore, set out a list of the information that should be provided. While it represented an improvement, I realised there was an important omission in that the original provisions in the Bill did not include the licence details of policy holders or named drivers as being among the information to be provided by the insurers. I have, therefore, rectified this omission in amendment No. 26.

The number of uninsured drivers is a significant concern, an issue that is topical in the light of information released in the last day. One of the issues identified to tackle this problem has been the robustness of the Garda automatic number plate recognition system which is reliant on information provided by the insurance industry on insured drivers. While this data set has proved to be unreliable to date, the Bill provides for detailed information that the insurance industry must now provide, which will address this issue.

The regulation of rickshaws is the subject matter of amendment No. 27, which is group 6.

During the course of its proceedings, Dáil Éireann voted to include an amendment proposed by Deputy Imelda Munster to provide for the regulation of rickshaws. While I agree that rickshaws, like any vehicle on the roads, should be regulated and respect the will of the Dáil in choosing to accept the amendment, I would be doing less than my duty if I did not point out that it raised a few legal difficulties.

The amendment inserts a new power into the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 for the National Transport Authority to regulate rickshaws. No amendment was made, however, to the Long Title to the Bill, although, strictly, it should refer to all items of legislation being amended by a Bill. I asked for legal advice on the issue and have been informed that while the spirit of Standing Order 84(3) suggests the Bills Office should not have allowed the amendment, it does not fatally undermine the Bill. There were fears that the amendment passed by the Dáil would undermine the legislation, but, on the basis of the legal advice we received, it is not an issue. It will not fatally undermine the Bill, which is reassuring. I will, however, need to take further legal advice on the implications of the amendment when it comes to commencing the particular provisions, especially given that the amendment was not drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel or approved by the Office of the Attorney General for legal robustness as would normally have been the case.

I call the Minister to speak to the subject matter of amendment No. 28, which is group 7, the core procedure for recording driving licence details.

When penalty points were first introduced under the Road Traffic Act 2002, a procedure was put in place to ensure driving licences or learner permits would have to be produced in court during road traffic cases and the details recorded. This procedure, provided for in section 22 of the 2002 Act, is essential if we are to be able to associate penalty points and disqualifications with actual driver records. The existing procedure has not worked well for a number of reasons. It is wrongly focused in that it requires production and recording of licences in all such cases, not just those that result in convictions. It is too weak and does not actually empower judges to require the production of licences. My Department has engaged with the Courts Service and the Garda to devise a new procedure that will be robust and fit for purpose. This is contained in the amendment. It ensures that, following a conviction, a judge will require a person to produce his or her licence for recording. I understand the wording of the summons will be amended to specify that the licence must be presented.

I call the Minister to speak to the subject matter of amendment No. 31, which is group 8, unaccompanied drivers.

During the course of Dáil proceedings, I decided to accept this amendment which was proposed by Deputy Imelda Munster and was delighted to do so. It deals with the vexed question of learner drivers driving unaccompanied. This is an offence, but up to now there has been no offence in law for the owner of a vehicle who allows a learner driver to take the vehicle and drive unaccompanied. In lay terms, we would all see such a person being in some way culpable or an accessory to the unaccompanied driving offence. I was never happier than to be able to accept the amendment, which makes it an offence for the owner of a vehicle to knowingly permit an unaccompanied driver to drive his or her vehicle. I hope the amendment will have the effect of bringing home to car owners the seriousness of learners driving unaccompanied and help to end this dangerous practice.

I call the Minister to speak to the subject matter of amendment No. 37, which is group 9, the repeal of certain provisions.

During the process of considering the Bill I decided to repeal two redundant provisions in the Road Traffic Act 2002 for the sake of legal clarity. Section 9 of the 2002 Act gave effect to a European convention on driver disqualification and the Second Schedule contained the entire text of the convention. Owing to a wide range of technical difficulties, the European Union found the convention impossible to work and revoked it in 2015. As the convention is no longer in place, I took the opportunity provided by the Bill to repeal section 9 and the Second Schedule to the 2002 Act, both of which are now redundant.

I call the Minister to speak to the subject matter of amendment No. 38, which is group 10, the substitution of the Schedule to the Bill.

This amendment substitutes the entire Schedule to the Bill which is the text of the agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom on the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications. While it looks very large as a block of text, it is a technical amendment. Given its size, however, I believe that, unlike other technical amendments, it merits a special explanation. The original text of the Schedule contained the exact text of the agreement as signed by the United Kingdom and Ireland. It was realised subsequently that the text contained a small error in the reference to the two states in Article 13 of the agreement. As it was contained in the text of an international agreement, it was necessary for both sides to reach a formal agreement to change it. I was advised that, in order to correct the Schedule to the Bill in line with the revised agreement, it was necessary to correct the entire text of the agreement in the Schedule. That is what the amendment does. In a very long amendment, two words in Article 13 have actually moved down one line.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I welcome the Minister. I want to talk about the issue of rickshaws. I take it that the Minister is not going to commence the relevant section until he has legal clarity and consulted the Attorney General. It is a big problem, especially when there are major events in the city. There has been a real danger to pedestrians and people who travel on unregulated rickshaws. Failing that - the amendment was accepted in the Lower House - I ask the Minister to give a commitment to bring forward robust legislation in this area as quickly as possible.

I welcome the provisions and amendments, particularly that related to uninsured drivers and the efforts to tackle that issue. Recent figures indicate a 17% increase in the number of such drivers in 2016. I was looking at the figures for some counties for 2016. I come from the west and see that in County Mayo there was a 113% increase, that in County Galway there was a 28% increase, that in County Sligo there was an increase of 14%, that in County Leitrim there an increase of 167% and that in County Roscommon there was an increase of 500%. Initially, the figures are very small, but they emphasise the importance of tackling this problem. The reality is that uninsured drivers put €40 onto the policy of every other person who upholds the law. It is important to tackle this matter. I welcome the Bill.

In response to Senator John O'Mahony's comments, I agree that the figures we have heard in recent days are pretty scandalous. The fact that people are driving while uninsured is completely unacceptable. There are two parties to blame and what is happening is not acceptable in either case. I refer to uninsured drivers and the insurance companies. The latter are increasing the cost of premiums to such levels that people are driving without insurance. That is no excuse, but it is a contributory factor and something we must tackle. I accept that uninsured drivers are more liable to have accidents than those who are insured. We must address this issue as a matter of urgency.

To respond to the point raised by Senator Kevin Humphreys, I will not commence that part of the Bill until we are satisfied that the legal difficulties have been resolved. It will not be used as an excuse for not commencing that part of the Bill, but we will certainly not do it prior to resolving the difficulties in question. I absolutely share the Senator's views on the use of rickshaws and if the section is found to be unworkable, I give a commitment that we will address the issue immediately in the context of the next suitable item of legislation. Road traffic legislation is being prepared all the time, as the Senator is aware, and this would be a priority. I realise, from living in the city, as does the Senator, that it is not acceptable to have these vehicles travelling around unregulated. We will address the issue as a matter of urgency.

I thank the House for passing the Bill. I do not know what effect it will have on the terrible figures for road deaths, but I hope it will help. We will have stricter speed limits imposed in housing estates and certain areas to be decided by local authorities. The tests for drug driving will, I hope, contribute to reducing the appalling level of road deaths which is up by over 20% on the figure for last year. That is unacceptable. We will monitor the effects very closely to see whether the legislation is helping. However, the current level is unacceptable.

As Minister, I regard road safety as a top priority. There is a big gap where there is a great deal of work to be done. It has been inadequately addressed this year and I am first to say we must examine other ways to address road safety if the methods being used are so patently failing.

I thank the House for passing the Bill and all Members of both Houses who contributed to the debate during its passage. Road traffic law is one area in which we all agree on the goals. Happily, it has always been a collective and non-partisan matter, even if we disagree on the detail of how to tackle it. Coming at the end of a year when we have witnessed a tragic increase in the number of road deaths, the Bill is particularly timely. It will enhance the law in a number of significant ways, I hope making roads safer for all of us. I look forward to the signing of the Bill into law. I intend to move forward with its implementation as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn